in contrast to a very big geographical State but a very small State in population, in Alaska, where they have two U.S. Senators and appropriate representation in the House.

Now, I frankly cannot see the justice in that. I just do not think it adds up. So that is why I believe so firmly that this resolution is appropriate.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, there is not any justice in the way the people of the District have been treated for a long time, insofar as having the opportunity for self-rule and voting. We are gradually making some progress. I think we shall make more.

Senator BUSH. Well, we hear Senators stand up on the floor of the Senate and argue for bills that affect their States very directly. This is one of the opportunities and duties that a Senator has. But there is not any voice for this three-quarters of a million people in this District. One does not hear it. It is nobody's problem.

As I have said, it is a "stepchild," and I think, just in fairness, that representation in both Houses would go a long way toward correcting that situation.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, Senator Bush, you hear such a voice occasionally in one House or the other, but you seldom hear a voice in both Houses of Congress at the same time. So it is not

Senator BUSH. Well, a voice which speaks for the people it represents speaks with a lot more authority than a voice which speaks in the abstract.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes, that is right, and a voice that can also help other Representatives and Senators with projects that they are interested in speaks with more authority, too, as I am sure that my colleague would agree.

Thank you very much. Come and sit with us and participate with us, if you will.

Senator BUSH. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER. We are next honored to have with us Senator Jack Miller, of the State of Iowa, who has a statement to make on this subject.

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK MILLER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Senator MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am appearing here today in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 85, proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for the election of two U.S. Senators and a number of Members of the House of Representatives equal to that to which a State having an equal population would be entitled, and also, and with the utmost of deference to the distinguished chairman, in opposition to his Senate Joint Resolution 181, proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for the election of Delegates to the House of Representatives.

I assume, although this bill does not specify, that these would be non voting Delegates.

My opposition is based on my belief that such representation is not in keeping with the basic concept of the District of Columbia as the seat of the Government of the United States. As such, it is not a sovereign unit of government requiring representation in the U.S. Senate. It is owned and operated by and for all of the sovereign States

as the seat of the Federal Government. Responsibility for its proper administration is not vested in the citizens of the United States who live in the District, but rather in the citizens of the various sovereign States, which have delegated this function to their respective Senators and Congressmen. That is why we have the Senate and House Committees on the District of Columbia.

I believe I should make it clear that this problem has no relationship whatsoever to home rule for the citizens living in the District. I think it most unwise to include the subject of representation in Congress in a home rule bill, as has often been done. People who are strongly in favor of home rule may well be opposed to the bill if congressional representation is included.

The No. 1 problem of the citizens of the District of Columbia is obtaining some kind of home rule-not representation in Congress. It will not do to say that the crime rate, abuses in social welfare programs, and other social problems must first be cleaned up by the citizens of the District of Columbia as a means of demonstrating their capacity for home rule. These problems have arisen under the present system of government. A limited but substantial delegation of responsibilities to these citizens for home rule holds promise for improvement. Let these citizens elect a city council, with councilmen coming from various sections of the District. Give the council jurisdiction to pass ordinances regulating public health and safety, schools, streets, and parks. Citizen participation in their government would give them a stronger sense of pride and responsibility than they now have.

I strongly recommend that these matters be conducted in an atmosphere as much removed from the arena of partisan politics as possible. There is, or at least there should be, no relationship between clean, sound, efficient municipal government and partisanship. To do otherwise could be harmful to the viability of the District government. A Republican city council might find a Democratic controlled Congress uncooperative. Or a Democratic city council might find a Republican-controlled Congress uncooperative. There is no point at all in running this risk.

In conclusion, let me make it clear that I sympathize with the reasons and feelings which have motivated these proposed bills. The desire for self-government in a nation such as ours is natural. It is a desire which should receive a reasonable measure of fulfillment. But in my judgment, these bills are not the proper answer either from the nature of the District of Columbia or from the standpoint of timing. The first and foremost problem is to secure a substantial, but limited, home rule system for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Controversy over these bills will only delay solution to this problem. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Senator Miller. We all know that your are an active member of the Senate District Committee in the Congress and take an active interest in the affairs of the District.

I agree fully with you with reference to what you have to say about home rule, and as you know, I was a sponsor of two home rule bills which passed the Senate. I have always been for home rule for the District of Columbia, and it is not the intention of these hearings or any other with reference to national representation to slow down or

diminish the effort for home rule for the citizens of the District of Columbia.

We have not had very good luck with home rule in recent years. So far as I am concerened, I hope we can work on both of them at the same time.

Senator MILLER. May I say in response, Mr. Chairman, that I realize that home rule has been a perennial problem here for years. When I first came to Washington back in 1939, home rule was being talked about and written about all over the newspapers and here, when I come back to Congress many years later, it still is the same problem, receiving about the same type of reaction as it did clear back in 1939.

I am sure that the distinguished chairman, with his many years in Congress, knows that somehow or other, once these home rule bills get a start, they always seem to bog down. I think that the main reason why is because there has been perhaps a little too much idealism attached to them and not enough realism attached to them. Compromise, after all, is the lifeblood of the legislative process, and it seems to me that what ought to be done is to try to work out a home rule bill which would at least be a start, one which would have a minimum amount of controversy in it. But when home rule bills come out which contain highly controversial, and I might say completely unnecessary provisions, such as unrelated provision relating to representation in Congress, which has nothing to do with home rule as such, or a provision relating to partisan elections in the city government, or a provision relating to election at large of all of the members of a city council-highly controversial provisions-these defeat the home rule bill.

