of poverty. It is to have, even at this late date, "taxation without representation". Americans did not tolerate that injustice more than two hundred years ago and their heritage tells them that they should not tolerate it now.

Those, I think, are the real questions posed by these resolutions. The fulfillment of precious freedoms requires vigilance, perseverance and commitment. We all have a heavy responsibility to ensure that framework for equal participation by all Americans in the political process. I urge this committee to act favorably on these resolutions H.J. Res. 139 and H.J. Res. 142 and bring that goal one step closer to reality.

Mr. EDWARDS. We will now adjourn and meet again on this subject on the 21st of September, in this room at 9:30a.m.

[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the hearing in the above entitled matter adjourned.]

REPRESENTATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1977

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m. in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Don Edwards (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Edwards, Drinan, and Beilenson.

Also present: Thomas P. Breen, counsel; Ivy L. Davis, assistant counsel and Roscoe B. Starek, associate counsel.

Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.

Today marks the third day of testimony before this subcommittee on joint resolutions introduced in the 95th Congress which would amend the Constitution by giving full congressional voting representation to residents of the District of Columbia.

It's an auspicious day in a number of ways, but chiefly because we all know by now, with great delight, that today, through the office of the Vice President, President Carter will announce that he and his administration are in full support of the resolution proposed by our colleague, Walter Fauntroy, which will provide full voting representation for Washington, D.C. It is a constitutional amendment we all hope can be enacted by a two-thirds vote of the House and the Senate, hopefully, by early next year. We will do everything we can to move it along, now that the President has made this splendid announcement. My congratulations to all the people, especially the local people, who were instrumental in convincing the administration that this was the right thing to do.

Our next hearing is set for Tuesday, October 4, at 2 p.m. in this room. As evidenced by our list of witnesses today, we have made every effort to bring together a cross-section of representatives to speak to this most important issue.

Our first witness this morning, and it is a great personal pleasure for me to introduce him, is our colleague from Connecticut, Stewart B. McKinney. In addition to being very knowledgable about District affairs, he has been and is an eloquent and effective spokesperson for full voting representation. As a matter of fact, since coming to Congress in 1971, he has served on the House Committee on the District of Columbia and is, currently, ranking Republican member of that committee.

In 1973, Mr. McKinney, along with former Congressman Gilbert Gude of Maryland, was instrumental in coalescing Republican sup

(49)

port for District home rule. He has continuously worked to broaden the concept of home rule since that time.

Mr. McKinney has introduced House Joint Resolution 142, being considered by this subcommittee, which would provide for full voting representation.

Stewart, we thank you again for your continued and persuasive support. We welcome you, and you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF HON. STEWART B. MCKINNEY, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. MCKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, informally, that it's a pleasure to be here. Your record of interest in civil and human rights, I think, is unsurpassed in this Congress. I really appreciate the fact that you are chairing these hearings, as I have high hopes that we will have success.

You know, quite often it's difficult to get people to go on the District of Columbia Committee. As a freshman, I went to Minority Leader Gerald Ford and said, "I want to be on the District Committee." And he said, "Why?" And I said, "To abolish it."

Now, we haven't succeeded with that, and we haven't succeeded with true home rule, but we're getting there. And I know that under your leadership we'll probably succeed at least I hope we'll succeed.

Having served on the District of Columbia Task Force that the President established, I was delighted to hear that the President has come forth or is coming forth-as strongly as he has on this subject. With that added emphasis, maybe victory is going to be ours at last.

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, congratulations to the task force, and to the work you did on it. That, I'm sure, was very instrumental.

Mr. MCKINNEY. Well, it'll be a happy day for me, Mr. Chairman, when people of this city can break the bottle of champagne over the demise of the District Committee of both the House and the Senate.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, it is a pleasure to appear before you today to express my views on the subject of full voting representation for the District of Columbia. I am here to share with you this morning my concern in this continuing congressional debate over the suffrage rights of 750,000 District residents, citizens of these United States. As you know, I have long been a supporter of full voting representation for the District of Columbia.

More than 200 years after a revolution was fought to end taxation without representation, District residents are still denied this basic right enjoyed by all other American citizens.

Since 1800, when District residents last voted for Members of Congress, there have been more than 150 attempts to regain suffrage. Today, those who support full voting representation include not only citizens of the District, but American citizens across the country, a large number of my colleagues in Congress, and both the Democratic and Republican Parties in their respective 1976 platforms.

Reportedly, in 1969, 1970, and 1971, the League of Women Voters of the United States conducted a nationwide petition drive in support of

an amendment for full voting representation and in a 1-week period secured 114 million signatures. I join that support.

And it's interesting to add that the initial question I was asked when the League of Women Voters first interviewed me as a candidate for Congress in my first campaign, was would I support home rule for the District of Columbia.

If our advocacy of human rights is to be regarded as credible and not counterfeit, the citizens of the Nation's Capital have a right to be fully enfranchised in the National Legislature. Presently, we have an elected Delegate to the House of Representatives who is not entitled to vote except in committee. A voice without a vote is not representation. Even voting representation in the House alone, while a partial step, would not be representation in the American tradition of democracy. Residents of the District of Columbia will continue to be less than first-class citizens if they have no vote in the Senate.

Fundamental to our concept of American democracy is that none of the obligations of citizenship be imposed upon citizens without "the consent of the governed" through their representatives in both Chambers of Congress-the House and Senate. But the facts reveal that to reside in our capital city as an American citizen is to have all the obligations of citizenship without the corresponding vote in the House or Senate to register their consent or dissent in the deliberations of their National Government. District residents have fought and died in every American war since the District was founded. Surely those who choose to reside in the District do not do so in an attempt to avoid the obligations of American citizenship. Equity, alone, would mandate that District citizens be accorded the full rights of citizenship, including the right to suffrage.

The proposed amendment simply provides the people of the District with the right to vote in Congress and thereby meaningfully participate in the controversial debates which so vitally affect their lives. A nonvoting delegate is not the answer. It is the power of the vote in both congressional Chambers that is needed to guarantee full representation of the citizens of Washington, D.C.

Mr. Chairman, I might parenthetically state that the American cities, in the condition they're in, could full well use two more votes in the Senate and proper voting representation in the House to put forth the cause of the American city, which, as you know, is another great interest of mine.

Surely our Constitution can be amended in such a fashion as to resolve the political plight of the citizens of our Nation's Capital granting them the right to elect two Senators and the number of Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State.

Nowhere does our Constitution forbid the grant of full representation to the citizens of the Capital. Furthermore, there is simply no justification for denying three-quarters of 1 million people, paying more than $1 billion in Federal taxes per year, a vote in deciding how that money is allocated.

I urge my colleagues in the House to use our Constitution in this grave instance as a shield and not a sword in protecting a constitutional right of all American citizens.