Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee is to be commended for conducting these hearings. I believe that they are a necessary prelude to submitting this constitutional amendment to the Senate, and I hope to the people of the United States.

I weigh my words: I believe that given the opportunity Members of the Congress and the people of the States will overwhelmingly approve the substance of the legislation now being considered, sponsored by Senators Case, Beall, and Keating. It is a privilege to join them, and others, in this crusade for citizenship.

I am grateful, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy and consideration. Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Senator Randolph, for a very splendid statement, delivered with such great sincerity and conviction.

I wish that every Member of the Senate and the House could have heard your statement. I am sure many of them will read it.

Senator Randolph, just two questions, if I may:

You have noted that in the Soviet Union the people in Moscow can vote, even though it may not be a real election as we think of it; they have a chance to vote for only one party or one slate.

But I have heard it said frequently, and I am sure you would know whether this is true or not, that the District of Columbia is the only capital city in the world where people cannot have some kind of vote for their President or Prime Minister, or whoever is going to be head of their country. Is that true?

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, that is an exact statement of fact.

Senator KEFAUVER. And the other thing is that some Members of Congress often express or seem to have the idea that most of the people here actually came from some other State, and they may have their residences back in Tennessee or West Virginia; that they vote for President, Vice President, electors, back there.

Is it not true that as of now the great majority of the people in the District have no residences where they can vote in some other State? Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, 50 years ago, even 25 years ago, the presence of a large segment of population within the District of Columbia, who had been born here, was not a truism. But today it is not difficult to talk with literally hundreds of persons, if you were to spend a week in doing so, who were born within the District of Columbia. They possess no validity to claim citizenship within any State, and yet these folks, who are tradespeople, who are employees of the political subdivisions of the Government, including the Federal structure, are without the vote for the President and the Vice President of the United States.

I hope that I am not too strong in my language when I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this condition is a shadow upon the shield of citizenship in this country, and that shadow should be removed. It is a black blot and must be cleaned away.

I commend those who through the years have fought this good fight I would not want to designate one individual and forgo mention of another-but because of my personal friendship for Ben McKelway, the editor of the Washington Evening and Sunday Star, I would want my remarks to include the feeling that in his continued

battle for this program we have had a well-informed discussion of the matter over and over again through the columns of that newspaper. Again I say, Mr. Chairman, that the arguments which were once supposed to be effective, that they have no strength in fact today against such a sound and necessary resolution as is here being considered.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Randolph, I certainly join with you in paying high tribute to Mr. McKelway. Attached to Senator Langer's statement is an editorial from the Evening Star of September 4 entitled "A Golden Opportunity." There is another outstanding editorial of September 7, referring to "The Voting Amendment," which I will direct be put into the record at this point.

(The editorials referred to are as follows:)

[From the Evening Star, Sept. 7, 1959]

THE VOTING AMENDMENT

Generally speaking, there have been two forms of constitutional amendment designed to permit residents of Washington to vote for President, Vice President, and representatives in Congress.

One form is an enabling amendment, merely conferring on Congress the power to prescribe by legislation the degree of representation the District is to have in the electoral college and in Congress.

An example of the other form is the pending Senate Joint Resolution 138, on which Senator Kefauver has announced hearings for Wednesday. Introduced by Senator Keating, of New York, it is a combination of amendments proposed by him, by Senator Case of South Dakota, and Senator Beall, of Maryland. It allows three delegates in the House of Representatives, with such powers (voting or voteless) as Congress may define by legislation, and gives to the District the number of electors for President and Vice President to which the District would be entitled were it a State.

We have always thought the enabling form of amendment the wiser approach, for it permits changes in the degree of representation that experience and population growth might suggest. It has been argued, moreover, that what might seem adequate representation in Congress today, could very well become wholly inadequate in the future and reasonable flexibility is desirable.

