Gentlemen, let us bring our delegation, also. Let us add our strengths to this common endeavor-we in the District are proud of our strengths, although for years they have been underemployed. You will find that our delegations will bring to the Congress perhaps the most sharply developed respect and affection for representative government and first-hand understanding of its problems and its strengths of any group of people in the United States. We may have a little drying out behind the ears to do, but don't ever forget, as one example, that a random group of D.C. citizens came together, worked together, six years ago and mounted an operation which resulted in the ratification by thirty-eight state legislatures of the Twenty-Third Amendment in less than ten months after the Congress had proposed it. With all the mistakes that were made in that operation, I don't think it could have been accomplished without the very basic appreciation of the problems and the potentials of elected representative government. Thank you.

Senator BAYI. Mr. Tilford E. Dudley, chairman of the Democratic Central Committee. We appreciate your joining us this morning.

STATEMENT OF TILFORD E. DUDLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE
DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

Mr. DUDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement of some five pages, copies of which I think have already been supplied to the subcommittee. If not, I have some extra copies here. My thought would be perhaps to summarize this for you and answer any questions that you might have and ask you to just put the entire statement in the record.

Senator BAYH. Very fine.

We will put it in the record as if you read it and then you may handle it in any manner that you desire.

(Statement of Mr. Dudley follows:)

TESTIMONY OF TILFORD E. DUDLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC

CENTRAL COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman, I am Tilford E. Dudley, Chairman of the Democratic Central Committee for the District of Columbia. Our office is at 1009 13th Street, N.W., in Washington, D.C. I am happy to report that the Democratic Central Committee is strongly in favor of the Joint Resolution introduced by Senators Bayh, Dodd, Kennedy, Scott and Tydings, known as S.J. RES. 80, for the amendment of the U.S. Constitution to provide for the election by D.C. residents of representatives to the United States Congress. In this we have the support of our entire District membership. Our position is based upon the following considerations.

HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS

We consider the lack of Congressional representation from the District to be an historical accident. It was never intended and never decided upon by vote or otherwise. It just happened, unintentionally.

It is clear that the jealousies of the founding states were the primary cause for the creation of a federal district completely free from the control of interference of any state. A secondary desire for security and protection by its own militia was heightened by the Philadelphia incident of 1783 when the veterans marched on Congress for their over-due pay. In the strenuous competition for the capital, every offer (New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and several towns) included provisions granting complete federal jurisdiction. All of them assumed congressional control.

Constance McLaughlin Green, in the first volume of her outstanding history of the District, (Washington: Village and Capital, 1800-1878) reports:

"The very jealousies between the states made each loath to see a rival in a position to dominate the general government Yet to place a permanent capital within the jurisdiction of one state was to imperil the influence of every other. The surest way of avoiding that risk was to vest in Congress rights of

‘exclusive legislation' over the capital and a small area about it. The debates on the residence bill had proceeded on that premise." (P. 9.)

It is also clear that disenfranchisement of District residents was not the objective. Mrs. Green states:

"In accepting the principle eventually written into the Constitution, that Congress must be supreme in the federal district, no one had equated sacrifice of state power with cancellation of political rights of citizens of the future federal territory. On the contrary, Americans of the 1780's had taken for granted that permanent residents, like citizens of any state, would ‘enjoy the privilege of trial by jury and of being governed by laws made by representatives of their own election.' (Papers Continental Congress), Madison, to be sure had recognized the puzzling character of the problem in a country where all political machinery operated through state organizations and only citizenship in a state enabled a man to vote in national elections. In 1783 the Virginian had noted. that "The power of Government within the said district (should be) concerted between Congress and the inhabitants thereof.'" (P. 11.)

In 1787, Madison wrote, in the 43rd number of the Federalist, that each state ceding territory to the federal government would no doubt provide for the rights and the consent of its citizens in the territory, and the citizens would find sufficient inducements to become willing parties "as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; (and) as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them." (See Our National Capital and its Un-Americanized Americans by Theodore W. Noyes, page 56.)

The Act of Congress of July 16, 1790 accepting the ceded territory stated that the operation of the laws of the states providing the territory would not be affected until the national government moved there and "Congress shall otherwise by law provide." Consequently local citizens continued to vote in state and national elections, at least through 1800.

In May 1800 the governments records were moved to the District and on November 21, Congress opened its first session at the new Capitol. In December debate broke out on the form of government for the new District, and the extent of the local franchise. Congress has passed various acts for the local government since then and that debate continues today.

It was generally admitted that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was necessary to permit District citizens to vote for President and to elect senators and representatives. The key to the discussion on the amendment was perhaps stated in the House of Representatives by Representative Dennis who said in December of 1800:

"If it should be necessary, the Constitution might be so altered as to give them a delegate to the general legislature when their numbers should become sufficient." Congressman Dennis was probably right. At that time, the District did not have sufficient population to merit a representative. There were then only 501 "heads of households" in Washington City. The District itself had a total population of 14.093, consisting of 10,266 white, 783 free Negro and 3.244 slaves.

