Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

R.V.S. 30

A $5

CONTENTS

[merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed]

Warner, Sturgis, attorney, Washington, D.C...

Statement submitted by-

Anderson, Hon. Elmer L., Governor of the State of Minnesota____
Case, Hon. Francis, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota..
Cobb, Charles, Arlington, Va...

[ocr errors]

CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1962

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator Estes Kefauver (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Kefauver, Keating, and Fong.

Also present: Senator Bush.

James Kirby, chief counsel, and Clyde Flynn, minority counsel. Senator KEFAUVER. The committee will come to order.

The subcommittee has before it two proposed resolutions, Senate Joint Resolution 85, introduced by Senator Bush, which would grant the District two Senators and the number of Representatives to which it would be entitled if it were a State, and Senate Joint Resolution 181, sponsored by Senators Kefauver, Dodd, and Keating, which would only give the District as many delegates in the House of Representatives as it would have Representatives if it were a State.

The Delegates would have such powers as Congress provides by law. The provisions of Senate Joint Resolution 181 were approved by the Senate in 1960 as a part of the amendment giving the District the vote in presidential elections, but was rejected in the House of Representatives.

(S.J. Res. 85 and S.J. Res. 181 are as follows:)

[S.J. Res. 85, 87th Cong., 1st sess.}

JOINT RESOLUTION, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to grant representation in the Congress to the people of the District of Columbia

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 article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

"ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. The people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States shall be entitled to elect two Members to the Senate and a number of Members to the House of Representatives equal to the number of Members of the House of Representatives to which a State having the same population as such District would be entitled. The Members authorized by this article shall be elected at such time and in such manner, and the electors of such Members shall have such qualifications, as the Congress shall provide by law. "SEC. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the 1

several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."

[S.J. Res. 181, 87th Cong., 2d sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing for representation of the District of Columbia in the Congress

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 an amendment is hereby proposed to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if ratified by threefourths of the legislatures of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

"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 by law, 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."

Senator KEFAUVER. I have a brief opening statement.

These hearings are the result of an increased awareness in Congress of the problems of the District of Columbia. The second-class citizenship of residents of the District continues to be an embarrassment to the Nation.

The subcommittee's hearings on this subject in 1959 resulted in the ratification of the 23d amendment in 1961 giving the District a vote in presidential elections. But this dealt only with a portion of the problem of disfranchisement of the people of the District. Basic principles of self-government and representation are still unrecognized.

The Senate's version of the presidential vote amendment in 1960 contained provisions giving the District a number of Delegates in the House of Representatives equal to the number of Representatives to which it would be entitled if it were a State, but this section was not agreed to by the House of Representatives. These exact provisions have been reintroduced by myself, Senator Dodd, and Senator Keating in the form of Senate Joint Resolution 181, which is now pending before the subcommittee.

Also pending before the subcommittee is Senate Joint Resolution 85, introduced by Senator Bush of Connecticut, which would give to the District representation in both the Senate and the House of Representatives equivalent to that of a State.

These hearings are separate from the question of home rule. This does not require an amendment to the Constitution and those of us who believe in home rule for the District will continue to work for its accomplishment by legislation.

It is a blot on our national record that, despite the growth and perfection of our democracy in so many other ways, the people of the District still have so little voice in governing their own affairs. There is really more reason for the District to have some voice in Congress than for the rest of the country because to the people of the District, Congress is equivalent to city council and State legislature as well as National Government. The District's residents are affected more directly by Acts of Congress than the people of any State.

There is much evidence that this gap in our governmental structure was pure oversight. When the constitutional provision for a seat of

the National Government was written, it was not known where it would be located, what its size would be or who might live there. James Madison stated in the Federalist No. 43 that prospective inhabitants of the Federal City "will have their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them." But the Founding Fathers concentrated on matters necessary to secure ratification by the Thirteen States and neglected to make provision for either selfgovernment or representation of the District in Congress.

Both resolutions pending before the subcommittee are thoughtful efforts for remedying a portion of this deplorable situation. Another possibility before the Congress is to give the District a nonvoting Delegate in the House of Representatives by simple legislation. The subcommittee welcomes the opinions and recommendations of Members of the Congress and civic leaders and organizations and hopes these hearings will move this problem closer to a solution.

Senator Keating is here and has a statement which we shall be happy to hear.

Senator KEATING. Mr. Chairman, one of the notable achievements of the 86th Congress was the adoption of a constitutional amendment permitting Americans in the District of Columbia to vote for President and Vice President. The promptness with which this amendment was ratified by the States is a strong indication of the repugnance with which our Nation viewed the second-class citizenship under which the residents of the District long labored.

In the form in which it was approved by the Senate, the District of Columbia vote amendment would have given the District of Columbia the same representation in the electoral college and in the House of Representatives as it would enjoy if the District were a State. Even this could have been improved upon since it did not specifically provide that the House Representatives would have the right to vote and since it did not give the District of Columbia any voice in the Senate of the United States.

Unfortunately, the House Committee on the Judiciary, after hearings on the amendment, moved to limit its provisions even further. Instead of recommending that it be liberalized, the House Committee knocked out the Senate language for House representation and limited the District's votes in the electoral college to three regardless of its population. I protested against these changes at the time, but under the situation that prevailed, there was no choice but to accept the inadequate provisions which the House thereafter insisted upon.

The fact is that the District was shortchanged in the 23d amendment. It was, of course, a tremendous improvement over the previous situation. But it was a compromise which failed to give the people residing here the full benefits of citizenship in our Republic.

I commend those who have initiated new efforts to complete the circle which the 23d amendment began. Their efforts would probably not now be exerted if the House had not approached this subject with such a grudging spirit and unyielding attitude. In view of the House action, however, their efforts are indispensable if the people of the District are ever to enjoy their full rights of representation in the National Government.

Experience has provided two guides to further action; first, that we be persistent, and secondly, that we be willing to move one step

« ZurückWeiter »