But if Congress prefers to spell out the degree of representation in a constitutional amendment, surely the amendment should provide for three delegates in Congress, with such powers as Congress may define, rather than three delegates in the House of Representatives, thus closing the door, without further amendment, to any future representation in the Senate.

We would enthusiastically support any form of amendment that can muster the support of two-thirds of House and Senate and three-fourths of the States and permit residents of Washington to vote for President and Vice President and representatives in Congress. But we hope the amendment will not foreclose the prospect that the District may one day be represented in the Senate, as well as the House. Hawaii and Alaska, with a combined population less than that of the District, are now represented in the Senate by four Senators; in the House by two Representatives, whose number will increase with the population. If by constitutional amendment the District would be entitled to three delegates, with powers later to be defined by Congress, surely the division of these three delegates as between House and Senate should also be left to Congress. Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Fensterwald, any questions?

Mr. FENSTERWALD. I have none.

Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Chumbris?

Mr. CHUMBRIS. I have just one.

Senator Randolph, in your statement you referred to 1945 that it would include delegations of the Senate as well as to the House, and Mr. McKelway in a recent editorial stated that we should go one step further and include the Senate.

How do you feel about that at this time?

Senator RANDOLPH. I believe that if we are to have representation, as I hope we shall in one body of the Congress, that it is appropriate to have it in the other body. Both important legislative forums, and I can see no real reason why we should stop short of a full accomplishment of this necessary machinery.

I don't mean that I couldn't modify that thinking, but I know of no compelling reason why we should not move forward with complete representation within the two bodies of our legislative system. Mr. CHUMBRIS. Thank you, Senator.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much for coming and giving us your views, Senator Randolph.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Keating, we will be glad to hear from you at this time.

Senator KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Keating has long been interested in the affairs of the District both as a member of the House and as a member of the Senate. He is one of the best friends that the District has today.

There were three resolutions before the subcommittee, one by Senator Francis Case, one by Senator Glenn Beall, and one by Senator Kenneth Keating. I suggested to the three that, in order to save the subcommittee from the difficulty and possible embarrassment of choosing between the efforts of the three distinguished Senators, they should attempt to consolidate their efforts. That has been done, and Senator Keating has introduced the resolution we have before us now on the behalf of all three.

Senator KEATING. I want to express my deep appreciation to the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee for the fine manner in which he has treated all of us who were sponsors of these resolutions, and for the very great promptness with which he scheduled these hearings.

Before I proceed with my prepared statement, in answer to the inquiry about other capitals, I suppose it would be pretty hard to find anyone that could vote today in Havana, Cuba, or in Ciudad Trujillo, or perhaps in Peking; but that is not to in any way take issue with the statements that have been made, because certainly we would very much dislike to have the city of Washington placed in such a category as that.

Senator KEFAUVER. We are supposed to be the example of what others should do.

Senator KEATING. That is it, exactly. And in all of the free countries in all of the nations that have a democratic form of government, I believe this city is the only one in which the right to vote does not exist.

The chairman of the subcommittee will recall that I took another opportunity to discuss this important subject during the subcommittee's consideration of the antipoll tax amendment (S. J. Res. 126, 86th Cong.), as to which also the chairman was so prompt and vigorous in holding hearings and in promptly reporting out a proposed constitutional amendment.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes, Senator Keating. I recall very well that you and others testified on these resolutions during the hearings on the antipoll tax amendment, at which time they were all up for consideration; but the subcommittee subsequently decided that further hearings should be held on this specific subject, so they have now been divided. But the hearing, that part of the hearing that you refer to will be made a part of this record so they will all be together. (See app. A for testimony given during hearings on S.J. Res. 126).

Senator KEATING. I appreciate that, and I think that the decision of the chairman was a wise one, and I am also grateful to my distinguished colleagues, Senators Case and Beall, with whom I conferred following the chairman's suggestion; and they, as the chairman said, authorized me to introduce this new measure, which has some slight changes from the previous one, with their cosponsorship.

