« ПретходнаНастави »
Mr. MUÑOZ MARÍN. I would say, Mr. Chairman, as a citizen of the United States and speaking as such, that there is an opportunity to give every citizen of the United States, wherever he or she may live, provided they are not living in a foreign country, the right to participate in the election of the President of the United States and the Vice President.
So far as delegates in Congress are concerned, I would say that those delegates should have full voting rights, in my opinion, if they represent a community of American citizens that pay Federal taxes fully, and they should not have the right to vote on taxes if they represent a community of American citizens, such as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, that does not pay taxes into the Federal Treasury.
Mr. ROGERS. In that regard, Governor, you have a certain provision now in your Commonwealth which permits you to make certain concessions as relate to taxes; do you not?
Mr. MUÑOZ MARÍN. We have fiscal autonomy-meaning we can pass laws regarding local taxes with complete freedom.
Mr. ROGERS. Don't you also enjoy a certain privilege in relation to the income taxes?
Mr. MUÑOZ MARÍN. We pay-basically speaking, we pay no income taxes into the Federal Treasury. We just exercise our right over local taxation. In exercising our power of local taxation, we decide to exempt certain industries for a number of years in order to stimulate as we have been stimulating very rapidly-the industrial growth of the Commonwealth.
Mr. ROGERS. Would this immunity from the so-called Federal income tax vanish if you were permitted to vote for President? Mr. MUÑOZ MARÍN. Certainly not. That is precisely what I am trying to
Mr. HOLTZMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
I think the Governor has said that with respect to these taxes he would want his Commissioner or his representative precluded from participating in such a vote so that there would be no conflict. Is that so?
Mr. Muñoz MARÍN. It would be fair that the delegates from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the Congress do not vote on taxation, since their constituents are not called upon to pay such taxes.
On the other hand, it would be fair for the delegates from the District of Columbia to vote on taxation, too.
The CHAIRMAN. Governor, I want to make this comment, and I will be very frank with you.
According to your theory, all citizens should have the right to vote for presidential electors. That means citizens on the Samoa Island territory, the island of Guam, a territory, the island of Puerto Rico, a Commonwealth, Virgin Islands and Wake Island, would all have the right to vote in presidential elections. I assure you, if we put anything at all in this bill, the bill will never get off the ground and will die aborning.
We have to approach these matters piecemeal. It is unfortunte, but if we want any action we cannot consider your proposition. I express that right at the outset. I deeply sympathize with what you are saying, and perhaps we can get to your proposition a little later on.
Mr. MUÑOZ MARÍN. I am just expressing my support of the principle involved in this matter. I think that American citizens in Guam should have the right to vote for President. The American citizens. of the Virgin Islands should have the right to vote for President. However, I realize
The CHAIRMAN. You appreciate that gives rise to all kinds of complexities and difficulties.
Mr. MUÑOZ MARÍN. I wouldn't propose, at this time, that the present legislation before your committee be amended to include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or others, because I know it would just introduce a new element at this date and endanger its approval. Since you so kindly invited me with my general interest in this problem, since you so kindly invited me to express myself here, I have been very happy and grateful for the opportunity of saying that this would solve one of the unsolved problems in the U.S. Federal system: the problem of having some American citizens precluded from voting for President of the United States.
You see, the principle of no taxation without representation is not involved, since the President of the United States does not impose
The CHAIRMAN. Let that be our goal. We don't have to approach it immediately and all at once.
Thank you very much, Governor.
Mr. Muñoz MARÍN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Our next witness is our distinguished Representative from the State of Virginia, Mr. Joel T. Broyhill.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, in compliance with your request, and in deference to the many outstanding citizens of our Nation's Capital who are here and who want to testify on this legislation which is so vital to them, I will file my statement for the record and make just a few brief comments concerning the legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. You may have that privilege.
(The statement follows:)
STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOEL T. BROYHILL OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to state that I am fully in accord with the principles incorporated in House Joint Resolution 529, of which you are the author. I have long believed in and consistently supported the right of the citizens of the District of Columbia to have the same right and privilege of voting for the Chief Executive of this Nation as citizens in other parts of the country have. If anything, I would go a little further than the provisions of this bill, and I would like respectfully to suggest your consideration of a modification that would be important to the citizens of the District, and I believe also to the longterm settlement of the problem.
