March 10, 1971

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHILES). Under the previous order, the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business, which the clerk will state.

The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Senate Joint Resolution 7 , proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States extending the right to vote to citizens 18 years of a g e or older.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the joint resolut i on.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the previous order , the pending question is on agreeing to the amendment (No. 11) of the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY).

Under the previous order, there will now be 2 hours of debate, to be controlled by the distinguished majority leader, the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD) and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts ( Mr. KENNEDY)

Who yields time?

QUORUM CALL

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time to be taken out of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll, with the time to be deducted from the majority leader's time. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr . President, I send a modification of amendment No. 11 to the desk which modifies the pending amendment so that it is applicable to the reported resolution, and I ask that the 105.4 modification be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mod­ 109 . 9 ification will be reported.

The assistant legislative clerk pro­ 121.2 ceeded to read the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the modified amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, and the modified amendment will be printed in the RECORD.

The amendment reads as follows:

Beginning with the word "That" in line 1, page 2, strike out all to and including the colon in line 7, page 2, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "That the following articles are hereby proposed as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, any one of which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution only if ratified separately by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:".

On page 2, after line 4, insert the follow­

"ARTICLE-

"SECTION 1. The people of the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall elect two Senators and the number of Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled by apportionment if it were a State. Each Senator or Representative so elected shall be an inhabitant of the District and shall possess the same qualifications as to age and citizenship, shall be elected for the same term, and shall have the same rights, privileges, and obligations as a Senator or Representative from a State.

"SEc. 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of the District in either the Senate or the House of Representatives, the people of the District shall fill such vacancies by election.

"SEc. 3. This article shall have no effect on the provision made in the twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution for determining the number of electors for President and Vice President to be appointed for the District. Each Representative or Senator from the District shall be entitled to participate in the choosing of the President or Vice President in the House of Representatives or Senate under the twelfth article of amendment as if the District were a State. "SEc. 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STEVENSON). The Senator from Massachusetts has 59 minutes remaining. The Senator from Montana has 49 minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield m ys elf such time as I shall require.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mas s achusetts is recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all I commend the authors of the constitutional amendment that the Senate is considering today which will provide by constitutional amendment the right for 18-year-olds to participate in all elections throughout the country. I think a great deal of the credit must go to the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH).

The Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH) chaired the various hearings that have been held and has been greatly interested in providing the right to vote to 18-yearolds, the millions of Americans who have for so long been denied that right and privilege.

I also congratulate the majority leader who played such an important and significant role in the passage of the statute last year, the amendment to the Voting Rights Act, which was upheld by the Supreme Court as it applied to national elections. It has been through his interest in the matter and his feeling of a sense of urgency that we in the Senate have the opportunity, hopefully, to act today to provide to all18-year-old Americans the right to vote.

Mr. President, as one who is greatly committed to this proposal and who worked closely with the majority leader and the Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON) in the last session on the amendment which provided the vote for 18-year-olds, I enthusiastically support what I am sure will be the action taken by the Senate this afternoon and by the House of Representatives at a later date. It will at least indicate, as 86 Members of the Senate have indicated, our confidence in the young people of this country participating in a meaningful way in the democratic process in the selection of the people who will represent the citizens in the various offices across the land.

Today we are offering an amendment to this measure which, I think, is completely consistent with the spirit of the constitutional amendment to extend the right to voting to 18-year-olds, a group of citizens in our society who have been disadvantaged and disenfranchised invidiously because of not having the right to vote.

It is entirely appropriate that we consider another group of people who are disadvantaged and have been disenfranchised invidiously-the 750,000 people who live in our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia. These citizens are similarly denied the opportunity to have representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States. They have been denied the right of representation which I think all Americans realize is so fundamental to our system and to our society.

