[Laughter.] Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Volkmer. I, too, enjoyed the comments of my good friend from the District of Columbia. I have an open mind on this. As a freshman, most of the discussion I have engaged in, not having heard all the arguments as the others here have, go to representation in the House of Representatives, and not full representation. Personally, it seems logical that if there is to be representation at all, it should be full representation. I have not heard the arguments on the other side, but I have to agree that if the residents of the District. of Columbia are going to be represented in the House of Representatives, they should also be represented in the Senate. To do otherwise, would be completely illogical. I appreciate listening to your arguments. I will keep an open mind, and continue to study the matter further. Thank you very much. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Volkmer. Let me respond, Mr. Chairman, if I may by stating that I am just so pleased with the attitudes and enthusiasm of so many of our new Members. There are 72 in the House this year, as compared to the 94th Congress. Mr. Volkmer is among them. And I am sure that he will attack this question with his own staff and his own thinking with the same vigor with which he attacks the ball on the baseball field. He is one of the most dedicated outfielders to come to the Democratic team. And, had we about three more of him the night before last, the score wouldn't have been 7 to 6 Republicans, it may have been 8 to 7, Democrats. [Laughter.] Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Í believe our next witness be here and I don't want to take long in my questioning. may A very persuasive argument against the approach to full representation is the subject of retrocession. Since part of the original District has already been retroceded to the State of Virginia, if the balanceof the District were retroceded to the State of Maryland, there would be full representation in the House and the Senate for the citizens of the District who would then become citizens of the State of Maryland. I would like to hear the arguments against that approach. You can start on it, and maybe Senator Bayh, when he comes to the witness stand, can discuss that same subject. Mr. FAUNTROY. I am confident that Senator Mathias and the distinguished Members of the House from the State of Maryland,. would probably best be able to present that argument. But let me just. say two things. First, that it would, in our view, require the agreement of the State of Maryland to such an arrangement. And in that regard, I think practically would be difficult to achieve. But more important, I think it is second, a question of basic equality again. The fact is, if anybody ought to have representation in the National Legislature, it should be the citizens of the Federal District, for they alone among Americans, depend upon the collective judg ments of these two bodies, together with the President, for every ordinance, every law affecting their lives, because this constitutional amendment-neither this constitutional amendment, nor the home rule charter for which we labored so long and for which we are so grateful, neither of those things takes away from the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States, responsibility for the governance of the people of this District. So that those two arguments I think, among others, are the most potent I think in dealing with that question of retrocession. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. EDWARDS. Are there further questions? Mr. VOLKMER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. EDWARDS. I recognize the gentleman. Mr. VOLKMER. I would like to comment on retrocession. In consider. ing that alternative I have come to the conclusion that it would create more problems than it would solve. Mr. EDWARDS. If there are no further questions, we thank you very much, Mr. Fauntroy. Our next, and it happens our last witness today is the Honorable Birch Bayh, senior Senator from Indiana. He is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and a personal friend of most members of this subcommittee and the full committee, Senator Bayh is an outstanding constitutional lawyer, known nationwide for his work in constitutional law. Senator Bayh, we welcome you. You may proceed with your statement. My colleague from Illinois reminds me that he was a splendid baseball player, too. [Laughter.] Not quite good enough. [Laughter.] TESTIMONY OF HON. BIRCH BAYH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA Senator BAYH. I appreciate that the gentleman from Illinois put that in the past tense. That probably would be excessive, but certainly to put it in the present tense would be ridiculous. But I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I appreciate the chance to share some thoughts with you. I have listened to our colleague from the District discuss the subject, which is dear to his heart, and feel that almost anything I can say would be anticlimactic. I would ask unanimous consent if I could, please, Mr. Chairman, to put in the record a statement that I have prepared. Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection the statement will be included in the record. [The prepared statement of Hon. Birch Bayh follows:] 22-873-78- -2 STATEMENT BY HON. BIRCH BAYH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA Mr. Chairman, members of the Judiciary Committee, ladies and gentlemen, as Chariman of the Senate Subcommitte on the Constitution, I have always had a very strong interest in direct representation for the District of Columbia. As you may well know, I have, in the past, chaired hearings on this subject. This is an important area of concern, and I think it deserves the attention of the Congress, the President, and all the citizens of this great country. Just as opinion polls in the past have indicated that a large majority of the American people favor a constitutional change to direct election, I am sure those same American people would indicate the same positive interest in giving full representation to the District of Columbia if they were fully aware that their fellow citizens have been denied that fundamental political right since the inception of this nation. Further, I would like to add that it gave me a great deal of pleasure to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Kennedy, as a co-sponsor of a constitutional amendment which calls for full representation for the District of Columbia. I am ready to take every appropriate action to move this important amendment toward quick approval by the Senate so that the residents of the District, like all other citizens of this nation, will receive the representation to which they are entitled. The District of Columbia has been for many years what we might call a living paradox in the American scheme of government. It is the seat of the greatest representative democracy the world has ever known, yet it was not until 1964 that its residents were permitted to vote for the President of the United States. And it was not until April 1971 that they were given the right to elect a nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives. Even though this does represent an improvement, it is not enough. We must go further in extending greater representation to the District. I say this because I firmly believe that the conditions that led to the original decision to deny representation during the Constitutional Convention have drastically changed. The framers of the Constitution were intent on providing a site over which the Federal Government would exercise exclusive control. They wanted a separate capital which would not only protect the national image, but which would be immune from both jurisdictional disputes as well as potentially harassing incidents. For many of the Founding Fathers, national representation for the District's citizenry would necessarily have presumed statehood; and statehood, of course, would have precluded the establishment of exclusive Federal control over the capital site. As James Madison stated in the Federalist Papers, "complete [Federal] authority at the seat of government" was necessary to avoid the "dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending [that] seat *** for protection in the exercise of their duties." Clearly, the Founders perceived the need for a strong Federal territory, free of State encroachment, and secure from domestic unrest. However, it should be noted that while the Framers fully intended to establish a separate capital city, they never fully decided to exclude the residents of that city from political representation. As a matter of record, it is important to note that between 1790 and December 1800, residents of the District participated in state and national elections, including the Presidential election of November 1800, by voting in either Maryland or Virginia. However, when Congress finally assumed control of the District in late 1800, the lame-duck administration of John Adams rushed to take over the administration of the District before President-elect Thomas Jefferson's Republicans came to power. As Pulitzer Prize winning historian Constance Green points out, the Federalists neglected to give the franchise to District residents when legislating the takeover. After the Federalists left office, attempts were made immediately to rectify the problem. Unfortunately, as the fight began to retrieve suffrage for District residents in February 1801, the measure was lost in the shuffle of the Jefferson-Burr electoral college deadlock controversy which plagued that particular Congress. Since that time, there have been more than 150 attempts to provide representation for the District. Most of these measures have also been victimized by what was then considered much more pressing business before the Congress. We must not overlook another very basic reason why the District failed to receive representation in the early years of the Republic. Its population was too small. In 1801, the District had only 14,000 residents, far fewer than the 50,000 required of territories that wanted to enter the union at that time. Quite naturally, such a small population could be easily overlooked. Yet, during the 1801 debates on District suffrage, many members of Congress spoke of providing representation for the District when its population reached the appropriate size. Today, however, the population size of the District is far more than appropriate for representation. Given its size alone as criterion, representation is essential. The District's present population is larger than 7 of the 50 states in the Unionand larger than that of any of the original 13 states during the first years of the Republic. The historical reasons certainly do not justify the District's lack of representation. Unpaid soldiers are not storming our hallowed halls. The federal government has adequate police protection. Congress has a well-protected, safe, and comfortable home. All the reasons in the past for not extending equal representation to the citizens of the District are no longer valid. On the other hand, there are considerable reasons why we should extend the full franchise to 750,000 American citizens. There is nothing more abhorrent to the American people than the idea of taxation without representation. One of the fundamental principles enunciated by cur founding fathers was the firm belief that those citizens who contributed to the public coffer should and would have the right to elect their leaders. Over 200 years ago, the injustice of