contribute substantially to the Federal revenues-very nearly the highest per contribution in the country. Is it consistent with democratic principle that we have no part in deciding how that money is spent? Our forebears found taxation without representation so abhorrent that they waged a war to end that abomination, or so they thought. Distinguished subcommittee members, I hope you share my belief that those statesmen would strongly disapprove the disenfranchisement of 720,000 Americans who live in the District of Columbia. They would never have asserted that taxation without representation is tyranny and then added the footnote, "except in the District of Columbia."

Indeed, our Revolutionary War, as well as other wars in which we have felt forced to intervene, serves as a painful reminder that men and women are willing to die to safeguard the Democratic principles to which we all subscribe. War is, unfortunately, a subject that has figured significantly in the preservation of our democracy. The residents of the District of Columbia have not shirked this important responsibility of citizenship. In this century alone, 1,621 residents have died fighting in our Nation's wars; 1,621 Americans were considered full-fledged citizens for purposes of fighting, yet were not granted that status for purposes of voting for congressional representatives. I do not believe that this inconsistency was the intent of the framers of the Constitution when they inadvertently disenfranchised District of Columbia residents.

It is argued by some detractors of full congressional representation for the District of Columbia that if its residents feel so strongly about their right to elect voting representatives they should live elsewhere. I ask you, distinguished committee members, should American citizenship rights be subject to such qualifications? Should the right to be represented in our national legislature be separated from the freedom to live anywhere in our land? I have always been under the impression that the basic rights insured the citizenry of these United States, as delineated in the Constitution, are unconditional and reserved for each and every American.

Once again we are required to review the Democratic principles on which our Nation was founded. The words of the Declaration of Independence speak eloquently to those principles: "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed:" these words should not, and cannot, be conveniently disregarded by denying full political rights to the residents of the District of Columbia.

As president of Self-Determination for the District of Columbia. I have been asked to represent the wide range of District citizens who have organized to obtain meaningful participation in their Government. We are assisted in that effort by nearly 3 million Americans. from all across the Nation who have joined us, through our national coalition, to help us gain our rights. We District of Columbia residents do not have the power to change these anachronistic rules by which we are governed. Only these citizens of the 50 States, through their elected voting representatives in the U.S. Congress, have the power to change our status. We again ask you to make that change.

In this Congress which governs us, not one Member's vote is answerable to the people of the District of Columbia. It is, in fact, a Congress

whose constituents' interests are often directly contrary to the interests of District residents. The Congress, after all, is not elected by the District of Columbia citizens. We, like Americans in every part of the country, should be free to decide our laws for ourselves, correctly or incorrectly. If we truly believe in a free society, in the democracy we preach to the world, we should not and cannot have a double standard at home.

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of this committee, as the elected Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, I speak on behalf of the citizens of the District of Columbia who are unjustifiably, but effectively, disenfranchised. Thus, I enthusiastically support, and ask you to give your unanimous endorsement to, House Joint Resolution 139 which provides congressional representation for the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives and in the Senate of the United States.

The struggle to achieve suffrage for all American citizens has been a long and difficult one. The right to vote was extended to American citizens who were black in 1870; female, in 1920; and 18 years of age in 1971. The direct election of Senators by most of the citizens of these United States provided a more democratic Government in 1913. In 1971 we Americans residing in the District of Columbia were granted one long overdue opportunity at the polls, we were permitted to vote for the President and Vice President of the United States. This 23d amendment established the legal precedent for the amendment being considered today.

It is now more than 200 years since the founding of our Nation, and I sadly report that the struggle for full representation in Congress for the District of Columbia remains a dream. Let 1977 be the year to end the struggle and fulfill that dream. Let us, in 1977, finally have a democracy for all Americans.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Tucker.

Our next witness, Ruth C. Clusen, president of the League of Women Voters of the United States.

Mrs. Clusen. it is nice to have you back.

Mrs. CLUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was thinking as I sat here that I've appeared before this committee any number of times in the past few years, and as much as I enjoyed that experience, I hope this is, indeed, the last time.

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 been granted to the residents of the Nation's Capital. I am here again today to renew our firm support for representation for the District.

We have felt particularly strongly about this because the League was born in 1920 out of the struggle to enfranchise women, and, so, we began very early in our history trying to seek redress for this other disenfranchised group, the citizens of the District of Columbia. Direct representation in Congress and in the electoral college for the citizens of the District became a part of our program in 1924, and over the years our members have pursued the goal of full representation and home rule. In 1961, we actively supported the ratification of the 23d amendment which gave the citizens of the District of Columbia the

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.

The District of Columbia has a population greater than that of seven states1 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.

2

Residents of the District of Columbia are taxed without being represented. According to 1974 Census figures, while the national per capita average income tax 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 have their 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 one 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 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 District 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 fully consistent 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 Congressmen— even 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