OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO Senator METZENBAUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I was a little late, but I will make it that much briefer a statement. Mr. Chairman, the framers of the Constitution left for future generations a document rich in the principles of democratic philosophy. Americans have built upon this foundation, and, as a result, we have come closer to insuring that all of our citizens are represented fairly and equally in governmental matters. Throughout our Nation's history, we have recognized political representation to be an inherent right of citizenship. Our commitment to this principle is evidenced by the steps we have taken to broaden the franchise. Well over 100 years ago, States eliminated property requirements as a barrier to voting. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution abolished a variety of restrictions on the right to vote. By eliminating denials based on race, color, sex, and the ability to pay a poll tax, we succeeded in extending suffrage to millions of Americans. We are now considering an issue which, I believe, would bring us closer to the goal of full representation. Senate Joint Resolution 65, of which I am a cosponsor, would amend the Constitution to provide the District of Columbia with voting representation in both the House and Senate. I believe this issue presents the ultimate test of our adherence to democratic principles. How can we applaud the concept of equal representation for all, yet continue to deny to three-quarters of 1 million citizens the basic right of representation in our national legislature? By virtue of the 23rd amendment, the citizens of the District of Columbia have participated in the election of the President and Vice President. We must take the additional step to provide District of Columbia citizens full representation in Congress, a right enjoyed by all other citizens. How can we advocate, as we do throughout the world, the concept of democracy and the right of people to participate in the governmental processes when here, in our own country, in the seat of our Government, we deny the people who live in this community the right to participate fully in their Government? We recognized that the District deserved a voice in the legislative process when, in 1970, Congress authorized the election of a nonvoting District of Columbia delegate to the House of Representatives. While Walter Fauntroy has continued to perform his duties with vigor, intelligence, and sensitivity, as a nonvoting delegate he cannot participate in the actual decisionmaking process of Congress. This is patently unfair. The citizens of the District of Columbia share the same responsibilities as all other citizens-they pay Federal taxes, and they fight our Nation's wars. They are affected by the decisions of Congress, and their interests are no less worthy of the same full representation accorded all other citizens. I do not agree that the proposed amendment will upset our federal system, nor do I believe that its passage will set a precedent for other cities and territories. Residents of Washington are in a unique position. Citizenship is extended to them, yet the right of representation is denied. Unlike those in the District, residents of other cities do not elect Members to Congress. Unlike those in the District, residents in U.S. territories do not share the citizens' burden of Federal taxation. Opponents of the constitutional amendment argue that District of Columbia voting representation conflicts with the "equal suffrage of States" provision of article V of the Constitution. I strongly disagree. While "equal suffrage" insures that the balance of power between small and large States will be preserved, neither by design nor intent does this provision exclude entities other than States from being represented. Some argue that the District's representation in Congress will dilute the legislative power of the individual States. That is a fallacious argument. They overlook the fact that the Constitution itself provides for admitting new States. Let us remember that when the Constitution was ratified there were not 50 States, nor were there 100 Senators. Our colleagues in the House have shown their overwhelming support for a similar resolution to provide the citizens of the District of Columbia with full voting representation in both Chambers of Congress. It is incumbent upon us to do the same in the Senate. By voting favorably on Senate Joint Resolution 65, we simply will permit the States themselves to decide the issue of ratification. It is my sincere hope that we will no longer deny to the citizens residing in our Nation's Capital their fundamental right of representation. By amending the Constitution in the proposed manner, our commitment to justice and equality will be better realized, and we will have moved closer to a true application of the principles of democracy set forth by the framers of the Constitution. This is an issue whose time has come. Mr. Chairman, you and I have been supporting this measure, and I hope we will be able to move with dispatch to make it a reality so that the people of the States may have the opportunity to do that which is necessary under the Constitution at the State level. Thank you. Senator BAYH. Thank you, Senator Metzenbaum. Senator Scott? OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM L. SCOTT, U.S. Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have a prepared statement, but I would like to just comment briefly. It is my understanding that the Federal City concept was agreed upon after the congressional meeting in Philadelphia encountered some physical difficulty from some of the people there, and the city and State police did not protect the Congress. It was decided then that we should have a Federal City over which the Congress would have exclusive jurisdiction. This has A been the practice and continues to be the law for roughly 200 years now. Frankly, I see no real reason to change this. The people of the District of Columbia do have full voting rights at this time. It is true they do not have a voting delegate in the House. Neither does any other territory of the United States. I disagree with Senator Kennedy that the people of the country do not know that the people of the District of Columbia do not have two Senators. I believe the people of the country are well aware that there are Senators from the 50 States totaling 100, and that there are no Senators from the District of Columbia. I personally do not favor this legislation. I do not feel that it will receive a two-thirds vote in the Senate. I do not feel that if that should happen, it would receive a three-fourths vote of the State legislatures. I would say that while those who are proponents of this measure certainly should make their positions known, no one should be under any delusion that this is going to become law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator BAYH. Senator Scott, thank you. Permit me to say that all of us will have a chance to make our statements. We have had a chance to debate the issue among ourselves with some propensity. However, let me say as chairman of this subcommittee, we are not just going to go through the motions here. That is not why we are here. We are going to make an effort to move this legislation. If