We believe that Congress itself would obtain important advantages from the presence of one or more duly elected Representatives of the District of Columbia. Such men would be able to give their colleagues accurate and valuable information on all District questions. We believe that the interests of the nation would also be served by recognizing the principle of representative government here in the most conspicuous jurisdiction in the country which has heretofore not enjoyed it. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we know of no good reason why Senate Joint Resolution 80 should not now be adopted. Our study of the recommendations of the hearings in both Houses of Congress for many years discloses no compelling basis of objection. There is no valid objection to the representation of the District as provided in this Resolution. Its terms are as simple and as uncontroversial as they possibly can be. So we urge this Committee to take the next logical step beyond giving us the Presidential vote by giving us this representation in the House and terminating the shameful and undemocratic practice in effect since 1800 which contradicts all that this nation stands for at home and abroad. More than 800,000 Americans in the District of Columbia are unable to participate or have a voice in our government because they are not represented in Congress. That is a larger population than in each of 11 states who together send 22 Senators and 17 Representatives to Congress. The residents of the District of Columbia in 1957 paid more toward support of the United States Government in Federal individual income taxes than the residents in each of 19 states of this Union. The District of Columbia furnished more men to the Armed Forces in World War II than were furnished by each of 14 States. The 103,376 men and women from the District was made up on 68,361 in the Army, 29,729 in the Navy, 3,966 in the Marine Corps, and 1,320 in the Coast Guard. 3,039 residents of the District who served in the Armed Forces lost their lives in the defense of their country during World War II. This situation has continued through the Korean conflict and is going on today with respect to Viet Nam activities of which we are reminded by frequent reports of deaths of members of the Armed Forces from this district. The Citizens' Joint Committee on National Representation for the District of Columbia expresses its sincere appreciation to this Committee for calling this hearing, for considering the proposed Constitutional amendment, and for giving us an opportunity to express our views concerning it. We earnestly hope that this Resolution will be favorably reported by the Committee and adopted by the Congress before adjournment. ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING OR ENDORSING NATIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOCAL Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade Federation of Citizens' Associations Voteless District of Columbia League of Women Voters Central Labor Union (American Federation of Labor) Merchants and Manufacturers' Association Monday Evening Club Bar Association Association of Oldest Inhabitants Washington Real Estate Board Advertising Club of Washington Women's Bar Association Federation of Business Men's Association Twentieth Century Club Women's City Club District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs Northeast Citizens' Association Society of Natives of the District of Columbia The Washingtonians Motion Picture Theater Owners' and Operators' Association Associated Retail Credit Men of Washington Washington Florists' Club District of Columbia Division, Young Democrats Hotel Greeters of America, Chapter 31 Newcomers Club Soroptomist Club Department of the District of Columbia, Veterans of Foreign Wars Local Union of Federal Employees District of Columbia Bankers' Association District of Columbia Building and Loan League Washington Section, National Council of Jewish Women District of Columbia Chapter, Rainbow Division, Veterans Washington Junior Chamber of Commerce (formerly Junior Board of Commerce) Political Study Club of Washington District of Columbia Suffrage Association Washington Branch, American Association of University Women National Democratic League of Washington NATIONAL Chamber of Commerce of the United States American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations National League of Women Voters American Federation of Teachers National Federation of Federal Employees Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States American Medical Women's Association American Federation of Soroptomist Clubs United Typothetae of America National Women's Trade Union League Women's National Homeopathic Medical Society National Service Star Legion Fleet Reserve Association National Association of Victory Jobbers National Straw Hat Manufacturers' Association Knights and Ladies of the Maccabees National League of Young Democrats of America STATE AND REGIONAL California State Federation of Butchers Connecticut State Federation of Labor Scandinavian Grand Lodge of Connecticut, International Order of Good Templars Georgia Real Estate Association Junior Order United American Mechanics, Massachusetts State Council Fall River (Massachusetts) Doffers and Spinners' Credit Union Minnesota State Florists' Association Patriotic Order Sons of America, New Jersey State Camp Lily Dale Assembly, Lily Dale, New York Independent Order of Americans, State Council of Pennsylvania