I know, Mr. President, that there will be arguments made on the floor today that this amendment is, out of order for various procedural reasons, despite the fact those same critics know how worthy and valuable this amendment is. I am sure that there will be those who will suggest that this is a matter that ought to go through the various committee processes and that we ought to have the due deliberation of the various committees in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. However, the fact remains that this proposition providing for the representation of the people in the District of Columbia has been considered in one form or another by the Congress of the United States for some 70 or 80 years. It has been in the form of legislative proposals for some 40 years.

Yet there has not been one time over this period of time when the Congress of tion. the United States has had a single chance to vote on this proposition. There have been few proposals that have been considered by the Members of the Senate which have been diverted and frustrated as much as the proposition we are considering today.

I think, therefore, that when we consider the days of hearings that have been held by the respective committees of the House and Senate and when we realize the simplicity of the issue, justice demands and compels us to take this action on the floor of the Senate this afternoon.

I think that the Senate will be acting completely responsively and completely within its rights in offering this amendment to the measure we are considering which would lower the voting age to the 18-years of age.

We can ask why on the basis of the merits the 750,000 individuals living in the District of Columbia should not be entitled to some representation.

The Constitution of the United States provides quite clearly that Congress will provide laws to regulate the conduct of business in the District of Columbia.

I for one cannot believe that the Founding Fathers ever thought that someday the environs of the District of Columbia would include 750,000 American citizens. Perhaps a narrow Federal triangle, yes. However, certainly they did not consider disenfranchising the number of citizens that now reside in the Federal Capital. The mothers of the District of Columbia have sent their sons to Southeast Asia to fight and die in that I am mindful that more citizens from the District of Columbia have died in South Vietnam than in nine of the other States. Each one of those nine States has representation in Congress. Each of those States has two Senators and at least one Representative in the House of Representatives. The citizens of the District of Columbia know that they have lost more men in Southeast Asia than any of those nine States.

We know of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are paid in Federal income taxes that go to the various Federal programs that are approved in Congress, and still there is no spokesman in our committees, on the floor of the Senate, or in the House of ReP'resentatives speaking for the people who pay Federal income taxes. Simple justice requires and demands that we move toward consideration and enactment of this proposal. I suppose it must appear as an extraordinary irony to the citizens of the District of Columbia when they send their sons 10,000 miles away to fight in Southeast Asia for the right of self-government of the South Vietnamese; and I suppose this must rise in their minds time and time again when their sons are in training, or traveling across the South Pacific, or in the jungles of Southeast Asia. They must wonder why they are out there fighting for self-determination on the part of the South Vietnamese when they are denied that right in the Nation's Capital. Certainly, very little justice is suggested by this course of Finally, it is extraordinary that we in this Nation who pride ourselves on being the bastion of freedom and democracy in the world should have the citizens of the Nation's Capital denied the opportunity and the role of participating in decisions and judgments which affect directly their lives and well being.

We hear time and time again talk about participatory democracy and bringing more people into the system. Well, there is no example which presents itself more vividly than the fact that the citizens of this great community are denied the opportunity to participate in the routine decisions which affect so dramatically their welfare .

It has been said that the District of Columbia is America's last colony. I think this comment is entirely accurate. We admit it with no sense of pride. We admit it and I think today we have an opportunity to move in a significant and important way to remedy that situation. That is why the distinguished Senator from Missouri (Mr, EAGLETON), and Members on both sides of the aisle, Republicans as well as Democrats, join in this effort to eliminate this injustice.

Mr. EAGLETON and Mr. COOK addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are under a time limitation. If the Senator from Kentucky wishes to be recognized I will be glad to yield to him but first I yield to the Senator from Missouri.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I wish to support the remarks just made by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I desire not to be repetitive but to approach the matter from perhaps an additional and different point of view. The notion of full voting representation for the 750,000 of the people of the District of Columbia is not new. It did not originate ab initio in the mind of the Senator from Massachusetts. It had a long history before this Congress, a history of inaction and inattention.

