ing the Congress of the United States with calumny, it is my opinion, that will be the end of democratic government in our Nation and I think the fallout would mean the end of democratic government in the world.

As we all know, the residents of the District of Columbia pay taxes like all other citizens. They are called to serve in the Armed Forces in time of war and they are expected to carry their fair share of the Nation's burdens in time of peace. I note particularly the following portion of Mr. Fauntroy's testimony presented to this subcommittee on August 3, 1977. And I quote:

Despite this tradition of representative government, District residents do not enjoy the same rights as every other American. They are relegated to the status of second class citizens. They have no representation in the Senate of the United States, and they have only token representation in the House of Representatives. D.C. has no voting congressional representation, despite the fact that District residents pay more than $1 billion every year in federal taxes, despite the fact that the per capita tax payment for District residents is 77 dollars above the national average, a payment only exceeded by seven states; despite the fact that the population of the District of Columbia is larger than that of 10 states, including Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. ***

It is a source of great comfort to know that these resolutions are being considered by the most able and effective chairman, Congressman Peter Rodino, and his colleagues who have long records of working for the protection of human rights.

The chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Representative Don Edwards of California, has an unusual personal dedication to justice. Unfortunately for the country, keeping a watchful eye on whether civil rights laws are being enforced is not always a very attractive responsibility. Not many Members of the Congress would want to assume that very important mission. All of ust know that Congressman Edwards has accepted this duty as subcommittee chairman and has ably worked to make certain that the executive branch of Government does not lag in living up to the requirements of the laws in this field.

Mr. Rodino's leadership, supported by both Republican and Democratic colleagues has made it possible to continue the clearance and passage of civil rights legislation. It will be remembered that clearance and passage of the first civil rights bill in the 20th century came in 1957 under the bipartisan leadership of Representative Emanuel Celler, Democrat of New York, and the late Kenneth B. Keating, Republican of New York.

Most of the civil rights bills passed subsequently had the able guidance of Mr. Celler and Congressman William McCulloch of Ohio who succeeded Congressman Keating as the ranking member on the Republican side.

Now, with Mr. Rodino, we have Representative Robert McClory of Illinois as the ranking member of the minority. Mr. McClory is also a veteran of the years when the full Judiciary Committee worked so hard and so constructively to fulfill the Nation's promises of fairness to all of its citizens.

It is my hope and belief that the spirit which has motivated this committee in its consideration of civil rights legislation will also characterize its handling of these resolutions. If that happens, as I believe

it will, we can look forward to the swift approval of the resolution to amend the Constitution to provide for voting representation of the District of Columbia in Congress.

And I would say to Mr. Butler that my observation of his conduct in the handling of voting rights legislation was, in my judgment, exemplary, even though we were in disagreement. The reason I say that is, I think in this country, we have plenty of room for people of differing points of view. But I think one always holds a standard of fairness in hearings and when witnesses testify, and Mr. Butler always lived up to that standard. So, I am optimistic about the consideration of this legislation.

I thank you gentlemen for letting me be heard.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell. And I thank you for reminding us that this past decade of effort has been made by both sides of the aisle.

We all know that Mannie Celler could not have gotten through the various civil rights bills of the late 1950's and the early and middle 1960's without the strong and able support of Bill McCulloch. We would not have had the votes without the thoughtful Republicans who helped us so much.

I appreciate your reminding us of that.

The only question I have is: Can we count on help from the various civil rights organizations throughout the country that you work with, and of course, the nationwide NAACP?

Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We have about 1,700 branches of the NAACP and of all them, if our national conventions are indicative of the climate in our organization and I think they are, want to see the kind of representation in the District of Columbia which will give its citizens the right to have the voice and the vote in both Houses of Congress.

Let me also say that it is the feeling of the 140 or more organizations that represent the Leadership Conference, of which I am chairman, that this should happen. We, as organizations, have been working together for 28 years and we move on issues by consensus. Therefore, when we adopt a position, it represents the broad consensus of our constituent organizations.

