In the 35 or more years that I have been in the District I have found that most of the decisions which were made in the days when we had an integrated recreational system under the Department of Agriculture and a segregated system under the District of Columbia, and when most of the police force was recruited from South Carolina or other places where people did not believe in civil rights because their Representatives in Congress had control of the District of Columbia, and when even the streetcars, which were different, of course, from buses as a means of transportation, and when blacks were denied access to those jobs, race was the important factor in saying that blacks could not participate.

I think we would be fooling ourselves if we tried to say that there was a different rationale clothed in lofty constitutional garments which is the reason we do not have home rule in the District of Columbia.

To my best recollection, I think you, Mr. Chairman, were here at the time when we finally culminated with success, the fights for Statehood for Alaska and Hawaii. All through the years when those debates were staged, the real reason that those areas had difficulty getting in was because some people felt Hawaii would be Republican and Alaska would be Democratic. So, depending on which party was in power, you had rough sledding for whichever of the two had a chance to succeed.

We overcame that as a nation and faced up to it. It is very interesting to see how the political system evolved. Now we have from the State of Alaska one Republican and one Democratic Member of the Senate. I think that at this time in the State of Hawaii-of course you have two Democratic Senators, but in the first instance there was elected a Republican Senator and a Democratic Senator. So, as a practical matter, the way it worked out was just the opposite from what people thought would happen. In other words, they thought Hawaii would be Republican and it is now represented by Democratic Senators. They thought Alaska would be Democratic and it is now represented by both parties.

To me, this is a vindication of democracy.

As you know, at one period we had some desire to placate what were called the reasonable people of the South. They were symbolized by former Senator Spessard Holland of Florida. His favorite vehicle for showing that the South was reasonable was a poll tax amendment which would abolish the poll tax in Federal elections only.

We had a great fight about whether you could abolish the poll tax by statute and whether you needed a constitutional amendment.

Under the impetus of trying to encourage the moderates of the South, the Holland resolution did become a constitutional amendment and we did outlaw the poll tax in Federal elections. But, subsequently, in a court decision, the Supreme Court brushed that all aside and said that the poll tax per se unconstitutional. So all of the maneuvering that we went through really was meaningless. Then, of course, you remember the great fight we had about the question of 18-year-olds voting. That was perhaps the fastest constitutional amendment which has ever been ratified. Today we do not

see any ill effects on the Nation as a result of doing these things which decency demanded.

I think the District of Columbia proposition is in that same category and in that same posture.

Finally, I would like to refer to the comment which was made by Senator Eagleton of Missouri over in my State when he was speaking at Hopkins University. I think it was day before yesterday. He pointed out that perhaps prejudice against blacks would be a reason why legislatures would not ratify such an amendment as this. He was not saying it out of hostility; he was merely giving his assessment of the kind of obstacles we would face.

I thought of my old friend, former Congressman Emmanuel Celler. He used to tell the story about what he said was sometimes the "Russian proverb" and sometimes a "Turkish proverb," but it always had the same content which was this. When a man was asked a certain kind of question, he replied, "I will not roll up my pants until I come to the edge of the river."

It seems to me that this is what we are in in this situation. It is a posture where we don't have to roll up our pants about what the legislatures will do until we come to the edge of the river. Therefore, it seems to me that the Senate should exercise its duty in supporting this proposal.

I also have great faith in the growth of decency and discernment in our country. I think there is far more recognition of the rights of people and the desire to be fair to everybody than most of us realize. I think the basic problem is that many people hear the cacophony of those who are against fair play but who are really a minority.

I cite as concrete evidence of my belief that a desire to have decency in government is more prevalent than we know. The presence of the two members of the committee who are here-I would say, as the Chairman knows, that Mr. Rauh and I have a deep affection for him and respect for him. I can't think of any aspect of American life where he does not represent the interests of the people, whether it be in agriculture or in civil rights, or in any of the various matters that come to us for attention.