It has been proposed by Presidents of the United States, including the most recent three Presidents of the United States, Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and the incumbent in the White House, President Nixon. In his April 1969, message to Congress. President Nixon said:

It should offend the democratic sense or this Nation that the citizens of its capital comprising a population larger than ten of the States, have no voice in Congress.

So there is nothing new about this matter; there is nothing sudden about it; and there is nothing unforeseen.

The question that arises, Is this an appropriate time and place, and is the 18- year-old vote amendment an appropriate vehicle to consider full voting representation for the District of Columbia? I submit that it is unquestionably.

We have before us now in the 18-yearold vote proposition a measure which will afford voting rights to a class of individuals throughout the length and breadth of this Nation who have up until now been denied the right to cast their votes for President, U.S. Senator, Representative, and so forth. We will attempt to remedy that long-standing omission by passing a constitutional amendment to be submitted to the 50 States for ratification so that individuals of this country who are 18, 19, and 20 years of age can fully participate in the fruits of democracy.

Just as that class of citizens has been denied the right to participate-and by participation I mean to be able to vote for people of their choice by ballot--so, too, for the entire history of this country has a class, a group of citizens likewise been denied full participation in the selection of their public · ic officials, namely, the residents of the District of Columbia. Therefore, I think this is the right time and this is the right vehicle to debate, discuss, and hopefully to adopt this particular measure.

The constitutional amendment providing for the 18-year-old vote presumably will be moved along expeditiously and sent to the 50 States for ratification in the hope that three-fourths of them may act promptly enough so as to avoid the disparity in the voting process by the 1972 election which might flow from the Supreme Court decision of a few months ago. The District of Columbia amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) in no way encumbers this process. It is, by its own words, separable. It would go to the States and those States that wish to act promptly and quickly with respect to the 18-year-old vote provision could do so and hold in abeyance for greater debate, if they desire, for a year or so, or to a later date, the efficacy of giving the vote to the residents of the District of Columbia. It in no way impedes or obstructs the quick ratification of the 18- year-old vote amendment by the several States.

That is the history, in brief, and the procedure. as I view it, that we face at this time. Why is it important that the residents of the District of Columbia have a full voice in Congress and not a muftled voice, not a voice that can speak when permitted, but a full voice that can be heard not only in terms of speechmaking, but in voting. And is that not what counts in Congress? The ultimate test of success of legislation is the number of votes obtained. In the Senate 51 votes are required now and 218 are now required in the House of Representatives. Speechmaking is fine. We are indulging in that now and there will be other speeches. But the point is, Mr. President, can you vote yes or no on a particular piece of legislation as it may affect your constituents? That is what the residents of the District of Columbia are denied and have been denied.

We in Congress come from 50 States outside the District of Columbia, from as far away as Alaska and Hawaii, to as close by as Maryland and Virginia-100 Senators and 435 Representatives---and make decisions, some minuscule and some of tremendous importance as to the destiny of the District of Columbia, and at no time is a spokesman of the District of Columbia, accountable to the people of the District, permitted to participate in that process.

What are some of these decisions that we make on behalf of our constituents, and I use that word loosely--accountable or unaccountable constituents? We have a part of Mayor Washington's legislative package before us at the present time in the Committee on the District of Columbia. One of the measures Congress will be called upon to decide this year-and I suggest we can dispose of it more quickly than the SST-is whether we should authorize members of the District of Columbia Fire Department and the Park Police to participate in the Metropolitan Police Department Band.

That is going to be a Federal statute, apparently, that one of these days 100 U.S. Senators and 435 Members of the House are going to be called upon to decide.

Last year, in order to make life easier in the District of Columbia, we passed a reform statute that permits the flying of kites in the District of Columbia, so that the international fiy-out contest could be held at the base of the Washington Monument.

We passed, I think, a good reform procedure last year relating to snow and ice removal.

Another one of our reforms last year related to license fees for the District of Columbia. In order to alleviate the financial crisis in the District of Columbia, we imposed license fees by Federal statute so that a registration fee of 25 cents was reequired for each dog owned or kept in the District of Columbia. We are also going to charge $2 if it is necessary that we impound the dog of a resident of the District of Columbia, and we do that by Federal statute.

