become citizens-full, participating, voting citizens of the United States.

In my view, that same evolution has taken place in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia has become what I consider to be a viable, geographically identifiable unit-a political unit, if you will. It now has a greater population than seven of our States. For that reason, the citizens of the District of Columbia, again in my view, do have all the burdens of citizenship, and with this proposal would carry a very fundamental right of citizenship-the right to be represented in Congress.

Senator SCOTT. As I understand your testimony, there may be a conflict between the right of individual citizens to vote and participate and have representation and the Federal concept that we have a Congress free of pressures and undue influence in an environment free of any State.

Representation in the Congress for the Federal City was never considered by our Founding Fathers.

Are you in agreement that there is some conflict there between the rights of citizens and the national interest?

Mr. HARMON. Senator Scott, I would agree that there can be a conflict, just as I discussed with Chairman Bayh that there are conflicts often in the rights of individuals and the ability of the Government to govern and continue to function.

However, the right of the citizen to elect 2 Senators among 102, I would submit, would not conflict with the basic concept-the unique character of the District-because the Senate and the House of Representatives, as a whole, would dictate the best interests of the Federal Government and this Federal district in terms of its exclusive legislative authority.

They would be a voice-two voices, and I hope important voices-but only two.

Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Harmon.

Mr. Chairman, I see we have two colleagues here, so let me just pose one short question.

Would you see any change in the Federal payment, or the concept of the Federal Government contributing to the District of Columbia as it does-a difference between the District and the States with regard to payments-or would you just retain it as it is?

Mr. HARMON. I think there would be a distinction if, in fact, statehood were the alternative under consideration.

Statehood not being under consideration, the voting representation, in my view, would not change the fundamentally unique arrangement between the Federal Government and the District of Columbia.

Senator SCOTT. Thank you.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Mr. Harmon. We appreciate very much your contribution here, and we hope we can call on you as our deliberations continue.

Mr. HARMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BAYH. Our next witness this morning is the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts, the Honorable Edward Brooke.

Senator Brooke, we appreciate your appearing today. We know that you also have a busy schedule this morning and have taken time to be with us.

TESTIMONY OF HON. EDWARD W. BROOKE, U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

Senator BROOKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee.

I am pleased to appear before you today in support of Senate Joint Resolution 65 and to reaffirm my deep commitment to the achievement of full voting representation in the Congress for the citizens of our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia.

My enthusiastic endorsement of Senate Joint Resolution 65 is based primarily on fundamental concepts of liberty and justice. But my support and interest are also intensely personal.

I attended and graduated from Dunbar High School and Howard University. And for as long as I can remember, I have fought, along with family, friends, and collegues, to attain the goal of providing for the citizens of the District of Columbia the same rights and privileges that other citizens throughout the Nation have enjoyed.

Over the past decade, I have worked closely with a number of congressional allies, including the most distinguished the District of Columbia Delegate Walter Fauntroy, Senator Charles McMathias, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Birch Bayh, the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, to make this goal of full representation a reality.

Thus, it is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to commend the House of Representatives for passing on March 2, House Joint Resolution 554, the companion measure to Senate Joint Resolution 65.

The passage of House Joint Resolution 554 is a testament to the leadership and dedication of many individuals in and out of the Congress. But, in particular, I want to single out for praise the dedicated and committed work of Walter Fauntroy and the broad bipartisan coalition that supported the House measure.

The proposal before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Joint Resolution 65, would enable District of Columbia voters to elect two Senators and the number of Representatives in the House to which the District would be entitled on the basis of population. Each Senator or Representative would be an inhabitant of the District and would possess the same qualifications as to age and citizenship and have the same rights, privileges, and obligations as other Members of Congress.

A vacancy occurring in the District of Columbia delegation would be filled by election of the District of Columbia voters.

The amendment would have no effect on the provision in the 23d amendment for determining the number of electors for President and Vice President to be appointed for the District. However, each Representative or Senator from the District would be able to participate in the selection process as mandated by the 12th amendment.

Finally, the Congress would have the power to implement this amendment by appropriate legislation.

While I support Senate Joint Resolution 65, I believe that House Joint Resolution 554 is a better and more comprehensive measure. In particular, I endorse those provisions of House Joint Resolution 554 which would provide for the full participation of the District of Columbia in the constitutional amendment process and in the electoral college.

Nearly 200 years after its adoption, the U.S. Constitution has been amended but 26 times. Clearly, any proposal for amending the Constitution deserves careful and serious study and debate. However, proposals for granting District of Columbia voting representation in the Congress have been very thoroughly discussed and researched over the years.

It seems useful to review briefly at this point the long history of efforts to achieve the full voting representation in the Congress for the District of Columbia.

Thus, we can rebut the contention, all too frequently raised as an excuse for inaction by opponents, that somehow we need time "for further study of legal ramifications" or whatever, of granting District of Columbia voting representation in the Congress.

From the beginning of the 19th century, there were advocates of national representation in the Congress for District of Columbia residents.

One of the first was Augustus B. Woodward, who wrote a series of articles, published in the National Intelligencer between 1801 and 1803, in which he decried the pitiable state of those citizens residing in the District of Columbia who were subject to taxation without representation.

Another ardent supporter of District of Columbia representation over the years was Theodore W. Noyes, a native Washingtonian, long associated with the Washington Star, serving as its editor from 1908 to 1946. In the fourth of a series of articles, appearing early in 1888 and focusing on "Some of Washington's Grievances," Noyes outlined the political plight of the citizens of the District and proposed that a constitutional amendment be adopted to grant them voting representation in the Congress.