With respect to Senator Metzenbaum, of course, I would say that his reputation when he came to the Senate, and even before he came to the Senate was the reputation of being a person deeply interested in human rights and who openly espoused that view. Here the people of Ohio have sent him to this body.

As a further piece of evidence, I say this almost entirely for the benefit of the television audience because I believe this is being covered live by one of the stations, it is a new and welcome development in American life that sitting beside you in the seat of a counsel is Mr. Fred Williams of your staff, who is black. When I first came to Washington, that was unthinkable. Nobody ever expected that the day would come when in a committee of this kind there would be a Senator, who was chairman of a committee or a subcommittee, who would be bold enough and fair enough to employ a capable black person on his staff. Yet, here he is. I say this could not have happened in our country except for the fact that the people in the State of Indiana saw in you the kind of

person who would do things of this sort and that is your mandate to exercise your decent instincts.

I believe that there are thousands and millions of people in the country like you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that they can be mobilized when this bill passes to give it to the legislatures.

I can certainly speak for my own Maryland legislature where my oldest son, Senator Clarence Mitchell III is the deputy majority leader, and I speak for the State of Pennsylvania where they have, I believe, a black speaker, and in many, many other instances, I could cite legislatures and State officials who, in my opinion, when we mobilize the people of this Nation in a proper way, will come to insure ratification of this amendment.

Therefore, I earnestly hope that in this session, under the able leadership that we have here today, supplemented by others who will also support it, we will speedily get this passed and then it will be necessary for those of us who believe in it to undertake the job of getting it ratified in the States.

I thank you.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell, for your perceptive personal experience-type analysis of this problem, as well as your wise, judicious, if excessive assessment of the Senator from Indiana. [Laughter.]

Mr. MITCHELL. I meant every word of it.

Senator BAYH. I appreciated hearing it, and I will try not to inhale. [Laughter.]

It is very thoughtful and the comments of you and Mr. Rauh have been received warmly.

I say as one who is a bit younger, and I say this in a body which has the greatest respect for those who are elders, that some of us who have been on the playing field fighting for human rights a little less long than some of you, although our hearts are right and we are properly motivated, have not had the kind of sensitivity and perception that comes from fighting these battles at an earlier age. I have found in your description of the problem, that is, affecting the quality of human life and human activity, that there is an understanding there which I wish all Americans had.

There is no way that we can determine whether your assessment of why we have not been successful before is accurate or not. Let us hope that we can go forth from here. Perhaps we should spend a little bit more time articulating the facts that some people may have ignored, which is, if we are successful in seeing that the people who live in the District of Columbia are represented in the Congress of the United States, as are the people who live in the other States, or in any other State, that this means that the white people who live here will get representation as well as the black people and the Hispanic people, as well as all of this heterogeneous mass that constitutes the people from all across this country. They, of course, are now disenfranchised.

I want to say to both of you that I am very grateful for your thoughts here this morning.

Let me ask Mr. Rauh one question which has not been raised, but which has been in my mind. I wonder if we need to give any particular attention to the House draft or the Senate draft? That is, in section 1, we do not enunciate procedure but rather point out

the respects in which the citizens of the District shall be treated as if they were citizens of a State.

One of those items is in the ratification of the constitutional amendment pursuant to article V.

I call your attention to article V which talks about the initiative process and the ratification process. It talks about the fact that whenever two-thirds of a legislative body of a State shall petition as one for purposes of initiating a constitutional amendment, and whenever three-fourths of the legislatures shall ratify, then the amendment shall become part of the Constitution. So, how does the District of Columbia fit into the ratification process without becoming a State? What do you feel is the legislative body? Do we need specific language inasmuch as we do not have the kind of legislative body that other States have here. There is a city council, of course. Will that suffice?

Mr. RAUH. I think the answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, is "Yes." There are unicameral legislatures in the States and nobody has ever suggested that ratification by a unicameral legislature would not be adequate.