However, Washington City and the District grew rapidly, despite many vicissitudes. By 1880 District population reached 177,638. The number of persons to be represented at that time by each Representative was 152,000. The District already had more people than Nevada (62,265) Delaware (146,654), and Oregon (174,767) and more than Montana, Washington and New Mexico which were recommended for admission during that decade. If it had been a normal territory, it would have been entitled to become a state at that time.

It is clear that by the criterion of population, the District of Columbia has merited representation in Congress since at least 1880. The intentions and promises of our founders are thus at least 87 years over-due in their fulfillment. Permit me to mention one additional incident--an ironical one. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provided the Representatives and direct taxes “shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers." Under this provision the District was considered a state and paid its proportion of the direct taxes as long as the provision was in effect. The last payment was in 1861 in the amount of $50,000. Of course, however, the District was not considered a state for the purposes of representation in Congress. No representatives were apportioned; only taxes.

ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISTRICT

The citizens of our great nation, living throughout the 50 states are proud of our capital city and aware of its great buildings, wide avenues, extensive

parks and the importance of the decisions made in its government halls. It is important that they realize also that the hundreds of thousands of people living here have built a community of size and economic significance which should no longer be denied the right to participate in our government.

The 1960 census credits the District of Columbia with a population of 763,976 people. We have grown rapidly since then and the U.S. Census Bureau now estimates a population of SO8,000 as of July 1, 1966. The District population is larger than that of 11 states. It is the 9th largest city in the nation. The comparative statistics are:

Furthermore, District residents are fairly well off, financially. In fact, they have a higher average individual income than all the states. Including all kinds of personal income, such as wages, proprietal profits, dividends, interest, rents, etc., D.C. inhabitants averaged $3,708 in the year 1965. Connecticut was next with a $3,401 average and Delaware next with $3,392.00. The total individual income for District residents was thus $2,832,823,008.00.

High income naturally produces high income taxes, assessed and appropriated by the U.S. Congress. The Internal Revenue Bureau reports that in 1964 District residents filed 308,000 returns, showing a total gross income (after deductions) of $1,900,000,000, on which income taxes of $300,000,000 were paid.

Corporation taxes would be in addition but are not available on a D.C. basis. Surely the payers of taxes in such large amounts are entitled to representation in the Government which collects and spends them. Otherwise the efforts of our founding fathers will have been in vain.

Other economic statistics will be of interest. In March 1966 our three daily newspapers had an average weekday circulation of 986,842, or over 1 newspaper per person. We had a total of 757,426 telephones in January 1966, making us the 7th city in this respect. In 1965 our post office receipts totaled $51,057,860 putting us in 8th place among the nation's cities.

On December 31, 1965, District banks had $2,280,630,000 in deposits, which exceeded the bank deposits in 21 of the states. Our banks then had $553,376,000 invested in U.S. Government securities and $1,369,131,000 in loans. Also in 1965, our residents registered 236,070 automobiles, buses and trucks with the D.C. Government. Our public schools enrolled 92,665 pupils in our elementary schools and 51,351 pupils at the secondary school level.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that statistics can be dull and misleading but surely these statistics show at least that the District of Columbia has grown and matured in the economic or business sense; that we have arrived. We have come of age and by that, I mean of voting age.

IMPORTANCE TO D.C. GOVERNMENT

The growth of the District in population and private businesses indicates the concern of its residents with all the national issues pertaining to the general welfare, such as taxation, the economy, social security, health, aid to education, civil rights, anti-poverty programs, foreign affairs, international trade and tariffs and more recently-urban development, mass transit and other city programs. This is the same interest that all the states and cities have in Congressional legislation.

The District has an additional interest because Congress is its city council, with the power of "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever." This responsibility

will continue, regardless of whether Congress establishes a local mayor-council government or other form of home rule.

When the city was small, as with its 501 heads of households in 1800, the government was small and the local issues simple. Contact between Congress and the town was rather easy. But as the city and the District have grown, so has its government. And the issues have grown more intricate and complicated. Contact and keeping informed are now mountainous tasks.

The District Commissioner now supervises 15 major operating departments and 15 "offices," such as Urban Renewal Office, Minimum Wage Board and Parole. In addition there are 25 independent agencies in the District Government, some of which are very important, such as the Boards of Education, Recreation and Library Trustees, the D.C. Courts and the Housing Agency, and the United Planning Organization. Other programs such as urban renewal, community renewal and model city are still incipient, requiring more than the usual thought and supervision. All of these units, programs and problems are the responsibility of the Congress.