One hundred of us in this body from without the District of Columbia passed legislation-a Federal law-requiring a $100 fee if one wishes to conduct a closeout sale.

In previous years we have passed such fine pieces of legislation on behalf of these constituents who are voiceless as those which I now name:

In the 90th Congress we amended an act to provide for a public crematorium. Also, to make life easier in the District of Columbia, we passed a Federal statute in the 90th Congress to permit the name of a spouse to b.e added to a trailer registration.

Perhaps most significant of all-and I am sure life is much better by reason of it-in the 89th Congress this body considered a provision for construction of a velodrome in the District of Columbia. For those of you who are not athletically inclined, as I am, a velodrome is a place where bicycles are raced.

This is the minuscule; this is what 100 people from 50 States spend their time for on behalf of the District of Columbia residents who have no voice. I do not know that anybody wanted a velodrome in the District of Columbia. I guess somebody did. I suppose somebody wanted to impose a $100 license fee for a closeout sale. I guess; I guess; I do not know.

But the truth is, if we are going to continue in this exercise of minutia, in this endeavor to pass Federal statutes on matters which even most city councils would not do by ordinance, at the very least there ought to be two Members in this body from the District of Columbia who can speak up for their people and who are accountable to their people, to see whether they want some of these unimportant statutes or, more importantly, whether they want something which is more significant. For example, should they not have a right to vote in the District of Columbia to decide whether they ought to have an elected mayor or elected city council? Here we have Federal statutes to cover the "itty-bitty" matters I have mentioned. They should have a right to decide whether there should be a Federal law providing for a 30-percent Federal contribution. That is important. There should be an ongoing Federal contribution.

Should there not be two men or women in this body who have just as much interest in what is good for the District of Columbia and what they want, as every ment? one of the States has, some of them very small, 10 of them smaller in population than the District of Columbia, who can keep ever present in their minds the question, "Is it good for my people," as they do for Nevada or Utah or the Dakotas or Montana?

Why should the people of the District of Columbia be represented either by absence or by sufferance or by tagalong? I am a perfect example of what is representation by tag-along. I am chairman of the District of Columbia Committee, not the most coveted position in the U.S. Senate, I assure my colleagues. In my normal routine day, after trying to dispose and contemplate those matters that I think have some direct bearing on the people of my home State, Missouri, the people who sent me here--and I hope will keep me hereand then considering such matters as are before committees of the Senate that have some national scope insofar as jurisdiction is concerned, and after perhaps attending to personal chores, if I have 5 minutes, or perhaps 10 minutes, then I can contemplate and guess at what might be good for 750,000 people that I do not know, and to whom I am not accountable. They cannot elect me and they cannot defeat me. And if I have time, if I want to give it some time, that is what they get from me. That is what they get from other members of the District of Columbia Committee, and I daresay they get even less from the other 93 Members of the Senate who do not serve on the District of Columbia Committee.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. EAGLETON. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Will the Senator explain if his particular proposal contains what we call separability, so that the constitutional amendment proposal for the 18-year-old voting would not in any way be jeopardized by the tie-in of the District of Columbia proposal?

Mr. EAGLETON. The Senator from Minnesota is correct. It is separable. If the Minnesota Legislature, when it met this year, said "We want to ratify the constitutional amendment for 18-yearolds to vote," it could ratify it-and we hope three-fourths of the States will do that-but it could also say, "We want to think for 2 more years about t.he District of Columbia representation in Congress, so we will postpone that until later."

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. EAGLETON. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. In other words, is the proposal of the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Missouri that we should get before the States in the process of amending the national Constitution the proposal for adequate representation in the Senate and the House for the District of Columbia, equivalent to the representation of the States?

Mr. EAGLETON. That is precisely our position.

