right to vote for President and Vice President and gave the District of Columbia three electoral votes. But this is not enough. I was pleased to hear Congressman McKinney make reference this morning to our 1970 petition drive. Actually, he understated the results, because we came up with 114 million signatures in a very brief period, which indicates that the people of the United States understand the issue and do, indeed, support it. I would like to have the full text of this statement in the record, but I think I would like to concentrate my oral remarks on some of the reasons, perhaps why our goal has not been achieved. Mr. EDWARDS. Without objection the full statement will be made a part of the record. Mrs. CLUSEN. While I think the justness and rightness is obvious, I do want to speak to some of the concerns expressed by those who do not support giving residents their just voting representation. For instance, there are those who have expressed concern that an amendment like the one which is proposed here would affect the special status of that area in which the Federal District is located, a status conferred by the Constitution. This amendment would not end the responsibility that Congress now has over that geographic area, but it would give District of Columbia citizens the right to have meaningful representation. The independence of the national capital area from other governmental jurisdictions would continue as it is at present. I might add that nowhere in the constitutional provisions surrounding the District does it say that residents should be denied the political rights that other Americans enjoy, but as long as the current situation continues unchanged, District of Columbia citizens really have only a fraction of their rights. Another concern I have heard expressed is that representation in the U.S. Senate for the District would deprive the States of equal suffrage. We do not see this as a legitimate concern; even adding two Senators for the District of Columbia would not dilute the representation for the States. Each State would still be equal to every other State. In fact, we see this as similar to the situation when new States are added to the list. Moreover, voter representation in the Senate is especially important since that body has different functions than those of the House. With representation only in the House, District of Columbia residents would still have no say in the ratification of treaties, the approval of candidates for Cabinet, and other appointed positions, nor in the appointment of Federal judges. So, we hope that the 95th Congress will take this historic and longneeded step. And we certainly are pleased to hear of the support announced today by the White House. To achieve this will rightly earn all of you the credit for redress of an injustice that has been allowed to exist for too long. I pledge the support of the local, State, and national leagues across the country in securing ratification of this amendment if you do, indeed, pass it. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ruth C. Clusen follows:] STATEMENT BY RUTH C. CLUSEN, PRESIDENT, THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES I am Ruth Clusen, President of the League of Women Voters of the United States, a volunteer citizen and education and political organization of 1,350 Leagues with approximately 137,000 members in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. It has always been a matter of great concern to the League of Women Voters that a basic right, representation in Congress for citizens, has not yet been granted to the residents of the nation's capital. I am here today to renew our firm support for representation for the District of Columbia which would be granted by H.J. Res. 554. The League, born in 1920 out of the struggle for the enfranchisement of women, began early in its history to seek redress for another disenfranchisement group the residents of the District of Columbia. Direct representation in Congress and in the electoral college for the citizens of the District of Columbia became a part of the League program in 1924 and over the years our members have worked unceasingly for the goals of full representation and home rule. Leagues across the country actively supported the ratification in 1961 of the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, which gave D.C. citizens the right to vote for President and Vice President and gave D.C. three electoral votes. In 1970, League members launched a nationwide campaign, including a petition drive in which over a million and a quarter signatures were collected in a brief period, in support of full voting representation in Congress for D.C. citizens. As an interim measure, we also supported the nonvoting delegate bill. Again in 1975 the League testified before this committee in support of a constitutional amendment to give D.C. citizens full representation in our national legislative body. It is ironic, that, while our nation has just observed its Bicentennial, the basic right fought for by the original 13 colonies-the right to be represented in their government has still not been accorded citizens of the District. As you know the Declaration of Independence states: "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." However, District residents are still being governed without their consent as expressed in the opportunity to vote for their representatives in Congress who have full voting powers with other members of Congress. 1 The District of Columbia has a population greater than that of seven states which, obviously, are given voting representation in Congress. These states are (according to 1975 Census population figures) Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. Yet D.C. has no voting representatives in the body that has a veto power over their local government's decisions and that holds the purse-string control, thus denying the 716,000 citizens of the District the rights of self-government that other American citizens consider their due under the Constitution. 