By the terms of House Joint Resolution 529, the District would be given an electoral vote equivalent to what it would receive for its Representatives in the House if it were a State. This, of course, would still leave the District with comparably less representation than a State of similar population, and accordingly leaves the question only partially solved.
I believe, if the District is entitled to representation in the election of the President and Vice President at all, this representation should be on the same basis as for a State of equivalent population. The apportionment should include electors equal to "the whole number of Senators and Representatives" to which the District would be entitled as a State. To provide less would be to leave the question only partially settled, and the citizens of the District would continue to consider themselves only partially enfranchised citizens.
Frankly, I would be more than willing, since we are talking about a constitutional amendment, to go the whole way and provide for full representation in both Houses of Congress. However, in order not to becloud the issue, I will content myself at this time to urge your consideration merely for full representation for the District in the presidential elections.
As you undoubtedly know, I introduced House Joint Resolution 151 during the first session of this Congress in which the suggestion I have just made is stated. In simplest terms, this resolution states: "The people of the District constituting the seat of the Government shall elect a number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in the Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State." Although there is other language in the resolution, most of it is substantially the same as the equivalent clauses in House Joint Resolution 529. Both House Joint Resolution 151 and House Joint Resolution 529 are based upon an assumption of what congressional representation the District would have if it were a State. Thus, there is no difference in the principle underlying each. Certainly, if it is accepted that electoral college representation can be based upon such an assumption for part of the congressional representation to which the District would be entitled as a State, it is at least equally logical to base it upon the entire representation to which it would be so entitled.
Although the question of home rule for the District is not directly involved in this hearing, it has always been most difficult to separate the two in any discussion. Those who support the right of District citizens to vote for President, or to have representation in Congress, but at the same time to oppose home rule, are frequently charged with inconsistency. Since I am one of these, I would like to take this opportunity to state that I do not believe my stand is inconsistent, but rather is the only really consistent stand for one very good
Washington, D.C. is a very special city and quite unlike any other city in the Nation in the eyes of Americans and foreigners alike. Other cities are thought of as belonging to those who live in them, or as belonging to the State in which they lie; Washington is thought of as belonging to every citizen in the entire Nation. It does not logically follow from this special position of Washington that a citizen living in the city should cease to be a citizen of the United States, but it does seriously affect his right to do with the city of Washington whatever he wants to do.
As a citizen of the Nation, he is entitled to vote for President and Vice President, and to have representation in Congress. Therefore, I support legislation that would give him these rights. But the fact that a citizen lives in the Nation's Capital should no more give him special privileges with respect to that Capital and its government than it should deprive him of the right to vote for President or to be represented in Congress.
If the Federal City were to be governed by the people living within its boundaries, it would be only natural that they would operate the city in a way most beneficial to themselves irrespective of the interests of the 180 millions of others who also have an interest in their Nation's Capital. It would be just as human for them to do so as it is for people living along the seashore or near other tourist sites to make the most of the natural attraction for their own use. But we can't have this sort of thing for our National Capital.
I could give many other reasons why I oppose home rule for the people of the District, but favor the extension to them of the right to vote for President and to be represented in Congress. Most of these have been repeated time and time again by myself and others, and including before this committee. But I think the one overriding argument that I have given above is enough in itself to justify my opposition to home rule.
However, Mr. Chairman, may I once again respectfully urge that serious consideration be given to giving the District residents full citizenship with respect to voting for the President and Vice President of the United States.
In the hopes that this committee will consider substituting the wording of House Joint Resolution 151 instead of the wording of House Joint Resolution 529, I am attaching a copy explaining the provisions contained in it, and of how it would operate.
EXPLANATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR PARTICIPATION BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides that each "State shall appoint a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress * * *." The 12th amendment to the Constitution prescribes how these electors shall vote for President and Vice President.
The amendment proposed by the Broyhill resolution provides that the people of the District of Columbia shall elect a number of electors "equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in the Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State." These electors would be in addition to those now "appointed" (actually, of course, they are all elected, but the Constitution provides that they shall be "appointed" in such manner as the State legislature may direct) by the States; each State would be entitled to the same number of electors after the adoption of the amendment as it was entitled to before its adoption.