Mr. EDWARDS. It is going to take a national effort. We need the support of every community of the United States.

Mr. MITCHELL. I agree.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Volkmer?

Mr. VOLKMER. For the record, Mr. Mitchell, what is your position on retrocession? that is ceding the District of Columbia back to the State of Maryland.

Mr. MITCHELL. I have reviewed that, and I am a resident of the State of Maryland. I have been commuting to Washington for 40 years. I think the Maryland Legislature would find it unacceptable to have the District added on as a part of the State of Maryland. Let me also point out that it is my recollection that the portion of Maryland which was ceded to the Federal Government and is now the District of Columbia was ceded in perpetuity. Thus, as a practical matter, it is now the property of the Government of the United States and not just a Federal enclave in a sovereign state. So, I would think it would be very unfortunate to mix these two groups.

I must say that, in my opinion, there is more homogeneity in the State of Maryland, because after all, we are essentially people who have been living together for 200 years or more. But in the District, the population is much more diverse, much more cosmopolitan. And it is my view that there would be some difficulty on both sides in trying to adjust to each other, if we were in one State.

Mr. VOLKMER. Is it fair to say, you prefer District voting representation in the Senate and House, rather than retrocession?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, indeed, I would. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say that.

Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Butler.

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for your comments. I would add, of course, that I am going to accede to your position in this instance if I heard it correctly and understand exactly what it is. I am too much of a gentleman to say that with reference to the Voting Rights Act I was entirely right and you were wrong in that instance. We have advanced voting rights in those States not 1 inch since we passed that law. If we had done it my way I think we would have gotten along further, but I am too much of a gentleman to bring that up now. [Laughter.]

But I would like to say, sir, that I am concerned about the question raised about what you can do toward ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment. In the 10 States, for example, mentioned by Mr. Fauntroy, how strong is your chapter in South Dakota?

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I believe we only have one chapter in South Dakota. But our organization is like the grain of yeast that was used to leaven the bread. In my judgment, and I am happy to say history supports this, although we may have only one chapter, there are so many fair-minded people who would rally around this issue that I have no doubt we would be able to do it in South Dakota.

I once lived in Minnesota where the black population was small and where we only had three chapters of the NAACP; one in Duluth, one in St. Paul and one in Minneapolis. Nevertheless, I was able to get through the State legislature legislation which prohibited discrimination in the sale of automobile liabilty insurance.

And I think that we would have the same experience in South Dakota or any of those other States mentioned.

Mr. BUTLER. Well, I share your curiosity about that, because I do think you have to recognize that we are asking the States to give up their power, or a portion of that power at least, in providing equal representation in the Senate. It takes only 13 States which fail to pass in order to not ratify a constitutional amendment.

So I am genuinely concerned that we may be asking too much and therefore jeopardizing the whole issue. I begin to feel that representation is an idea whose time has come.

Along those lines, though, the House resolution has been amended to include not only representation in Congress, but attributes of statehood such as election of President and Vice President and article 5 of the Constitution. The significant part of that is that we would also include the District of Columbia as two-thirds of the States for the amendment process generally.

Are those things significant in the overall question before us? Is that addition worth the load it adds to the constitutional amendment?

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I don't think it adds a load. I think it contributes flexibility in light of the closing clause in section 2 which contains the words, "and as shall be provided by Congress." It seems to me, this gives us an opportunity to take a second look, after the amendment is ratified, and to do the things, which Congress in its wisdom might feel advances the total cause.

With respect to the diminution of influence in the Senate of the United States, I included in my testimony references about the admission of Hawaii and Alaska, because for many years they were kind of like a battledore and shuttlecock; it was contended that the Republicans didn't want Alaska in because it would mean the election of a Democratic delegation from that State, and some souls on the Democratic side weren't too enthusiastic about Hawaii because they thought it would mean the addition of a Republican delegation.