3 Residents of the District of Columbia are taxed without being represented. According to 1974 Census figures, while the national per capita average incometax was $587, for D.C. residents, the per capita income tax was $664, reflecting the fact that the per capita income for D.C. is higher than the national average. Thus, D.C. citizens pay more than their fair share of taxes. They ought to havetheir fair share of voting representation in both houses of Congress. While I think the justness and rightness of this measure is obvious to all, I want to speak to some of the concerns expressed by those who do not support giving the residents of D.C. their just voting representation in the national legislature. There are those who have expressed concern that an amendment like the oneproposed here would affect the special status of that area in which the federal district is located, a status conferred by the Constitution. This amendment would not end the responsibility that Congress now has over this geographic area, but it would give D.C. citizens the right to have meaningful representation in Congress. The independence of the national capital area from other governmental jurisdictions would continue as at present. I might add that nowhere in the constitutional provisions surrounding the District does it say that residents should be denied 1 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bur. of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 1976.. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. the political rights that other Americans enjoy. But as long as the current situation continues unchanged, D.C. citizens have only a fraction of their rights. Another concern I have heard expressed is that representation in the U.S. Senate for the District would deprive the states of equal suffrage. We do not believe this to be a legitimate concern. Even adding two Senators for D.C. would not dilute the representation for the states-each state will still be equal to every other state. Moreover, voting representation in the Senate is very important since that body has different functions than those of the House. With representation only in the House, D.C. residents would still have no say in the ratification of treaties, approval of candidates for Cabinet and other appointive positions, nor in the appointment of federal judges. We hope that the 95th Congress will take the historic and long-needed step of approving the resolutions calling for voting representation for D.C. in both the House and Senate. To do so will rightly earn you the credit for redress of an injustice that has been allowed to exist for too long. I pledge the support of local and state Leagues across the nation in securing ratification of this amendment should the 95th Congress pass H.J. Res. 554. Thank you. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mrs. Clusen. We will now hear the testimony of Mr. Clarence Arata. Mr. ARATA. Mr Chairman, Mr Drinan, I'm Clarence Arata, the executive vice president of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade. Our organization is very appreciative of the opportunity afforded us to appear and express our unqualified and enthusiastic support for this legislation. It is a compelling privilege and distinct honor to support the considerable efforts of our distinguished Delegate, Mr. Fauntroy, also our distinguished chairman here, Mr. Tucker, and all of the others who are in support of this legislation. The great news that we had from the President, Mr. Chairman, led me to the conclusion that maybe we all ought to go home and just rest on that statement by the President, but I think we'd better go ahead anyway. The Board of Trade has within its membership more than 1,400 Dis trict of Columbia retailers, business men, and community leaders. We have, over the past few years, studied the controversial issue of full voting representation in the District of Columbia and after due deliberation, concluded that the idea is fair, democratic, essential, and fullyconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. We have presented our findings to other Congresses. Unfortunately, those Congresses have, for various reasons, failed to take action on this. matter, despite its obvious merit. We, nevertheless, appeal to you to seize this opportunity to provide the citizens of the District of Columbia with the same privileges that citizens of many of your own districts have enjoyed for more than 175 years. Congresses have on many occasions, in the face of better or more mature wisdom, taken the initiative to act on matters that other Congresses have passed over. It is understandable and, indeed, commendable that several Congressmeneven at least one within this committee-have been persuaded to the merits of full voting representation. We hope there are a number of others who will act similarly. And we think there will be. The simple fact is, Mr. Chairman, that there is not one substantive reason why this legislation should not pass.. All of the relevant arguments, to be sure, are to the contrary. The 86th Congress recognized the right of the people of this city to vote in the Presidential election by submitting for ratification the 23d amendment. The 91st Congress recognized the necessity of providing at least a voice in the House of Representatives by creating the Office of Delegate. Should not this House, in this 95th Congress, complete this work and meet your responsibility to assure full voting participation in our national life for this capital city? We rest our case on the simple principle upon which this great Nation was founded. The phrase, "no taxation without representation," is just