where they might get treatment. That was true for many years because there was no successful treatment at all.

Those who did have the disease and did get treatment lived in a: world unto themselves, recognizing that there was no hope.

Now, let us contrast that with people in the District of Columbia.. Everybody in the District of Columbia who is a resident has a disease which I should call for the purpose of this discussion desuffragitis.. None of us have the privilege of the ballot; many of us do not want it, because our senses have atrophied over a period of generations. I know that the chairman of this committee has commented on it many times, and he has wondered why this great public apathy exists. Well, I say that the victims of Hansenitis have that same apathy. There are people who are perhaps in a condition where they could be discharged in Carville, who were not willing to face the world. Up until now there has been no specific for this disease in the District of Columbia. Those of us who suffer from it are nerve-conscious; we do not like to discuss the vote with people who have it, because we lack it and it is embarrassing to us.

As a mater of fact, for a great many years it was not even considered decent to discuss the lack of suffrage in Washington. Those of us, like Wilbur Finch and Culver Chamberlain, like myself, who were crying out 15 years ago for suffrage, were told it just was not decent; we were not intended to have the vote here, and it was not a polite subject for discussion, even as the discussion of syphilis or venereal disease or Hansenitis were subjects which nobody discussed, and, God forbid that any person who suffered from the disease would' come before the Senate committee, as we come before you; and we came before you, some months ago—I think you will remember that occasion.

Now then, these people—not all of them—are in that same condition of atrophy as those who are victims of Hansenitis. Many of us, and most of us, want a cure.

Now, there are two kinds of cures: One, we could revolt; we could have a tax strike in Washington and, I think, we could get a great deal of support for it; in short, we could raise a lot of hell-to excuse the expression-and I believe with some success, just as the Hindus did it, just as the Irish did it, and many other people who declared. that they would not cooperate with the government until they had an opportunity to participate in that government. We Washingtonians, however, are not that kind of people. We have felt that rationalization, clear logic, fair treatment, the fact that we have a Constitution that guarantees certain rights and liberties to our people, that eventually, whether it be by osmosis or what, it would get down into the grass roots of the people nationally.

It would get down into the grass roots of the people nationally, and reach those Members of Congress who have it within their power to grant to us at least a partial cure of this disease.

We recognize, Mr. Chairman, that a full cure requires a constitutional amendment, with national representation, and will require the concurrence of the States to grant us that right; but to arrest the disease lies solely with Congress.

Now, one branch of Congress, the Senate, only last year indicated its desire to alleviate this disease in the District of Columbia. I might say that one of the most striking aspects of it is the blindness, the blindness that has hit so many of our citizens who will come before you, and have come before you, and stated they did not want this, and they would talk about something off in the distance; they would talk about national representation, recognizing the greater difficulties that lie in that direction, to get it, and the longer term that it will require to get that cure and, at the same time, recognizing that that in itself does not solve the local problem, and will not alleviate the disease or that aspect of it that is local in character.

It is a blindness that is exactly the same as that had by the Hansenites those people are totally blind; they cannot see what is going on around them.

Those who come before you and say, "We don't want suffrage; we don't need it, this is the seat of the National Government. Congress alone should legislate for the District of Columbia," are wholly blind to the realities of the situation; that this alone is the only place in the world where such conditions exist. They are completely oblivious of the fact that every place else in the world that the United States has touched its hand upon, it is requiring people, whether they want to or not, to be cured of the disease, just as the Hansenite is required by Government law to be cured, whether he wants it or not, and if you find. a victim of Hansen's disease any place in the United States, he is picked up and taken to Carville. He must be treated, because we say it is best for everybody.

Now, we have recognized in this country that people should live under a democracy, they should have the right to vote, and they should exercise it; and we have done everything within our power to get people elsewhere to vote, and when we have gone into Japan, as a conquering Nation, and when we went into West Germany and all the other places in the outposts of the world, we have spent tens of millions of dollars to bring this into being; with money taken, in part, from these very people in the District of Columbia who are denied that right, even though it would be the simplest and easiest thing in the world for this very same Congress that has appropriated that money and required people who have no allegiance to this Government whatever to comply with a theory of democracy that we all

espouse.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that, in short, is my analysis of what we face in the District of Columbia, and how it can be cured.