On May 15, 1888, Senator Henry W. Blair introduced a joint resolution incorporating Noyes' vision, and this has been generally designated as the first amendment proposal introduced to provide District of Columbia voting representation.

Literally hundreds of joint resolutions have been introduced in the subsequent years since the 50th Congress back in 1888.

Mr. Chairman, there have been dozens of hearings on the issue of District of Columbia representation in Congress. The first such hearings date back to 1916.

The prophetic testimony of Theodore Noyes at that time still rings true. At one point, Noyes was arguing that election of local officials in Washington, or of a nonvoting delegate to Congress, would not be sufficient. Rather, according to Noyes, full representation in the national Government constituted the "genuine American political birthright."

Noyes stated, in part, at those first hearings on District of Columbia voting representation back in 1916:

If Washingtonians are political slaves now they will still be political slaves after they have the power to elect a voteless delegate, or even District commissioners or

any other municipal officials if the exclusive power of legislation under the constitutional provision still remains in a Congress not elected by them and in which they are not represented. Their chains may be made a little lighter and may not clank so loudly; they may be granted by kind masters a greater freedom of movement; but they are not free. The power to take away their property, their freedom, and life itself is in others not chosen by them and to whose rule they have not assented. There is no self-government when the power to tax one, to imprison one, and to send one to war is not in one's self or in those to whom one has voluntarily confided it as one's representative.

There have been many more hearings since 1916. These 1978 Senate hearings for which I commend you constitute the sixth such endeavor just since 1970.

The House Judiciary Committee, of course, held hearings this year and in 1975, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in 1974, the House again in 1971, and the Senate in 1970.

While we are all familiar with the successful effort in the House this year, we may be less familiar with the episode in the Senate during the 86th Congress when District of Columbia representation was debated and endorsed.

During floor debate on another constitutional amendment proposal, Senator Kenneth Keating offered a floor amendment establishing a framework for ultimate District of Columbia voting representation in the Congress and also providing for Presidential electors from the District of Columbia.

The Keating amendment was approved by a vote of 63 to 25. The vote of the tripartite resolution, which included segments authorizing Governors to fill temporary vacancies in the House and another abolishing tax and property requirements for voting as well, was 70 to 18, more than the necessary two-thirds.

However, the House Judiciary Committee reported a much amended version of the resolution containing the language ultimately incorporated into the 23d amendment. The sections relating to abolition of the poll tax and the filling of House vacancies were entirely deleted, and the remaining section addressing District of Columbia suffrage was watered down by elimination of any provision regarding congressional representation.

Without a doubt, there has been a very lengthy history of efforts to grant District of Columbia voting representation in the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that what we need is not more study and talk but speedy congressional action.

A fundamental concept of the democratic political thought is that of consent. Thus, the obligations of citizenship can be imposed legitimately only by way of "the consent of the governed." In the American context, this exercise of consent often occurs through elected Representatives in Congress.

The American Revolution was fought so that basic rights would be accorded the citizens of the American colonies. "No taxation without representation" was the rallying call of those who struggled for a free Nation. Participation in and control of the political processes of the country by its citizens is a fundamental precept of democracy.

It seems almost inconceivable that in 1978, with memories of our Nation's Bicentennial fresh in mind, still ringing in our ears, we find democracy flaunted with respect to the citizens of Washington, D.C., the Nation's Capital.

The plight of the citizens in the District, sadly, is more akin to that of a subjugated, colonial people. The situation with respect to voting representation for the District, instead of serving as an example of democracy for the rest of the country and indeed the world, provides an outrage of inequity.

The U.S. citizens residing in the District of Columbia have all the obligations of American citizenship. They must pay taxes, defend the country in time of war, and obey the law.

However, this sizable group of citizens, exceeding the population of seven States, does not have representatives in the House or Senate who can meaningfully express the consent or dissent of the District of Columbia residents by vote on the floor of Congress. This condition has applied to residents of the District since 1800, when Federal jurisdiction over the seat of the National Government was officially effected. Prior to that time, the eligible male residents of the Virginia and Maryland portions of the District of Columbia voted for U.S. Senators and Representatives in their respective States. But in 1978 the District of Columbia has no one exclusively advocating its interests in the Senate.

Although I and several of my collegues are concerned with the District, our primary interests and responsibilities necessarily lie elsewhere. Likewise, despite the noble efforts of District of Columbia Delegate Fauntroy in the House, in the final analysis, the District is relatively powerless there as well since its interests cannot be directly defended in critical floor votes.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is my conclusion that lack of provision in the Constitution for District of Columbia representation is something of an historical accident.

In the larger context of setting up a whole new Government for the Union, the status of the District of Columbia was not one of the major problems facing the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Hence, it is not surprising that the issue of District of Columbia representation is nowhere mentioned in the records of those debates. Moreover, the area ceded by Maryland and Virginia to become the Nation's Capital had few residents, and from 1789 when the Constitution was adopted to December of 1800 when the exclusive legislation authority of the Congress took effect, those who lived within the portions of Maryland and Virginia that were to become the District of Columbia retained their political rights as citizens of those two States.

It was only after 1800 that the disenfranchisement of citizens living in the District became a reality, and the efforts to reverse the situation began.

In recent years, we have made substantial progress in broadening the base of representative Government and extending the franchise in the United States. But this glaring piece of unfinished business remains. Fundamental concerns of justice and equity demand that the residents of the District of Columbia at last be granted the right to elect their own voting Representatives in the Congress.

In closing, I might note that it required but 286 days for the requisite 39 States to ratify the 23d amendment to the Constitution, providing for District of Columbia participation in the Electoral College. Equally prompt action at the State level might reason