The amendment would entitle the District of Columbia to a number of electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives it would have if it were a State. Under the 17th amendment, each State is entitled to two Senators; under section 2 of article I of the Constitution, each State is entitled to at least one Representative. Therefore, the District would be entitled under the proposed amendment to at least three electors. Whether it would be entitled to more at any particular time would depend on three factors: (1) the constitutional provision mentioned in the next paragraph, (2) laws enacted by Congress to supplement those provisions, and (3) the population of the District.
Article I, section 2 of the Constitution (along with the 14th amendment) provides that Representatives shall be apportioned among the States according to population, as determined by a census taken every 10 years. The Congress has provided by statute (2 U.S.C., sec. 2a) that the number of Representatives shall be fixed at 435, and that the 435 seats shall be apportioned among the States by "the method known as the method of equal proportions, no State to receive less thon one Member". To determine the number of Representatives the District of Columbia would have today if it were a State, it would be necnessary to make a fictitious reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives for all the States, considering the District of Columbia as the 51st State, on the basis of the 1950 census, using the "method of equal proportions". Presumably, this would result in two seats for the District, so the District would be entitled to four electors (two Senators plus two Representatives). It should be emphasized that this reapportionment of seats would be for the sole purpose of determining the number of electors the District would be entitled to; of course, the District would not actually have two seats in the House, and no change would actually be made in the number of Representatives or electors any State would have.
The amendment provides that electors chosen by the District of Columbia "shall be considered, for the purposes of all provisions of the Constitution relating to the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State". This would apply to the District electors such provisions as the fourth paragraph of section 1 of article II of the Constitution ("The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States") and the 12th amendment ("The Electors shall meet in their respective states-in this case, in the District of Columbia-and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves-in this case, the District of Columbia-* **" and so on, down through the requirement that the person elected as President or Vice President must have a majority of "the whole number of Electors appointed— including, of course, those elected by the District of Columbia- * **"). It should be noted that the amendment provides for representation for the District of Columbia in the electoral college, but not in the House of Representa
tives. The 12th amendment provides that if no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast in the electoral college, the President shall be elected by the House of Representatives. Since the District would not be represented in the House, it could not participate in any such election, if one ever should occur.
Section 2 of the proposed amendment provides that Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary to carry out the amendment, including laws fixing the qualifications of the District electors, "which shall be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution relating to electors appointed by the States." The quoted language would disqualify any Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, because under section 1 of article II of the Constitution no such person may be appointed as an elector by a State.
Mr. BROYHILL. In adding a few words to this statement, I will try, Mr. Chairman, not to be repetitious of the wonderful statements made by my colleague from New York.
My primary purpose in appearing here this morning is to express my strong support of the principles outlined in House Joint Resolution 529, which has been introduced by the chairman.
This is not controversial legislation, Mr. Chairman; it is good legislation. And as Senator Keating stated, it should have been passed long ago.
I have not talked to one single colleague-and, Mr. Chairman, I have talked to many colleagues about this proposal because I have been interested in it for many years but not one colleague has stated that he would vote against a constitutional amendment to provide a vote in presidential elections for the citizens of the District of Columbia.
I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, during the past years there has been some confusion concerning this proposal and I hesitate to allude to the subject of home rule due to the admonishment of the chairman, but there is a lot of confusion, a lot of disagreement about that subject.
The question of the constitutionality of home rule, the intent of our forefathers, the national interest, is involved in the home rule question, but such is not the case in House Joint Resolution 529. First of all, there is no question of the constitutionality of the proposal because we are taking the constitutional processes to amend the Constitution. Not even the Supreme Court could misinterpret the intention of Congress in this respect. And certainly it would not involve a conflict of Federal or national interest.
It would not infringe upon the rights of other American citizens or lessen the rights of other American citizens. And, as has been pointed out here by previous witnesses, both of our great national parties have recognized the inherent basic American rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia to vote in presidential elections. They have for a number of years granted them a full vote to their national conventions at which we nominated our candidates for the President of the United States.
I do have a couple of brief comments, Mr. Chairman, to make concerning House Joint Resolution 529, though they are in no way intended as a criticism of the proposal; I support it. But I consider it may not be a full loaf. If it comes to the floor, it will certainly have my support. But I believe, since we are going through the long and painful processes of a constitutional amendment, we should try