I do not know why it has taken so long for us to get so gracious a reception as we today get at the hands of this particular committee. I say to you very frankly that that has been one of the appalling things to those of us like myself who have lived here so long without a vote. We have not had the proper atmosphere, and that, too, has helped to atrophy and annul the efforts on the part of so many of us who would like to see suffrage in Washington.

The very disappointments that have come to us after countless hearings and, believe me, on my shelf I have hearings that go back twenty-odd years-time after time, we have come before congressional committees, and just as it appeared that we might get relief from our

disease, the hearings have been shut off or no report has come out from the committee, or it has and it has just lain idle, and the dust has accumulated on the shelves; and I know that you have in the committee chamber here thousands and thousands of pages of testimony showing what the attitude of the people of the District of Columbia is. So, Mr. Chairman, on that point, I want to be in accord with my good friend Wilbur Finch with whom I have worked so many years in this movement, when he said to you yesterday that whether the people of the District of Columbia want it or not, it is your duty and your obligation to see to it that they get it.

I am confident, however, as I know you are, that the vast majority of the citizens of the District of Columbia want to be cured of this disease, and they come to you-their only means of representationand they urge you to do all that you can to see that proper drugs, which are comparable to the sulfa drugs that have been discovered by the great scientists of American and now are being used to arrest the horrible disease of Hansenitis at Carville, and being sent out all over the world to cure these people-we say we come to you, and we hope that you will apply those sulfa drugs in our case.

Now, Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I would like to say a few words about the bill before you. I do not say this by way or criticism, because, believe me and I say this emphatically-if the bill were adopted in its exact form I would be most happy; but no legislation is perfect, and those who prepare the legislation are not perfect, and I am duty-bound as your representative, as chairman of the Recreation Board, to tell you of the views that our Board holds with respect to section 904, which appears at page 53 of the bill in question, S. 656.

Our Recreation Board has acted in the past, and I would like to point out that I have testified twice and would like to incorporate at this time my testimony at page 339 of the hearings, the point hearings, before the Subcommittee on Home Rule and Keorganization of the Senate and House Committees on the District of Columbia in the Eightieth Congress; they were on S. 1968 and H. R. 4902, and I would like merely by reference that my comments on that bill, S. 1968, which was virtually identical with the bill now before us, S. 656, as well as my testimony before the Subcommittee on Home Rule and Reorganization of the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatievs, Eightieth Congress-those hearings were held from June 30 to July 25, 1947. My testimony at that time begins on page 374.

I shall not even attempt to repeat the long testimony, Mr. Chairman, which included a very comprehensive report prepared by the Recreation Board staff on the subject matter of the provision which is contained in the bill before us at page 53, section 904. I will just read that one short paragraph, Mr. Chairman, and give you a brief comment on it. It is entitled "Department of Recreation," and it goes as follows:

The Office of Superintendent of Recreation is hereby abolished, and the functions of such office and of the Recreation Board, are hereby transferred to the Director of the Department of Recreation. The offices of the two members of the Recreation Board representing, respectively, the Board of Commissioners

and the Board of Education are hereby abolished and in their place a member of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission who resides in the District (designated by the Chairman thereof) and a member of the Board of Education (designated by the President thereof) shall serve as members of such Board.

Now, then, Mr. Chairman, our Board, created by act of Congress, has been in existence for the past 9 years. I hold no brief for the existing Board or myself as chairman, because that is not at issue here at all.

Nevertheless, the creation of this Board came about as a result of a long investigation by the Congress, and of a special committee headed by Hon. Frederick Delano, at that time the uncle of President Roosevelt.