Mr. HUMPHREY. So it is wrong to assume that the passage of this particular proposal would in any way impair the 18- year-old-vote constitutional amend­

Mr. EAGLETON. That is the way the Senator from Massachusetts and I view

Mr. HUMPHREY. Permit me to take just a moment, if the Senator will yield for that purpose. I have another appointment, and there is no need for me to say more--

Mr. EAGLETON. With the permission of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I want to take about 2 minutes to say that I have long been an advocate of home rule for the District of Columbia. We have made some progress with an elected school board. We now have an appointed mayor and an appointed city council.

The argument that has been made, year in and year out, for home rule, I believe is a solid, irrefutable argument, justified by the history of this country and justified by the simple arguments for equal treatment.

The Senator from Missouri, chairman of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, has stated directly the problems that the committee and this body and this Congress face in dealing with all the tag and minutia of local government. There is an old American maxim or slogan, "No taxation without representation," and here we are in the Nation's Capital, one of the great cities of America, larger in population than several States, in which citizens are required to pay substantial amounts of Federal taxes, voted by representatives in Congress but taxes paid by people who have no representation in Congress.

I think it is indefensible. I do not care what the history of the Federal city may be. The fact is that there are American citizens living here who only recently we r e given even the right to vote. We treat them worse than we treat people in other parts of the world.

The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Missouri are once again asking the Senate to do what is just, to do what is right, and to do what is fair. If their proposal were tied in to the point where it would jeopardize the 18-year-old vote amendment, I could not support it; but I must say I believe it is time the people of the United States faced up to the facts of this great Federal city. The fact is that this city has no representation in the Congress of the United States. The fact is it is getting very difficult to get Members of Congress to serve on the Committee on the District of Columbia.

The facts are that people here have no real representation, except out of the kindness and goodness of heart of men like the Senator from Missouri. The facts are that it is time for reform. We have been talking a great deal about modernizing and reforming the Government, and I think one of the necessary reforms is reform for the District of Columbia.

I commend the Senators. I think they have again demonstrated their insight into the problems of government. This city is not going to be the kind of city it ought to be until the people of the city feel that they have a stake in their Government. I think it was John Stuart Mill who once said:

Let a man have nothing to do for his coun t ry , and he will have no love for it.

If a man have no participation in his government, and no representation in his government, why should he call it his government, then? A community of almost a million people cannot or should not be long denied the cpportunity to call its government its own.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful, as I know the Senator from Massachusetts is grateful, for the most compelling and persuasive remarks of one who has labored long and hard in this body on behalf of the residents of the District of Columbia.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I yield not to exceed 10 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I rise first to state that on the introduction of Senate Joint Resolution 7 my name appears as a cosponsor. I must say in all fairness to the distingushed Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished Senator from Missouri that I did not authorize the use of my name as a cosponsor of this resolution, and I would like the RECORD to so show.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's name be withdrawn.

I point out at this time that there must have been a breakdown in communications, because it was my understanding that there was authorization; but I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's name be withdrawn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. COOK. Second, Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment and the remarks that have been made in support of it by the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from Missouri, and the Senator from Minnesota. I oppose it because of its limitations.

Its limtations are that regardless of the size of the District of Columbia, regardless of how big it may become in the future, regardless of how many representatives it may be entitled to, it still is completely and thoroughly subjected to the limitations of the 23d amendment to the Constitution, which say that under no circumstances will the District of Columbia and its people ever be allowed more than the electoral votes of the smallest State of this Union.

I refer to section 3 of the pending amendment, which says:

This article shall have no effect on the provision made in the twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution for determining the number of electors for President and Vice President to be appointed for the District.

In other words, they have taken care of the matter on a piecemeal basis. They say that the District of Columbia should be entitled to voting representatives; that the District of Columbia should be entitled to Senators; that the two or three or four political parties can have political races; but we would say to the people themselves according to this amendment:

The built-in inequality of the Twentythird Amendment as to you, the inequality that regardless of your size, you shall be considered no greater in force under the present system of electing a President and a. Vice President than the smallest State in this Union, shall remain.