The District's budget was $414.6 million last year, with $527.2 million requested by the President for this year. Most of this money comes from D.C. taxes paid by D.C. residents but Congress has to decide whether we can spend our own money for these purposes. It is difficult for most congressmen to know, for example, when and where a new Shaw Junior High School should be built, whether we need 400 new teachers, 50 more walkie-talkies and 66 more cruisers for the policemen, a new Receiving Home for delinquent children, an expanded Recreation Department and a center leg for the freeway system. Improved communication between the District and the Congress is essential. The District Commissioner needs at least one or two full-time liaison representatives working on the Hill to help the Representatives and Senators keep informed on District developments. Time now spent in this coordinating task detracts from his executive responsibilities.

Most congressmen don't have time to attend the many citizens meetings held in the city, such as the political assemblies, neighborhood associations, parent-teacher meetings, protest rallies, seminars of special interest associations and hundreds of related groups. They are thus unable to get people's opinions and facts directly. Instead congressmen have to rely on testimony of appointed agents from government and witnesses appearing for private organizations or for themselves individually. But none of these people can tell what the people want, because they don't know.

In a discussion last year with a congressman on a local issue, the Representative remarked to me: "If the people of the District can't get together and decide what they want, they'll get nothing. Congress doesn't have the time to decide their disputes." I replied: "There is no way for the people to decide because there is no method of voting, either in a referendum or for candidates running on issues. Without elections, there is no alternative to everyone coming up to the Hill with their various points of view and letting Congress select what it thinks is best."

District residents suffer from considerable frustration and anger over their inability to communicate with Congress. A citizen with a "good idea" finds he has to lobby members of the subcommittees and full committees on the District in the House and Senate, and then the subcommittees and full committees on appropriations in the House and Senate, and possibly conference committees and the White House, to get his idea considered and adopted. The average person does not have this much time. He thus feels the doors are closed against him by the gentle process of buck-passing and "due consideration" and he is sore about it-more so than you realize.

Congressmen elected from the District would help the District Government and the District citizens maintain a better liaison with the Congress, know the desires of the citizenry and relieve much of the existing frustraton. They would help the Congress in its work in many ways. I suspect, for example, that congressmen could communicate more easily with one of their number, stationed here on the Hill, and responsible to his own electorate, with the same basic worries and problems as other members, than with some appointed or selfappointed agent appearing before them.

SUMMARY

In summary, we urge you to support this proposition for elected congressmen from the District because it was intended by our founding fathers, is basic to our American democratic principles, is merited by the size and significance of

the Washington community and is urgently needed to provide a better liaison between Congress and the capital city.

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE VERSION

In giving this testimony, I am aware of the Resolution reported by the House Judiciary Committee on October 24, which woud give us two senators and, in effect, two representatives. Perhaps I should comment on that.

We believe that we are entitled to the two senators and two representatives, on the basis of our population and our equivalence to a state and we are grateful to the House Committee for recognizing the basic justice of our claim. We hope that this subcommittee and the entire Senate will also recognize it.

However, there may be some hesitancy in the Senate and in the states in giving us our entire due at this time. We are faced with a question of political feasibility. What may be right and ultimately attainable may not be attainable

now.

If this committee believes that there is a significant chance of the Senate approving a Resolution for two senators and two representatives by a two-thirds majority and of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states ratifying it, then we strongly urge you to recommend it. However, if you believe the Senate and the states would not so approve, then we urge you to recommend S.J. Res. 80. Politics is defined as "the art of the possible." You know the attitudes of your associates and of the states which elect you. We trust your judgment in giving us all the representation that is possible.

I thank you for your time and attention.

Mr. DUDLEY. If I may, Senator, I would like to first point out that the Democratic party as well as the Republican party are in strong support of the Joint Resolution No. 80 introduced by yourself and Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Scott, and Tydings.

In my statement I have gone considerably into the historical background as to the reason why the District of Columbia does not have any Congressmen or Senators. I pointed out here that this is not because the framers of the Constitution had any distrust of the people in the District or felt that the District should not have residence.

The reason we were not given the right to elect Congressmen historically was based on the competition between the States. No State wanted any other State to get ahead of it, and in this strong competition and jealousy between the States many of the States felt if another State had the right to elect Congressmen and Senators that State being the closest would have too great an influence over the Congress to the detriment of the other States. This is ancient history, but that is the historical reason.

I point out in the year of 1800 in December, the Congress first debated this issue, and at that time Congressman Dennis gave what I think is a significant quote. He said:

"If it should be necessary, the Constitution might be so altered as to give them," the people in the District, "a delegate to the general legislature when their numbers should become sufficient." And at that time the District had a population of only 14,000 people of whom 3,244 were slaves.

We, therefore, did not have very many people at that time.

By the year 1880, the District had achieved a population sufficient to enable it to be admitted as a State if they were going to be admitted as a State in terms of the standards that had been adopted by the Congress.

I develop also, Senator Bayh, considerable information about the growth of the District, the growth of the District in terms of population, but also the growth of the District as an economic center, the