As we have seen, when those States became a part of the Union, they elected, as in the case of Alaska, a Republican and a Democratic Senator. As for the State of Hawaii, they have added a new dimension, in that they have given us persons whose ancestry is from Asia. And I think it is an asset to our country that in the Senate of the United States visitors from the Asian continent looking down into the Senate Chamber can see persons, like themselves, who are citizens of the United States, helping to make the laws of this Nation.

A final footnote: I would say that I am indeed grateful to your gentlemanly reference to the voting rights bill. That is one of the characteristics which you have that I admire and try to emulate. I would say that one of the vindications for those who worked so hard in moving the voting rights legislation through Congress was the fact that all, as in the phrase of the Bible, "On these hang all the laws of the prophets."

I believe the State of Mississippi now has 300,000 black registered voters; whereas, prior to the Voting Rights Act, there were a couple of hundred. In 1976, without the State of Mississippi, the Presidential election might not have come out the way it did, and we might have been in the difficulty of trying to resolve just who was elected in the House of Representatives.

So I think that from a statistical and an historical standpoint, the voting rights legislation was worth the effort. And your willingness not to be an obstructioninst, in my opinion, more than compensates for any views that you might have had, then or now, against the bill. [Laughter.]

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you.

I do appreciate, also, the value of Alaska and Hawaii, as you mentioned. I do not think, however, that we can go so far as to suggest to my Republican colleagues the strong possibility that we might have a complete turnabout in representation and perhaps wind up with a Republican Senator in Congress from the District of Columbia.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I never underestimate the flexibility of the Republican Party in Congress. [Laughter.]

And the reason is, when we were working for passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we had a lot of sessions over at the White House about where we were going to get the votes to do various things. There were always those who seemed to think that we were going to get solid

opposition from the Republican Party. That simply was not the case. There was a team of Republicans who worked with us. Congressman McCulloch was a tower of strength in rallying his colleagues.

I made one mistake in that process. Don Rumsfeld was a Member of the House at that time. I saw a story in the newspaper which said that Don was going to vote against us on civil rights. We had a meeting with the Republicans and in the course of the meeting, we made an assessment of the possible votes. I said, "Well, yesterday, I thought we had 51 votes. I think today we only have 50."

And somebody said, "Why do you think that?"

And I said, "Well, because Congressman Rumsfelt is quoted in the paper as leaving us."

He was sitting there and he said, "That's not true. I am with you." And he was. He did vote with us.

So as I said; I never underestimate the flexibility of the party, nor believe everything I read or hear about what position it will take. Mr. BUTLER. Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. McClory.

Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Mr. Mitchell for your generous remarks, and I am proud indeed to have worked in support of the enactment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and worked with you in connection with other civil rights legislation which has been developed since that time.

I cannot help but feel that this has been most salutary toward the development and growth of our Nation. And I am anxious now to try to correct what I think is an inequity and a defect in our systemwe do not have representation in the Congress in this large population of the District of Columbia.

I would ask a couple of questions that may relate to excuses or may appear as elements of opposition to this constitutional amendment.

For one thing, it is charged that a very high percentage of the population in the District of Columbia actually, although they reside here, they do not vote here. They vote some place else and they are represented in the Congress in the place where they vote.

Do you have any figures as to the percentage of the population of the District of Columbia that actually votes elsewhere?

Mr. MITCHELL. I don't have those figures, Mr. McClory, but I will try to get them. I can give you a horseback opinion, which is the persons who have residence elsewhere but who live in the District of Columbia, are in the minority. It has been my impression over the years that most of the people who come from other areas are white and they have moved to Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties and also to nothern Virginia. In my State of Maryland, we have a very substantial number of persons from out of the State who actually hold residence in other areas and live in those two counties. I would say that the majority of the people of the District of Columbia are in fact bona fide residents and potential voters. I do say that I think the people here who are eligible to vote have not, in all instances, exercised that right, but unfortunately, that is characteristic of the country as a whole. There would certainly be more of an incentive to vote if District residents knew they had not only a voice but a vote.