I suggest, Mr. President, that there are many American citizens in this position. For instance, I serve on the ad hoc committee to determine the availability of the presidential and vice-presidential vote for the people of the Island of Puerto Rico. Every one of them are American citizens, Mr. President. The people of the Virgin Islands are American citizens. Yet they do not even have the opportunity to vote for President or Vice President. The people of the Virgin Islands pay Federal income taxes, and yet they have no vote.

If we are to determine, Mr. President, that the people of Puerto Rico, for instance, when we make our report to the President, should be entitled to vote, how do we get around the 23d amendment, which says that we have taken, for the first time, with the adoption of the 23d amendment, a territory other than a State, given them the right to vote for President and Vice President, and yet said to them, "Your proportion of the electoral vote for President and Vice President shall be limited to that of the smallest State?"

The population of Puerto Rico is almost 3 million. Would they really want to be limited to the built-in inequality of the 23d amendment? I think not. So I can only say that when we talk in terms of seeing to it that the people of the District of Columbia are entitled to representation, let us not talk about whether the people of the District of Columbia are entitled to two Senators, or a number of Representatives proportionate to their population; let us talk about all of the people of the District of Columbia, Mr. President. Let us talk about whether all of the people of the District of Columbia have an equal say in the selection of the President and the Vice President. This community may grow in size to 5 million. It would then be entitled to two Senators and nine Representatives. Yet under this amendment, they would still have only three electoral votes.

In essence, I am asking, Are the people of the District of Columbia really being represented by reason of this proposal? I ask the question sincerely. And I can only say, in that respect, that if section 3 means what it says, that-

This article shall have no effect on the provision made in the twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution-

And I read the 23d amendment, the second paragraph:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number o! Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State.

That means, right now, that they have three electoral votes. So I can only say, Mr. President, that if we are going to take care of the problems of the District of Columbia, in all fairness, let us take care of all the problems. Let us take care of the built-in inequality that was built into the 23d amendment. If we do that, we take care of the problems that present themselves to the other millions of American citizens who do not live in States, who live on the island of Puerto Rico, which has belonged to us ever since we acquired it from the Spanish. Under the 23d amendment, we have limited the representation of the people of the District of Columbia, in choosing their President and their Vice President, to equality with the least State of this Nation; and the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished Senator from Missouri retains that problem.

So, Mr. President , I have risen to speak against the amendment only because I think when one tackles a problem, one should tackle the whole problem. I think the amendment tackles a very serious part of the problem, but I do not believe it tackles all of it.

I do not think we should have to come back at a later date and say, "Now, we have one more problem that has to be solved for the people of the District of Columbia, that of amending the 23d amendment to give full equality for the citizens of the District of Columbia."

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I will yield to the distinguished Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, it amazes me that my good friend, the Senator from Kentucky, would like to use the quotation from the 23d amendment. which is one additional kind of example of discrimination against the people in the District of Columbia. In order for them to get the right to vote, one of the most basic and fundamental rights, they had to make adjustments and compromises to limit their representation in terms of the electoral system. It is one additional example of invidious discrimination. To use the 23d amendment as justification for denying this right today is just compounding the felony.

The examples that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky used are a good deal different from the proposal we have here today. The people of Puerto Rico had an opportunity to vote and indicate whether they wanted statehood. Procedures were established. They had an opportunity to vote for commonwealth or independence or statehood, and they made a determination based on their desires. Perhaps sometime in the future they will change that judgment. Nevertheless, they have been afforded that opportunity, which the people of the District of Columbia have for too long been denied. If the people of the Virgin Islands want to make some proposal and want some admission and representation here, too, we should not deny them that opportunity. We have a procedure for permitting them to make some indication as to what they want for their future. But the District of Columbia is the only example written into the Constitution that denies them the right for representation, and this is the basic and fundamental question. That is why this matter is of such urgency and importance.