I think that as 554 passed the House, everybody believed, and the legislative history is clear, that District of Columbia's right of ratification was included. Indeed, in front of your subcommittee, Assistant Attorney General Harmon made the point that under House Joint Resolution 554, where they use a little different language in article 1 than you use, that there would be a right of ratification. What they say in section 1 of House Joint Resolution 554 is that "the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State," whereas you say in House Joint Resolution 65, that "Each Senator . . . so elected shall be an inhabitant of the District and shall possess the same qualifications as to age and citizenship and have the same rights, privileges, and obligations as a Senator . . . from a State.' I do not think that last permits the ratification process, whereas House Joint Resolution 554 does permit the ratification process. I think the City Council would be the legislature for that purpose.

It would require one more State-that is, 39-to ratify. To those people who are scared that we would ratify anything in the District of Columbia, if you do the arithmetic, one more State has to ratify, so it would not change the balance of power in any way on ratification. I think we should have ratification, I think the City Council would be the right body, and I think that House Joint Resolution 554 does that.

Senator BAYH. Thank you. I am glad to have my distinguished colleague from Ohio here. Senator Metzenbaum has been a real tiger, as you described him, in fighting for equality of opportunity. Senator Metzenbaum?

Senator METZENBAUM. Mr. Chairman, alluding to our friend, Mr. Mitchell's remarks concerning yourself and your having, as General Counsel to the committee, seated next to you, a black man, I would just like to say that I am not usually given to flowery flattery, as is so much the custom in the U.S. Senate.

But when they write a sequel to "Profiles in Courage," I would think that the lead chapter would belong to the chairman of this subcommittee who, over a period of years, has not hesitated to take

on the very controversial issues, many of which, if he put his finger up in the wind to find out how the political winds were blowing, he would not have been willing to take on the challenge.

It even takes courage to chair this subcommittee because some of the issues that come to this subcommittee have the least political advantages and provide the most challenging kind of area.

I would like to join you, Mr. Mitchell, in saying to our chairman that he is gutty, and he has integrity, and day-in and day-out in this U.S. Senate all of us owe him a debt of gratitude for his leadership. As I say, I do not say these kinds of things lightly. I say them because I mean them very sincerely.

In the same sense, I would say that I came to this hearing today out of respect for both you, Mr. Mitchell, and you, Mr. Rauh, because the two of you have been the standard-bearers over a period of so many years in fighting for civil rights and human rights in this Nation.

I feel it a privilege to be here in your presence, to hear your testimony, and I just want to say that all of us in America, owe you both, as well as our chairman, a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you very much, Senator Metzenbaum.
I appreciate so much what you said about Senator Bayh.

I am disturbed that in our country there is a tendency to ridicule such bodies as the Congress of the United States, the State legislatures, and the executive branch of our Government.

Of course, all of those have faults. But the fact of life is that there is just too much effort to try to make it appear that the officials who run our country are inept and corrupt and things of that sort.

That has not been my experience in the 30 or more years that I have been in the Nation's Capital.

It is my opinion that the quality, the dedication, and the ability of the people who serve in the House and who serve in the Senate has improved immensely. I think it is a horrible thing to give blanket condemnation of these two bodies of government.

I often say to those who laugh when there are these statements made which tend to demean the Congress that, "You may very well be laughing yourself into a dictatorship because if you discredit the body and the office, meaning the Presidency, which is brought into being by the people of this Nation through their votes, then you are really saying that the democratic process is no good."

I am sure that waiting in the wings in this country, as there is elsewhere, there are those who would like to destroy our form of government.

So, I just thank you for saying what is, to my personal knowledge, eminently correct, that is, that this is a superior chairman and a person who represents, in my view, the finest in the U.S. Senate. I believe that there are more like him and like you, Senator Metzenbaum, in our upper and lower Houses here in Washington than there are those whom we wish had not gotten elected. Mr. RAUH. Mr. Chairman, let me say somewhat the same things Clarence Mitchell said in a slightly different way. I always get accused of being overly optimistic when I challenge such statements as "liberalism is dead and why don't you crawl in and give up."