around the world. Recognizably, he has realized that charity, if it begins at all, must begin at home. We know that President Carter remains very firm in his stand on the principle of full congressional representation in both Houses of Congress and intends to provide the necessary leadership in achieving this important goal. We believe that the President's leadership and the commitment of the chairman and members of this committee will mean that congressional representation. House Joint Resolution 565 and related resolutions would amend the U.S. Constitution and thereby accord to three-quarters of a million citizens the right to vote, a cherished and fundamental tradition of American democracy. The enactment of this amendment, a legislative priority in the 95th Congress we hope would set an historical precedent in that it would, for the first time, grant District citizens the right to full suffrage, a right presently exercised and enjoyed by all other citizens in America, the proposed amendment would grant to the residents of the District Senators and the requisite number of Representatives in the House to which the District would be entitled if it were a State. The issue, however insubstantial, arises as to the propriety, but more importantly, the validity of such an amendment. To be valid, such an amendment will require the adoption by two-thirds of each House of Congress and the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. The question remaining is whether it is constitutionally proper to grant the right to suffrage to three-quarters of a million people who pay more than $1 billion in Federal taxes per year but whether it is politically appropriate. Should we not have a vote in deciding how money is spent? Are we less citizens because we happen to reside in Washington? District residents have long heard persons argue that according full congressional representation to the District is constitutionally impermissible. Indeed some would argue that it is unconstitutional. I take their point to be that because historically, full congressional representation in the Congress was and is based on being a State, the District cannot have full congressional representation because it is not a State. We regard that argument as being a red herring. The constitutional amending process is designed to expand the basis under which Members of Congress may be elected. I cannot believe that someone would seriously argue that two-thirds of the Congress and threefourths of the States could not change the way we elect Members to this great body. I do not therefore think it can be gainsaid that the U.S. Constitution is a document capable of expansion to insure the guarantee of the basic democratic rights of all Americans citizens barring none. Ten American States (New Hampshire, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Delaware, Nevada, Vermont, Wyoming, and Alaska) have fewer residents than the District but have an aggregate of 34 Members of Congress. On a per capita basis, there is one voting Member of Congress for every 143,000 citizens in those States, compared to one nonvoting delegate for the 750,000 citizens in the District of Columbia. To compound this wrong, the District has a higher per capita income than any State in the country, tax receipts from Dis trict residents represent a high proportionate share of Federal revenues-clear example of taxation without representation. American democracy is buttressed on the principle of representative government which states that each citizen should have a voice in formulating the national, political will of the people. Furthermore, fundamental to the American political tradition is the promise that none of the obligations of citizenship be imposed upon citizens without "the consent of the governed." Government is to draw its power from the consent of the people. It appears to us that the rights and privileges of American citizenship including the right to elect Congressmen and Senators are essentials and prerequisites to full citizenship in the District. For example, District residents 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. Save, of course, our right to help elect a President. 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. Equitable considerations alone would mandate that District citizens be accorded the full panoply of citizenship rights-including the right to suffrage. In the last session of the 94th Congress, the House of Representatives, for the first time, voted on a constitutional amendment. That vote fell only 45 votes short of the necessary two-thirds for approval of an amendment. With Presidential leadership and bipartisan support in the Congress, the Democrats of the District of Columbia believe a constitutional amendment granting full congressional representation to the District can be approved early in the 95th Congress. In conclusion, permit me to reiterate the respective Republican and Democratic platforms of 1976 on the question of full voting representation for the District of Columbia. The Republican platform was clear and to the point: The principle of self-determination also governs our position on the District of Columbia as it has in past platforms. We support giving the District of Columbia voting representation in the United States Senate and House of Representatives and full home rule over those matters that are purely local. And the party to which I take great pride in providing the necessary local leadership was as unequivocal in its position: We support full Home Rule for the District of Columbia, including authority over its budget and local revenues, elimination of federal restrictions on matters which are purely local and Full Voting Representation in the Congress. Further, Mr. Chairman, we in the District are often told that we do not deserve congressional representation because we do not vote or fully participate in the existing political processes. I would have two responses to those who would frame such an argument. First, it seems to us that the extension of such fundamental rights-which are preservative of other basic rights-should not be based on whether a certain percentage of the people in the District in fact vote. Constitutional rights are far too important to be based upon such factors. Second, the record should reflect that over 171,469 District voters voted in the 1976 Presidential election. This was approximately 64 percent of the total registered roll of 262,887 registered voters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before you to express the sentiments of the Democrats of the District of Columbia. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you for your splendid statement, Mr. Washington. Ms. Sedgwick, do you or Mr. Hechinger have anything to add? Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize our National Committeewoman Sharon Pratt Dixon who was late. She is here. Mr. EDWARDS. You are welcome. Ms. DIXON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hechinger is going to speak for the national committee. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Hechinger. Mr. HECHINGER. I think that in the interests of time, Mr. Chairman, I will just say that I've been here before. I just want to make the record 100 percent and have a batting average of being here and speaking on behalf of full representation for the District. I think there is something new today that I have not noticed before, and that is this hearing room is facing south. Today's testimony is certainly unique in that respect, and I hope that we get favorable consideration. [Laughter.] Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add, if I may, just one further point. For the record, I would like to submit some information compiled by the Board of Elections and Ethics in Washington regarding voting patterns in the District of Columbia, which I think the committee will find impressive. I would also like to bring to the subcommittee's attention a certificate of award, America Vote 1976, which was given to the District of Columbia. In population categories over 250,000, the District placed third in the Nation in increasing voter turnout on November 2, 1976 over November 5, 1974. This, I hope will refute those who suggest the people of Washington do not participate in the electoral process and a fortiori do not deserve to have such important and fundamental rights extended to them. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. Without objection, it will be received. Thank you very much for your comments, Mr. Hechinger. Are there any further statements to be made by members of this group? I would only like to remind you that you come from political areas, and that is where this constitutional amendment is going to rise or fall. And this may be the last time in a long while when you are going to get a shot at it. This is probably the best opportunity this constitutional amendment has ever had and might have for a decade or so. Therefore, the decision is going to be very largely political. It is a question of whether we have the votes, and it is going to need a lot of help. Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, let me assure you that we Democrats are fully behind you, and I intend to as a member of the executive committee of the National Democratic Committee to introduce a resolution on Thursday for executive committee consideration and full national committee consideration on Friday. And I hope with 22-873-78-6 the excellent help of your good friends in California, Chuck Vernata, Bruce Lee and others, we are going to push this through the National Democratic Party. I also intend to put this before the Democratic State Chairmen's Association for their consideration. We intend to give you all the help possible. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. Thank you all for being here today. Our next witness is Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. Mr. Rauh has been a friend, a consultant, an adviser to this committee for many, many years. In addition to serving as general counsel to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, he is also vice president of the Americans for Democratic Action and treasurer of Self-Determination for Washington, D.C. Mr. Rauh, we are delighted to have you here. Proceed. TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, Mr. RAUHI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're very kind to call me so promptly, because I do have a problem with time. It is always a privilege to appear before a chairman who is on the same side you are. I spend most of my time in front of chairmen who don't have that same empathy for the positions I hold, and it's nice to be here. I say that with no disrespect to Mr. Butler who may have some questions that will be difficult for me to answer, as he is a constitutional expert in his own right. I have a statement which was submitted to the committee, and I assume it will be printed here. To save you the time Mr. EDWARDS. It will be received without objection, Mr. Rauh. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rauh follows:] STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR. My name is Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., and I am General Counsel of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Vice President of Americans for Democratic Action and Treasurer of Self-Determination for District of Columbia. We welcome the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today in support of H.J. Res. 554 introduced by Chairman Edwards and H.J. Res. 565 introduced by Delegate Fauntroy. These resolutions propose identical constitutional amendments providing congressional representation for the District of Columbia as though it were a State. Although other constitutional amendments providing congressional representation for the District of Columbia in various forms have been introduced in this session of Congress, it would seem appropriate to limit testimony at this time to these two amendments which have received the full endorsement of the President of the United States. Although I have been invited to testify today as a constitutional expert, I cannot refrain from saying a word as a long-suffering resident of the District of Columbia. The struggle for self-government for District residents has been a long, uphill one. We were not allowed to vote for President until the 1960s. We were not given a voice in either House of Congress or even a partial share in local government until the last few years. Everything has come to District of Columbia too little and too late. I suppose I could try and imitate Senator Dirksen and suggest that full District of Columbia representation in the Congress is an idea whose time has come. But voting representation in Congress is an idea whose time came 176 years ago and residents of the District have been deprived individuals ever since. Still, on the simple principle of "better late than never", we urge the Congress to act now at long last. In my judgment, H.J. Res. 554 and H.J. Res. 565 raise no substantial constitutional issues. Most respectfully, I suggest that the constitutional issues that have been raised about the various amendments for voting representation are without substance and are little more than roadblocks thrown up by those who seek to prevent the District from obtaining representation in the Houses of Congress. The District has lived in the shadow of constitutional "red herrings" long enough and Congress should lay these constitutional questions to rest once and for all by the enactment of the amendments proposed by Chairman Edwards and Delegate Fauntroy. There is a heavy burden on anyone contending that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional. The proposed amendment for District of Columbia representation in Congress will have to be adopted by two-thirds of each House of Congress and the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. If the idea of enfranchising District of Columbia residents is sufficiently powerful to obtain the support of two-thirds of each House and three-fourths of the state legislatures, only the most compelling argument would persuade any court to interpose itself against such an expression of national will. Far from any such compelling argument against the validity of the proposed constitutional amendments, the only argument being dredged up against them is that old chestnut based upon the last clause of Article V of the Constitution which provides "that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." That clause, as every school child knows, came into the Constitution through "the Connecticut compromise" between the big and little States. It was intended to prohibit differences in Senate representation between States and to ensure that the little States would forever be on an equal footing in the Senate to offset the larger States having House dominance based on population. To suggest that a constitutional clause permanently ensuring equality between the States in the Senate should bar forever a constitutional entity other than a State (i.e., the District of Columbia) from participating in the Senate is to stretch the framers' intention into an area never contemplated by them. Significantly, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, which provides that "the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. . . .", was not made unamendable. Had the constitutional framers desired to limit representation in the Senate to "each State" and thus forever exclude other entities, it would have been simple enough to make this clause unamendable. But they did not do this; rather they simply provided that "no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." The framers of the Constitution thus made unamendable the provision for two Senators (equality between the States), but left open for amendment the provision limiting representation in the Senate to States. Over and over again, congressional committees, including Senate committees, have come to the conclusion that senatorial representation for the District would in no way violate the above-quoted provision of Article V. For example, the Senate Committee for the District of Columbia in the 67th Congress made short shrift of the Article V provision as follows: "** [T]he plain meaning of this provision is that no State shall have any greater numerical representation in the Senate than any other State. It can not mean that the aliquot share of the legislative power possessed by a State at any given time can not be reduced, as the proportion of that power, which was originally 2 as to 26, has been steadily diminished by the admission of new States until it is now 2 as to 96 [now 2 as to 100]". The present Administration supports the constitutionality of District of Columbia Senate representation. The previous Administration, in line with its predecessors, likewise supported the validity of District of Columbia Senate representation amendments. In a letter to Chairman Celler of the House Judiciary Committee dated July 20, 1971, Deputy Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst found Senate representation "consistent with the Administration's objectives" and opposed an amendment that failed to provide for Senate representation. At least equally significant, then Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 1, 1970 in support of the Administration's position for District of Columbia Senate representation. Mr. Justice Rehnquist is likely the most strict constructionist to sit on the Supreme Court Bench in the 20th Century. His testimony leaves little substance to |