This joint approach enables us to concentrate on the real substance of the problem involved, and to dispense with any disputes over minor differences in language or objectives. We are united in our main purpose which is to bestow democracy upon the citizens of this country who happen to reside in the District of Columbia by allowing them to exercise the sacred privilege of the franchise. This should be the sovereign right of all Americans, regardless of where they reside in this great land.

I do not believe it is necessary to speak at length on this subject, since it has been discussed many times before congressional committees and in other forums.

Moreover, I know that you, Mr. Chairman, have already stated your sympathetic attitude to the objectives sought by this legislation.

It does not take any great forensic ability to convince any fellowAmerican that the denial of the right to vote to one of our citizens is a shameful and undemocratic practice.

There are a greater number of people in the District of Columbia than in 15 States. We are dealing here with a problem which directly affects more than half a million otherwise eligible voters. These people pay Federal taxes, they serve in our Armed Forces, they share all the obligations of other citizens, but they are denied what is perhaps the chief privilege of a citizen-the right to vote.

More than 100,000 men and women from the District of Columbia served in the Armed Forces during World War II, a greater number than served from 16 States. Of this number, more than 3,000 sacrificed their lives in this country's battles.

Can anyone argue that the Americans whom these men and women counted as their neighbors should be denied the right to participate in the selection of their national representatives?

My only substantial question about this resolution is whether it goes far enough. It has been suggested by some that the District should be entitled to representation in the Senate as well as the House, just as is every State in the Union.

I am personally very sympathetic to this suggestion. We have tried, however, in reconciling the different constitutional amendments which have been proposed, to be practical in our approach.

There are, as the chairman knows, some difficulties in getting any legislation of this kind through both Houses of Congress by a twothirds vote, and I should very much regret to see it loaded with

amendments which would militate against the probability of getting it through.

I believe that Senate Joint Resolution 138, in its present form, has the greatest likelihood of winning the approval of the necessary twothirds of the House and Senate, and three-fourths of the States.

There is no doubt that such approval would be much more difficult to obtain if representation in the Senate were provided. There are many members of this body, for example, who have no objection to the District being represented in the House of Representatives, but who would have serious question about further enlarging the size of the Senate,

However, if the subcommittee, in its wisdom, believes that it would be preferable to provide for representation in the Senate as well as the House, I, for one, certainly would support its action.

Mr. Chairman, the antipoll tax amendment is now pending on the agenda of the subcommittee after the very prompt action of your committee, Mr. Chairman, in reporting it favorably.

As I indicated when I was last before the subcommittee. I believe that these two proposals are related, since they both deal with the removal of wholly unreasonable impediments to the exercise of voting rights. We cannot justify the denial of the right of a citizen to vote because of his residence in the District of Columbia any more than we can justify the denial of the right to vote because a citizen has failed to pay a fee, in the form of a poll tax or other charge. Both conditions are entirely inconsistent with our democratic system and both deserve prompt extermination.

I know that we are in the late stages of the session. However, I am confident that the subcommittee already has given this matter considerable study, and I would hope that, on the basis of the testimony which you hear this afternoon, it may be possible to make a report on this amendment to the full committee in time for consideration at its next meeting.

Such action would set the stage for a truly historic opportunity for the full committee to report simultaneously separate amendments removing these substantial bars to the enjoyment of the democratic heritage of our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the splendid cooperation which you have extended to those of us interested in this problem. I hope that the day is not too distant when the full benefits of democracy will be granted to our fellow Americans who live in the home of the greatest democracy in the world.

Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Senator Keating. Thank you for your leadership in this effort.

Mr. Fensterwald, any questions?

Mr. FENSTERWALD. Senator Keating, do you think there is merit in the alternate suggestion that, in lieu of three Delegates, having Representatives in the House according to our regular apportionment?

Senator KEATING. In having the number depend upon normal apportionment?

Mr. FENSTERWALD. Yes, sir, but regular Representatives with the same rights, including voting rights, as other Representatives in the House?