The whole tradition, the whole history, in terms of consideration of th e District of Columbia, is sufficiently un i que to bring about a d i stinction.

If th e Senator from Kentucky would like to say that just because our proposal for two Members of the Senate and two Members of the House of Represent a tives would be, in effect , four electoral votes , and he thinks that under the 23d amendment they are allowed only three, would he be willing to support two Members in the Senate and one Member in the House? Why are we se t ting up this kind of test for the District of Columbia?

The distinguished Senator from Kentucky was not in the Senate when Hawaii became a State but when it became a State, they got two Members of the Senate and two Members of the House of Representatives. Why were we not standing up then or saying they had to come in as the smallest or the least of the States because they would have more electoral votes than a number of other States? Once again , we are advancing a proposal to work to the disadvantage of the people of the District of Columbia, and I think this has really be z n all too well written into our tradition in the past.

Mr. COOK. Mr . President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.

Mr. COOK. Did I correctly understand the Senator to say that the people of Puerto Rico had a choice as to whether they wanted to be a State?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator ' s 3 minutes have expired.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield the Senator 2 minutes.

Mr. COOK. Whether they wanted to be a State or whether they did not want to be a State? Did I correctly understand the Senator to say that?

Mr. KENNEDY. In 1967 there was a States. plebiscite in which, as I understand, the alternatives were suggested or the people of Puerto Rico had an opportunity to express themselves on the question of independent commonwealth status or procedures to move to statehood. No such procedure has ever been advanced for the District of Columbia.

It is always interesting that those who oppose any kind of representation are always throwing up roadblocks in the final hours before we have a chance to vote on this. I am for establishing similar kinds of procedures for the District of Columbia and let them decide eventually whether or not they want statehood.

Mr. COOK. I hope that the Senator from Massachusetts does not think that I am throwing up roadblocks. I have presented what I thought was a serious problem a.nd serious defect in this resolution. It is not my resolution. If this cure could be made in this resolution, I would vote for this resolution, because I think the 23d amendment is an inequality developed for the purpose of seeing to it that the District of Columbia has no greater representation than the smallest State. If that could be cured, I would be in favor of the Senator's resolution, and I want him to know that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, on my time?

Mr. COOK. No. I have been yielded 2 minutes by the majority leader.

Mr. KENNEDY. I mean that I would use my time to make a response, instead of using the Senator's time.

Mr. COOK. !yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Do I correctly understand the position of the Senator from Kentucky to be that he supports the representation of two Members from the District of Columbia in the U.S. Senate?

Mr. COOK. I am for representation for the District of Columbia as if it were adopted and considered a State of the Union, on an equal basis for all its people, not representation for its people only in the House or in the S e nate, but for the selection of the President and Vice President as well. The 23d amendment denies them equality in the selection of the President and the Vice President.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 24 minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator from Maryland whatever time he desires.

Mr. MATHIAS. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding.

Mr. President, my reaction to the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky is somewhat different from that of the Senator from Massachusetts. My reaction is that the Senator from Kentucky has done a very thoughtful and valuable thing here today, because what he has underscored and emphasized is the shabby treatment that the District of Columbia and the people of the District of Columbia have received from Congress from the day the District of Columbia was established pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the United I think this is shabby treatment today, because, while I am in great sympathy with the motives and goals of the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Missouri, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, it is almost inconceivable that a proposition with the merit of the proposition for which we seek to gain the support of the Senate today would not sit on its own bottom, would not sail through the Senate with nearly unanimous approval. Yet, here we are, because of the long history of shabby treatment that has been given to the Nation's Capital, forced to resort to treating this subject as a rider on another measure of proven popularity. I think that is part of the shabby history.

Mr. President, I am going to vote for this amendment, and will vote against any motion that may be made to table it, because I think that clearly we are here dealing with one of the anomalies of history that has plagued the District of Columbia for almost 200 years.