I believe that if provisions such as these were deleted from home rule bills, we would long ago have made a start on home rule for the District of Columbia. And as time goes on, it may well be that additional provisions should be added to give the people a larger measure of home rule.

But I must say that after looking at this problem since 1939, without one single, solitary change, that I think that now is the time to start moving on this, and I believe that we can make a start if we will come up with something that contains a minimum amount of controversy and will have a substantial home rule feature to it.

It will enable the people in our District to have citizen participation in their government, and I believe that many of the abuses and crimes and crime rates we have in the District today might have been averted if the citizens had received a measure of home rule several years ago, which would have given them pride and more sense of responsibility in the conduct of their governmental affairs than they ever will have under the present system.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Miller, as you know, the thinking of this subcommittee in 1959, when it reported as a part of the proposed 23d amendment a provision for representation in the House of Representatives, was that the theory of our Constitution, as I have always assumed, was that in the United States, all people should have representation according to population in the House of Representatives. The compromise was, of course, that all States should have two Senators regardless of population. By providing for representation in the House of Representatives, we were following the scheme of the

Constitution to give all people representation in the House, but to carry on and give the District two representatives in the Senate would be going through a fiction that the District was a State, which is, of course, not true.

But it seems to me that a possible fallacy of your argument is that you consider everybody who lives in the District of Columbia in some way connected with the Federal Government, which has grown not to be the case. In other words, as I understood your argument, it was that people in the District were here by virtue of this being the Nation's Capital and that their ties and their voting rights and so forth were back in the States where they came from.

I believe that 500,000 eligible voters that are referred to by Senator Bush would not come under the class of people who are here only temporarily or by virtue of the fact that this is the National Capital. I assume that most are bona fide residents of the District of Columbia and not of some other State.

Is that not true, Senator Bush?

Senator BUSH. I think a very high percentage of them would meet that qualification, yes. There are no doubt people here who are residents part of the time who vote in other States. But I think that if they could vote here civil servants, for instance they would transfer their voting residence to the District, rather than endure the expensive trip back home wherever their voting residence may be, as they now have to do if they want to vote.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, we get all of our Tennessee people who can and who are going to vote right to vote by absentee ballot.

Senator BUSH. Of course, that can be done and is very simply done. Nevertheless, the point you are making, I think is that there are some residents here who vote in other States and what percentage of the population is that? I do not have any correct estimate of it, but I would say it would be a minor percentage.

Senator KEFAUVER. The point I was trying to make was that Senator Miller would be right if we went on the theory that everybody living here in the District of Columbia was in some way attached to the Federal Government, and had their ties back in the States where they came from. But a big part of the population of the District is here by virtue of commercial and other enterprises that they are engaged in, and have no direct connection with the Federal Government.

Senator MILLER. Mr. Chairman, may I disabuse the chairman's concern that this was the basis for my opposition, because I want to make it very clear that I am not premising my position on the theory that a majority of the members or the citizens of the District of Columbia are employed by the Federal Government or vote in some other State. I am perfectly willing to premise my position on the assumption that a majority of the people in the District of Columbia do not vote in other States and are bona fide residents of the District of Columbia, engaged in non-Federal governmental enterprises. My theory is that this District of Columbia is owned and operated by and for the people of all the States. If some citizens choose to live here, I think they should be willing to accept the conditions of living here.

I think it has been a great injustice not to permit them to vote for the President of the United States. I think all citizens should be entitled to that. But they, after all, are not alone in this problem of

voting in national elections, particularly for Members of Congress. Every year, we have literally hundreds of thousands of people who cannot vote because they are in the process of moving from one State to another, or they have recently left one State and moved to another and they have not lived in that State long enough, and yet that happens to be the condition under which they made their move.

My point is that the District, as the seat of the Federal Government, is owned and operated by and for the citizens of the various States. I do not think that it is the responsibility of the people who choose to live here as bona fide residents of the District of Columbia to engage in the ownership and operation of the District in the same sense that the citizens of the various other States do.

But I want to make it very clear that because I am opposed to these measures, I do not believe that any conclusion should be reached that I am other than very much in favor of a reasonable home rule system for the people of the District of Columbia to participate in their own municipal affairs of government. That is a point that I think should be made crystal clear.

Senator KEFAUVER. We understand that.

Senator BUSH. Could I ask a question of the witness?
Senator KEFAUVER. All right, Senator Bush.

Senator BUSH. My friend from Iowa says he is in sympathy with the amendment that was passed to give the citizens of the District a chance to vote for President and Vice President. How does he distinguish between the other coequal branch of the government, the legislative branch, and this?

In other words, if it is appropriate that they should vote for representation in the executive branch, voting for the President, why is it not just as appropriate that they would have the same voice in voting for the legislative branch?

Senator MILLER. May I say I think that is an excellent question, but I believe the answer is that it is in the nature of the seat of the government itself being owned and operated by the citizens of the various sovereign States. I cannot see that such a situation should preclude someone from voting for the Chief Executive of the Nation. But I can see a very great difference between that and having representation in the Congress to join with the citizens of other States who have the responsibility for owning and operating the seat of government.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Miller, we shall be glad to have you join with the committee in questioning witnesses, if you so desire. Senator MILLER. I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but as the chairman knows, there is a very important bill concerning the people of Iowa coming up on the floor of the Senate, and if the chairman will excuse me, I shall go to the floor.

Senator KEFAUVER. Representative Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., of the Sixth Congressional District of the State of Maryland.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Senator KEFAUVER. We are very glad to have you with us, sir. We are always honored to have a House Member come and talk with us.

85211-62- -3