taxation without representation served as one of the major elements which drove our forefathers to revolution. We will fail to be consistent with the dictates of our forefathers if we do not provide representation to a portion of our citizens who are law-abiding taxpayers. Let us put an end to this glaring contradiction in our philosophical principles. Let us no longer make a mockery of our democracy. We have the means by which to make the dreams that our forefathers fought and died for a reality. It is a basic premise of our system of government that each deserves a chance to be heard and to express his political views through a freely elected representative or representatives. That is all the citizens of the District are asking. The irony of these hearings is that it has taken over 200 years to provide them with that right. Therefore, it is our responsibility and duty as members of the most democratic governmental unit in the world to correct this wrong. To do less would be an unpardonable micarriage of our oath of office, as well as a blatant miscarriage of justice. Senator BAYH. I have just received word from my office that we are having an unexpected crisis on the floor, so if I am brief, I hope you will forgive me. It seems to me that there are many reasons that might compel us to seriously consider this matter. And as chairman of the Committee on the Constitution, and prior to that time the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments in the Senate, the chairman knows that I have been interested in this subject for a long time. We have explored a number of means over the past years to better enfranchise citizens of our country who do not have full first-class citizenship. I won't repeat the steps that have been made to members of this committee, because they have been out leading the charge in many areas. We are presently still pursuing other avenues to see that the system works properly, that everyone is equally represented. One example that comes to mind which we are presently moving through the Judiciary Committee is the direct election of the President, which has already been passed by this body, and then filibustered by the Senate. But I come as one who has been with you, Mr. Chairman, concerned that the system does not work perfectly until everyone has an equal opportunity to effect his or her own destiny working through the system. And it is rather apparent that the hundreds of thousands of people who live in the District of Columbia do not have that opportunity right now. It is all well and good to have a very articulate sensitive nonvoting Delegate, and if you are going to choose a nonvoting Delegate, I don't think any State or certainly the District could have done better than the one we have. But a nonvoting Delegate doesn't have the main tool of the trade. He can talk, cajole, use his significant persuasive power, but when it comes right down to it, when the votes are tallied, he is not there in number. So I think it is important, first of all, to give the citizens of the District full representation in the Congress so that they will be represented when the national decisions are made. Second, I think it is equally important to-no, that is not accurate, it is not equally important; it is the number one reason far beyond any other-I think if one would look to what has happened in the past, as. to why the District does not have representation right now, one can see that the early concerns expressed by our Founding Fathers are no longer relevant. The framers fully intended to establish a separate city for the Nation's Capital to avoid the disputes that were going on at that time among the States on the jurisdictional questions. But the issue was never fully decided as to whether the residents of the city should be excluded from political representation. It is a matter of record, as I am sure you and the members of this committee know, that the residents early on in our civilization, in our Government, did have the right to participate in Presidential and State elections. At that time they were participating in the various two States that were involved-Maryland and Virginia. But there was never a concentrated effort to try to exclude them. When the Congress finally assumed control of the District in 1800, the lame duck administration of John Adams rushed to take over the administration of the District before President-elect Thomas Jefferson's Republicans came to power. And as Pulitzer Prize winning historian Constance Green points out, the Federalists neglected to give the franchise to District residents when legislating the takeover. It was more one of those issues that fell between the cracks. In February 1801, after the Federalists left office, attempts were made by the new administration to rectify the problem, but unfortunately, the fight to retrieve suffrage for the District residents became subjugated to the most important problem before the Congress; namely, who was going to be President, Thomas Jefferson or Aaron Burr. And in the process the District of Columbia representation was passed by. Since then, there have been 150 attempts to try to deal with those who have been victimized in the District by being denied representation. It seems to me that we have to recognize that one of the reasons at that time that was used to pass over the District was that it was so small, its population at that time was only about 14,000 residents, as I recall, which was far fewer than the 50,000 residents that were required for territories that wanted to enter the Union at that time. It was easy to overlook such a small population. But certainly there can be no question today. The District's population is larger than seven States, and much if not all the reasoningused early on is no longer relevant. There are no unpaid soldiers: |