we run into a roadblock in which the parliamentary procedure of the committee prevents us from going through the normal channels, we will take advantage of another parliamentary right and put this measure on the calendar from whence it can be taken if the support develops without going through the committee hearing proc ess. The only time in my life that we have had anything similar to this was at the ratification of the 23d amendment. We were giving the citizens of the District a right which they did not have prior to that time-to vote for the President. I found no opposition from my colleagues in the Indiana Legislature when I introduced that amendment. We will have to see. We will fight it out and see who has the votes. But let the record show that at least some of us are determined to make a good faith effort to try and get this measure resolved. However, the Senator is certainly entitled to his opinion. Senator SCOTT. I believe I am entitled to make an opening statement, just as the chairman and distinguished Senator from Ohio did. I have made my opening statement, and I do not quarrel with the statements of the chairman or the Senator from Ohio. I expressed my thoughts as I see them. As far as the television cameras are concerned, I believe that the chairman will admit that the Senator from Virginia did not invite them to witness today. Senator BAYH. I do not know who invited them. Most of our newspeople have a natural nose for news. [Laughter.] It was certainly not intended by the Senator from Indiana that you should not be allowed to make your statement. I would point out that although we have differing opinions here on the merits of this legislation, as far as the chairman is concerned, there is no perfidity in his efforts to move this legislation. Shall we move on? Our next witness this morning is the Honorable John M. Harmon, Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel, representing the position of the President of the United States. Mr. Harmon, we appreciate your coming before the committee. You are the President's strong right arm in many instances and have been of great service to the Members of the Senate. Our committee owes you an apology for the inconvenience you have been put through over this last weekend. I do not know who is responsible for the mail not reaching you before Thursday, but certainly we sent the notice sometime prior to that. I appreciate that you did not get notice until the 13th, and that has caused you a significant amount of anticipation over this weekend. TESTIMONY OF JOHN M. HARMON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Mr. HARMON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before you for the purpose of presenting the views of this administration on the representation of the District of Columbia in Congress. I wish to express the strong support of the President and his administration for the principle of full voting representation for the District of Columbia. As you are well aware, the House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 554 on March 2, 1978. That resolution proposes a constitutional amendment which resembles Senate Joint Resolution 65 in its most important features. The House's action followed the issuance on September 21, 1977, of an announcement by Vice President Mondale of this administration's support for full voting representation for the District. The Vice President made his statement after examining the issues with a task force composed of Members of Congress, including Senators Leahy and Mathias, officials of the District of Columbia Government, and representatives of the executive branch. Simply stated, the administration supports full voting representation in Congress for the District as a matter of simple justice for the citizens of the District of Columbia. The administration favors the general approach to representation of the District of Columbia in Congress taken both by Senate Joint Resolution 65 and House Joint Resolution 554. Because these proposals raise many of the same issues, much of my testimony today will parallel statements made by Assistant Attorney General Patricia Wald in her testimony before the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights when it was considering House Joint Resolution 554. Before discussing the provisions of Senate Joint Resolution 65 in detail, however, I would like to explain why the administration prefers this approach to other methods of providing representation for the District which have been proposed in the past. ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF PROVIDING DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA One alternative which has been the subject of extensive discussion in the past is the possibility of providing for the District of Columbia to enter the Union as an actual State. Some of those who favor this option have argued that new States can be admitted to the Union by means of a simple majority vote in both Houses of Congress, thereby avoiding the cumbersome process of amending the Constitution. We believe, however, that any attempt to make the District a State without an amendment to the Constitution would present both legal and practical problems. See Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 567, 1911. Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have power: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District . . . as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States. . . . If admitted to the Union as a State, the District of Columbia would be on an equal footing with the other States with respect to matters of local government. We do not believe that the power of Congress vested by Article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution to exercise plenary legislative jurisdiction over the District could be thus permanently abrogated by a simple majority vote of both Houses of Congress. That could only be accomplished, in our view, by a constitutional amendment. One suggested method of overcoming this difficulty advanced by proponents of statehood would be to carve a "Federal enclave" out of the District, over which the Congress would continue to exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction. The creation of such an enclave could presumably take place by one of two methods. First, Congress might, in effect, redraw the map of the Federal District to include only the areas in which Federal installations are located. The remainder of what is now the District could then be admitted as a State. At this point, a practical problem is presented. The impact of the Federal presence in the District is far greater than the impact of the Federal presence in any single State. More than half the District's land area is covered by Federal facilities which are scattered throughout the area. Any concentrated "Federal enclave" would be very difficult to circumscribe and would have to be geographically fragmented. This would give rise to complex arrangements for sewers, police and fire protection, and other services. Moreover, it is questionable whether such a geographical entity could fairly be characterized as a single District at all. A second method Congress might use would be to leave the present boundaries intact but designate as Federal installations the land and buildings already located there. These would have the |