Wyoming Women's Christian Temperance Union Michigan Department, Sons of Union Veterans New York State Council, International Society of Master Painters and Decorators Illinois State Council, International Society of Master Painters and Decorators Kentucky Society of Florists Maryland State and District of Columbia Federation of Labor Colorado Association of Commercial Organizations New York State Retail Coal Merchants' Association Montgomery County Civic Federation of Maryland Arlington County Civic Federation of Virginia Inter-Federation Concil of District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia Maryland and District of Columbia Industrial Union Concil (Congress of Wyoming State Teachers' Association (The above listing, and that on Page 1, contains some now defunct organizations, who have in the past supported national representation for the District of Columbia.) Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. It has been a very comprehensive and complete statement, and we appreciate your helping us this morning. Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Senator BAYH. The last witness this morning is Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., national vice chairman of the Americans for Democratic Action, who has been a frequent witness before this subcommittee and has always been extremely helpful. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR., NATIONAL VICE CHAIRMAN, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION; ACCOMPANIED BY VERLIN NELSON, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION Mr. RAUH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy to be here, and I would like to follow Mr. Davis' example of simply putting the statement in the record and then making a few comments. I think you have been quite patient in a long morning, and I will try to be brief. I would like to introduce Mr. Verlin Nelson, the legislative representative of the Americans for Democratic Action, who is accompanying me this morning. Senator BAYH. We are glad to have Mr. Nelson here. We will put the entire statement in the record as if it had been read. Mr. Rauh may proceed to testify as he sees fit. Mr. RAUH. Mr. Chairman, everybody has his own views of why he is for this constitutional amendment. Everybody in the city is for it, but different people have different views of why they are for it, some on one ground, some on another. My top ground for it is that I think this is the right step toward the ultimate goal of home rule. This city will never be a peaceful, well-governed, proper city until we have our own government of our own affairs. There were times in the past when the proposal for national representation conflicted with the home rule proposal. By that I mean that there were people who said, "You shouldn't go for home rule, you should go for national representation." And the forces were divided. Now, however, at this moment there is no active home rule effort in the Congress, and this is the right time to do national representation. This is the moment in our history when there is nobody against it. It is exactly as has often been said on the floor of the Senate, there is nothing like the strength of an idea whose time has come. This is the right moment to do this. It conflicts with nothing, it has everybody's support. It will also, in my judgment, be a step toward home rule by giving us a lobbyist in Congress for home rule, by giving us elections every 2 years to develop political processes, by showing what we can do. In my judgment, the time is now to take this step. I suppose that the real question is not whether we should have national representation but what that national representation should be. I do not think any longer there is a dispute really among the Members of the Congress or among the Nation that we should have something. The question is what that something should be. When I testified in the House, I testified for the equivalent of your resolution, Mr. Chairman. And I thought that was right, and I still think it is right, but we have a problem here we have to face up to: On principle we ought to have what the House Judiciary Committee reported out. I do not think there is any question but we are entitled to what the House Judiciary Committee has now put forward: namely, two Senators and two Congressmen. That is our right as American citizens, and there is no legal reason against it. I will not through all the legal arguments against two Senators. I think they have long been answered. The Senate Committee on the District of Columbia in 1922 in a quotation I cite in my statement settled this thing, it seems to me. There is thus no governmental or legal reason why the District of Columbia should not have full national representation including two Senators. go The question simply boils down to one of practicality. The House of Representatives, I take it, will pass Chairman Celler's resolution. He is a good enough counter that I do not believe he would have put it up there unless he thought it could pass. I would be willing to take my chances in the States on the 38 with the full two-Senator provision. Indeed one could argue that you are safer in the States with that than with yours for the reason that has been suggested, that some State legislatures might prefer to do it themselves than to pass a constitutional amendment which gives the Congress power to do what they are not doing. In other words, some argument may be made in the State legislatures