as applicable to this matter as it was to our forefathers who fought and often died to see that it became a reality. We cannot imagine that they had the slightest intention of making that principle of law applicable to most rather than all of our Nation's citizens. There is nothing to indicate that the framers of the Constitution intended to preclude full voting representation for the District. Reading the document carefully, it is evident that the only concern of the framers was to afford Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the Federal area which, at that time, consumed most of the District. It is a matter of historical oversight that our Founding Fathers failed to foresee the rapid expansion and more local identity of the District of Columbia in terms of democracy, economy, and governmental services. The District has become a major residential population center. The District of Columbia now has a resident population larger than that of the States of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. The District is treated like a State for purposes of national legislation based upon congressional power to regulate interstate commerce; District residents pay a per capita Federal income tax greater than the overwhelming majority of citizens in other States, and the District, as a whole, pays more Federal taxes than the citizens of 15 other States. All of these responsibilities—in addition to the sometimes supreme task of defending America on the battlefield: the District of Columbia, incidentally, had the fourth highest number of casualties per resident in the Vietnam conflict-are borne by the citizens of the District without the same democratic privileges that other citizens enjoy. One nonvoting Delegate in the House-despite his outstanding qualities-is hardly an adequate or fair share to represent responsibilities of this magnitude. There are, then, many good reasons why the District of Columbia should have full voting representation in the House and the Senate. In a period which has seen this Nation celebrate 200 years of freedom premised on representational government and a now renewed and aggressive policy in support of human rights and human dignitv. it is unthinkable that the people who live in the Nation's capital should be without these fundamental rights. As former Representative Gilbert Gude has said, "It is right, it is fair, and it is an essential element of representative democracy." It is for these reasons that the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade supports this legislation. We hope you do, too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Drinan. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Arata, and we thank all three members of the panel for their splendid testimony. I always think I have heard every argument which can be raised in support of full voting representation for the District, and then almost every wit ness has something new to add. For example, I did not know the District of Columbia had the fourth highest number of casualties per resident in the Vietnam conflict. Yet we don't allow the survivors or their parents or relatives to be represented in Congress. When you think about it, it is really outrageous. In fact, the more you think about this subject, the more resentment one can feel, because not having voting representation in both Houses really makes you less than a citizen. That is unacceptable. I hope that resentment is understood in the Congress. We have a big battle ahead of us. Thank you. And now I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. I echo the chairman's words. I'd like to get mad about this all over again, and then I begin to wonder, "Well, who are the enemies?" We have all types of friends here supporting representation. I'm glad to see the League of Women Voters back. Mrs. Clusen, I agree with you that I hope this is the last time on this subject. But the League, as everyone knows, started years and years ago on this topic, and here we have Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives. But I keep wondering: who are the people who still vote no? Well, I hope that the support of President Carter and Vice President Mondale will turn things around. One of my minor frustrations, Mr. Chairman, is that I can't find any questions to ask because I agree with everybody. So, I'll yield to counsel. Maybe I'll think of something to say. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Drinan. We have the gentleman from California, Mr. Beilenson. Mr. Beilenson? Mr. BEILENSON. No questions. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Starek? Mr. STAREK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. Mr. Tucker, may I ask you if you have any idea about the number of eligible voters in the District of Columbia who are domiciled and vote in another jurisdiction? In other words, how many people voted in the last election in the District of Columbia? Mr. TUCKER. In the Presidential election, there were-I'm not exactly sure of the figure-around 150,000 or 160,000. I don't knowI don't have the answer to the other part of the question; there must be that many voters who are here who maintain their voting residence elsewhere because they don't have full representation here. A VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE. Do you have any idea how many eligible voters there are-people who are eligible to vote out of a population of 720,000? Mr. TUCKER. I don't know the figure on that. It would probably be a fourth of the population-more or less. Mr. STAREK. So that would mean there would be a substantial number who either do not choose to vote and are, in fact, registered elsewhere because they cannot vote. Would that be Mr. TUCKER. We're satisfied there are a large number who vote elsewhere, or who at least retain the right to vote elsewhere, much 22-873-78-5 |