trict of Columbia a State, and you would have to go through every section of the Constitution to see what relevance references to the States would have to the purposes of this amendment regarding the District of Columbia.

For instance, prohibitions on acts of the State as contained in article I, section 10, or what does the 10th amendment reserving powers to the States mean? These are decisions that are really not related to the purpose of this amendment.

Getting to your inquiry about the substance of the amendment, it is my judgment that Senate Joint Resolution 80 provides the most feasible method of going forward at this time. It provides the opportunity for full equality of representation in the Congress should the Congress determine in its wisdom that this should be done.

It provides at the very least a vote in the House of Representatives, and it provides a ceiling, a limitation, that the representation of the District of Columbia and the Congress shall not exceed the representation to which it would be entitled were it a State. So it sets reasonable limitation in both directions.

It would seem to be an amendment much more readily acceptable to both the Congress and to the State legislatures than an amendment that would give at one time equal representation to the District of Columbia.

While I think this latter type of amendment might be a governmental ideal, I think that as a practical matter the resolution before the committee offers a sounder approach under the circumstances. Senator BAYH. What about the aspects of determining a District voice in the event of a House-determined presidential election?

Attorney General CLARK. My thoughts on that have been that the electoral college reform for which you have provided such great leadership in the Congress and in the Senate and in the Nation, is a subject that can be treated as a whole more intelligently if it is treated in that context as electoral college reform, which would provide for the contingencies that the 23d amendment provides a District of Columbia vote in connection with it.

Therefore, my thought would be that the subject matter of this amendment would be better restricted to the subject of the vote for the people of the District of Columbia in the Congress on matters of general enactment of law, and that the 23d amendment problem should be treated in the context of comprehensive electoral college reform. Senator BAYH. Thank you.

Senate Joint Resolution 396 is more detailed really than Senate Joint Resolution 80. It provides that, and I quote, "Each Senator or Representative so elected shall be an inhabitant of the District and, in addition shall possess these same qualifications as to age and citizenship and have the same rights, privileges, and obligations as a Senator or Representative from a State."

Now, from the standpoint of draftsmanship, is it necessary to put those qualifications in there or would you think this would normally be presumed, or inferred from similar qualifications contained in the Constitution already?

Attorney General CLARK. If it were the intention of the parties, the several parties, amending the Constitution, that this be required as a matter of constitutional authority, and I believe it should be embodied in the amendment, I think otherwise it would be left to the Congress for such action as it may take from time to time.

Senator BAYH. In other words, you do not feel that the present constitutional provisions stating that all present Members of the House and Senate shall have certain requirements, would require representatives of the District of Columbia to be subject to the same requirements?

Attorney General CLARK. I do not believe that that necessarily would follow. Where the several places in the Constitution refer to these subjects, it generally refers to Representatives or Senators of States. The Representatives and/or Senators that under this proposal would represent the District of Columbia are not Representatives and/or Senators of a State.

Senator BAYH. You feel this should be in the document then and could not be handled in the report or in the legislative record written on the floor of the Senate or House?

Attorney General CLARK. If it is to be a matter of constitutional limitation, in my judgment, it should be in the language of the amendment. The intention of all the ratifiers of the constitutional amendment is a very difficult thing to ascertain.

Senator BAYH. So, perhaps, I should go one step further. Inasmuch as this is not contained in the administration measure, do you feel it should be so contained?

Attorney General CLARK. It was our judgment that that is a matter that could be left to the discretion of the Congress by statutory action.

in

Senator BAYH. Are you at all concerned about the possibility of the District representation being used as a whiplash inasmuch as, Resolution 80, Congress can, by law, give additional representation, including two Members of the U.S. Senate, that in time of crisis or particularly close legislative division, this vote could be taken away by law. Should it take a two-thirds vote to take away any representation that is given? We are permitting it to be taken away by one Congressman, by a majority of a quorum. Otherwise, does that raise any specters?

Attorney General CLARK. I think that is a matter of some, but not great, concern. As a practical matter, the same majority that would decide to take away a vote could decide the vote by which it took that action on the merits as they see it. So that I do not see a probability of this being a practical factor in connection with a particular proposal that Congress might have before it, which it wants to effect in this way.

I also think that the Congress would act with responsibility; that it would judge these matters on the merits, and that doing so it would not be at all likely to either add to or detract from congressional representation for the people of the District of Columbia to affect any particular measures.

Senator BAYH. Have you given any thought, Mr. Attorney General, to the problem of residency in the District of Columbia? Čensus fig

ures which determine representation apparently are arrived at by asking the question "Do you sleep here? Do you actually reside here?" There are a number of people who would say yes to that, and thus add weight for representation, although they, in fact, already have a vote in their home States where they do not sleep and are not counted for representation. Have you given any thought to the procedures that could be implemented by the Bureau of the Census to prevent this from being a significant factor?

Attorney General CLARK. I do not believe the procedures of the Bureau of the Census will affect the issue if the questions that they ask are the questions that the Constitution needs answers to, in order to make a determination as to representation in accordance with its provisions.

In fact, I think the numbers are not so substantial as to make a difference. It would be very unlikely in the light of present estimates of population here that they would be numbers that would make a difference in actual representation in the Congress from the District of Columbia.

I think in this area that Senate Joint Resolution 80 has an advantage over House Resolution 396 as it passed the House in that it provides for the Congress in determining representation from the District of Columbia the opportunity to consider the effect, if any, of persons living here in fact most of the time but maintaining voting residences elsewhere, as well as the aliens resident in the District of Columbia. Neither figure is probably very substantial.