against your resolution that it does not do the job, it gives Congress the right to do the job and they would rather do it themselves. So there is an argument here either way. Senator BAYH. Very frankly, it is a bit of an inconsistent position for me to take. During the presidential disability problem which we finally enacted in the 25th amendment, I stressed that we did not want to send such an enabling act to the State legislatures because I thought they would vote against it. And I think they would have done that. I do not think the problem is as severe here as it was there dealing with the intricacies of disability and changing the Presidential authority around. But excuse me. Mr. RAUH. No; it is exactly that point that I am making. We do not know the degree. But for myself, and for, I think, most citizens of the District, we would be prepared to take our gamble on the full representation. That brings it down to one question: Are there twothirds of the Senators ready to support what the House Judiciary came out with, and that is the sole question in my mind as to what this subcommittee should do. If we can get two-thirds, if this committee's leadership can get us two-thirds of the Senate, then I think we ought to shoot the works. I think we ought to go for the House Judiciary Committee resolution. On the other hand, if in your best belief we cannot get two-thirds for the House Judiciary resolution, then unreservedly we should support your resolution and take that to the States. It seems to me that this is a matter of practicalities, not of principle. Principle lies with what the House Judiciary Committee did. I do not think there is any question that that is where we ought to be. But if we cannot have that, because you cannot, the Senate cannot, get twothirds, please give us yours and give it to us as fast as you can. We want to get it to the States. I am confident that if the House passes it with the whole works in there, and you pass yours, that the House will then recede because it would be all that we can have. I do not think the House ever spoke— I do not think Chairman Celler and his House committee were ever speaking against what you were proposing. I think they were speaking for more. If we can only have yours in the Senate, please let us have it just as fast as we can so that we can get to the States. Whether we go to the States with the full provision for two Senators and two Congressmen or with the provision for one Congressman, plus the right of Congress to add, whether we go with the one or the other, we certainly want to go now. This is the right time to move. We have a unified city, we do not have conflicting bills, conflicting tensions in the city for this. This is the right time to move. Thank you, sir. (Mr. Rauh's statement in full follows:) TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR., NATIONAL VICE CHAIRMAN, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appear here this morning on behalf of the National Americans for Democratic Action and the Greater Washington Chapter of ADA which have long supported a constitutional amendment to provide representation for the District of Columbia in the Congress of the United States. Equally, I appear as a citizen deeply concerned with the undemocratic nature of the D.C. Government who sees national representation for the District as an important step toward the ultimate goal of democracy in the nation's capital. Our city is united behind national representation with a unanimity evidenced on no other issue. National representation has the virtually unanimous support of every organization and individual in the District of Columbia. Indeed, it is hard to conjure up any possible argument against it; certainly none has yet been made. Some citizens of the District support national representation as a means of ending the travesty of the residents of the Capital of the Free World being largely excluded from the electoral process on which the democratic governments of the Free World rest. Some citizens support national representation so that the voice of the District may be heard for a larger federal payment and for other direct benefits to the District. Some favor it on grounds of elemental fairness inherent in "no taxation without representation". All of these reasons appeal to me, but the one that appeals to me most is that this will be a step toward home rule. National representation will strengthen the cause of home rule. The first elected Congressman will be home rule's number one lobbyist. He will run on a home rule ticket, he will be elected by home rule supporters and he and his staff will give their all to home rule in the Congress. Furthermore, the right to vote every two years will strengthen the electoral process in the District and prepare the city for the day when local officials are chosen by the people. Finally, this amendment will deprive the Board of Trade and the few other local opponents of home rule of one of the arguments they have consistently used--namely that the District should concentrate on getting national representation. Once we have representation in Congress, there can be no further contention made that some other reform is more necessary than home rule. All hands and eyes can then focus on that most basic and necessary reform in the District of Columbia: home rule. It might be well to note that the District of Columbia has just made a small but significant step toward home rule in the inauguration of the reorganized |