The committees, for years, investigated the trends and the most satisfactory means of dealing with recreation in all of the communities of the United States, and they concluded that for the District of Columbia, a board-a voluntary, independent board-was the best possible set-up under our District Commissioners, with representation of the Commissioners from the Board of Education, from the Park Service, which are the three agencies that furnish the facilities. The remaining four members of the seven total were to be appointed by the District Commissioners.

The Board operates in precisely the same fashion, with rules almost identical to that of the Board of Education. The survey which we presented, and that is included in the two hearings that I have presented to you here, clearly indicates that the trend nationally in virtually every precinct in the United States has been for the past 25 years to create independent recreation boards along with independent boards of education so that recreation would not fall by the wayside, as I said, and welfare of the communities.

I hold no brief for the present Board or its method of selection. All that I suggest to you is this: That following the recommendation, or the provision that is in the bill before you, will serve to destroy the very thing that is attempted nationally to do, to build up recreation in local communities. It will place in the hands of one individual, as a recreation czar, all the functions of a volunteer-not paid, but a volunteer-independent board which, however, is subject to the Commissioners and the Congress on finance matters.

I think it is bad, looking at it wholly objectively-I think it is bad— because you will never get the interest in recreation from one person that you get from volunteers working in the community, whole sole interest is getting the very best recreation possible for the community. Now, I go along with this as it is, solely because I feel that if that would stand in the way of passage of this legislation, I would like to see the bill passed, knowing that one of the first things that our City Council would do after it had been created would be to accede to the will of the people and to create a volunteer board.

This bill does not eliminate the board. All it does is eliminate the functions.

Well, of course, that just leaves a stable without a horse in it, and there is just no value to it whatever. Advisory boards are worse than useless, as we have seen for generations in the District of Columbia.

They have virtually no value, and I would not give you 2 cents for what would be left of a recreation board, the functions and the authority of which have been transferred to one man who is in no way— who in no way must accede to the wishes of the people.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you submit an amendment designed to effect the improvement you desire?

Mr. WENDER. I would be delighted to do so, sir. The purpose of the amendment would be merely to permit the City Council to appoint such a board so there would be no question about the representation of this board. It will be thoroughly democratic, would have to accede to the views of the Council, and the board would serve at the pleasure of the Council, for term periods, of course.

The CHAIRMAN. Please present your amendment to the committee counsel, Mr. Van Arkel.

Mr. WENDER. Splendid.

The CHAIRMAN. This matter apparently deserves consideration. Mr. WENDER. Yes, sir; I am delighted with your feeling on it.

I will conclude with just one short statement about another phase of the bill which I think might be improved.

One of the witnesses yesterday spoke at some length on the lack of provision for a District Delegate in this bill, and he favored the absence of such a provision. I disagree with him. It is my opinion that if we are to cure this disease we should get as much as quickly as we possibly can. It is within the province of Congress, pending the granting of home rule requiring a constitutional amendment, to give to the District of Columbia a Delegate, voteless as he may be but not voiceless, who will have all of the privileges of a Congressman other than a vote on the floor.

We know the magnificent service the Territories have had from such delegates. I am confident that such a man would not be in conflict. with the Council but would be their voice on the Hill, would represent the people of the District of Columbia, and would have to be in concurrence with that Council because elections come up every 2 years, and if he were in conflict with the Council either the Council must be wrong or he must be wrong. I cannot see any difference, utterly no difference, from having a Delegate represent us in Congress and having a Congressman representing Montgomery County in nearby Maryland.

There is no conflict between the county managers of Montgomery 'County and the Representatives from the State of State of Maryland. 'They have not got exactly the same job to do, and there must be representation on the floor of Congress for the District of Columbia.

I shall not go into detail, Mr. Chairman, on this point, but if I may : Back in 1943, on June 16, extensive hearings were held before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives of the Seventy-eighth Congress on H. R. 2620, which was introduced by then Congressman Walter of Pennsylvania. The bill was entitled "A bill to provide for a Delegate from the District of Columbia." Those hearings are specific, they contain statements from the very best minds in the District of Columbia, and the hearings brought about virtual unanimous approval from all of the worth