As to the first figure, it would be or seem highly probable that many people who have maintained voting residences elsewhere would give those up if they had a vote here in the District of Columbia. That would by that very fact reduce that number.

Senator BAYH. Excuse me, you certainly would suggest when we get around, hopefully, to considering legislation to implement one or the other of these provisions that we insist that measures be taken that an individual does not have the right to vote in two States.

Attorney General CLARK. Certainly.

On that point of aliens resident in the District of Columbia we have some figures from the Office of Protocol of the Department of State that indicate that between 15,000 and 16,000 foreign diplomats, officials resident in the District of Columbia with, perhaps, 3,200 noncitizen employees in this area. So that the number we have would be less than 20,000.

Senator BAYH. The League of Women Voters suggested that as a result of studies they have done on the subject there were between 100,000 and 150,000 residents here who voted elsewhere. That is the number they were discussing.

I think that you have done a very excellent job of answering these questions which I wanted to be evidenced on the record.

As I recall your statement, you mentioned it would be up to Congress to decide whether this additional representation would increase the number of Congressmen or whether they wanted to just reapportion the entire number to 435, including this one in the District.

Attorney General CLARK. That is right. I think that would be a matter that would be and, of necessity, should be, left to the judgment of the Congress. They can do as was done in the case of Alaska and Hawaii when they were admitted to statehood, and that is to provide until the next decennial census, they should be represented in Congress, and there should be a report back with respect to the 435.

Senator BAYH. Very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. I know how busy you are and it is extremely good for our record to have your expertise in it.

Attorney General CLARK. Thank you, Senator. Glad to be here. Senator BAYH. Our next witness is Mr. David Carliner, president of the Washington Home Rule Committee, Inc.

Mr. SHIPLEY. Senator, you will hold the record open, will you, and you will state at the end of the hearing how long we will have to submit additional material?

Senator BAYH. Yes.

Mr. SHIPLEY. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator BAYH. Mr. Čarliner, we appreciate your being with us. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF DAVID CARLINER, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON HOME RULE COMMITTEE

Mr. CARLINER. Mr. Chairman, for my part, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here.

The Washington Home Rule Committee associates itself with the very excellent statement which you made at the outset of these hearings. Indeed, your statement, I believe, summarizes all of the arguments for the national representation amendment, and it may be scarcely necessary for me and, perhaps, other witnesses to amplify it. Nonetheless, we would like to state very briefly why we are for the amendment before this subcommittee to provide for voting representation in the Congress of the United States in the interest of self-government in the District of Columbia.

As the subcommittee is well aware, the Constitution provides that the Congress shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. We believe there cannot be true self-government in the District of Columbia unless the citizens of the District of Columbia participate in the very legislative body which exercises that exclusive legislative jurisdiction.

No matter how much power is delegated to a local government which we hope will be established by the electorate of its citizens, the Congress of the United States will always have under the Constitution the power to write laws relating to that government. Many of these laws are obviously of a fundamental nature which deal with the basic rights and interest of the citizens of the District of Columbia.

In general, they would be the kind of law that a State legislature would adopt for the inhabitants of any city within that State; and if Congress sits to write these laws, then we believe that the implemen

tation of self-government in the District of Columbia would require our fair representation in that Congress.

There is a second aspect to the question, of course, and that is that we are as much citizens of the United States as we are citizens of the District of Columbia. Many of the laws which Congress passes, most of the laws which Congress passes, of course, have national implications; and it seems to me that one could say only with shameless cynicism that we, who are Americans, we who have shared the same burdens and obligations and share, except for the right to vote, the same privileges, by and large, which all other citizens of the United States share, should not also share the representation in the Congress of the United States.

As Mr. Shipley has indicated in tracing rather briefly the history of the goal, this is one of the longest causes known to the history of the United States.

Almost with the assumption of jurisdiction over the District of Columbia by the Congress of the United States, the movement began to give us representation in Congress. In preparation for my testimony here today I have sought to ascertain the reasons why we have not until now achieved any significant chance of getting self-government for the District of Columbia. It seems to me that part of the fact is due to inertia, the very sensible hesitancy on the part of the American people and on the part of Congress, having adopted such a basic document as the Constitution, to amend that document easily and freely; and this problem is one that we must meet.

I believe that the national consensus has arrived to where we can meet that problem. The feelings of the American people are very deep that all people in the United States should have the right to vote, that they should not be barred from the right to vote by reason of any unrelated fact, by reason of their sex, by reason of their color, and I think it would also be true, by reason of their geography, which would apply to the District of Columbia.

I believe the inertia problem we can overcome.

There is another basis for it, and that is the silent opposition which has existed for many years which states no reasons.

As it happens, the significant legislative movement to secure national representation in Washington began in 1888 with the sponsorship of a Senator Blair of New Hampshire, and as this committee is aware, there have been recurrent efforts within the Senate and within the House to provide for national representation.

Fortunately, Senator McCarran, who Mr. Shipley mentioned in his testimony, summarized in 1941 in the report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary various reasons for opposing different forms of national representation. Some of those reasons have reemerged today, and some of them indeed have been mentioned in questioning by members of this subcommittee.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to some of those questions as well as some of the questions which the members of this subcommittee have raised.

One ground of opposition which Senator McCarran raised in his report in 1941 was that to provide for national representation of the