March 10, 1971

The reason for the District of Columbia is this: Before there was a city of Washington, before there was a District of Columbia, the Continental Congress was sitting in Philadelphia. The unhapPY fact is that troops, who were desperate because of poor pay and inflated money and various other grievances, mutinied and threatened the Continental Congress. The Continental Congress felt that neither the city of Philadelphia, the municipal authority, nor the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State police power, exerted itself to protect Congress. The Members of the Continental Congress, who were in some cases the same Members who later were elected to the Constitutional Convention, determined that never again would the Federal Government be placed m a position where there was a State or municipal police power interposed between the people and the Federal Government.

So they wrote the constitutional provision for the establishment of a seat of national government with no police power interposed between Congress and the peop l e, so that the police power at the seat of government would be the police power of the Federal Government .

I think that is sound constitutional policy. I do not think that anything we are doing here today impinges upon that. Once we have removed the police power of a State or a city from between the Federal Government and the people. then we have accom p lished the full constitutional purpose of the founders of this Republic. That has been done. Once that purpose has been accomplished, there is no other reason why the people of the District of Columbia should be any less American citizens than anyone else in any one of the 50 States. They are entitled to full citizenship.

I have not come to this position lightly. When I first came to Congress nearly 12 years ago, I was rather opposed to some of these ideas about home rule and representation for the District of Columbia. But my experience on the District Committee in the other body and on the Distr i ct Committee in the Senate, my experience and observation of what is really the neglect of the essential interests of the people of the District of Columbia, plus the fact that they are more numerous than the populations of a number of States which are represented here in the Senate, and the fact that we deny, by the conditions which exist here, some of the most fundamental p r inciples of this Republicall of these have slowly led me to the belief that home rule, as desirable as it is , is not enou g h without that full representation in Congress which is an attribute of American citizenship. There is no constitutional reason and no reason in principle why that attribute of citizenship should not belong to the people of the District of Columbia.

I, therefore, hope that the Senate will recognize and advance this right this afternoon. I intend to support the measure offered by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts - msetts CMr. KENNEDY) the distinguished Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON), the chairman of the Senate District Committee.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for his comments.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. (STEVENSON ) . The Senator from Massachusetts has 19 minutes and the Senator from Montana has 40 minutes remain­

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, so far as the Senator from Montana is concerned , he would be prepared to allot to himself the last 9 minutes to wind up this debate and turn the other time over to the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. What we would like the opportunity to do is to develop these points further with the distinguished majority leader and those who have reservations about procedures which we follow regarding the merits of our cause. Both the Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON) and I have additional comments to make but we are interested, I think, in trying to respond to the questions of those who have reservations about either the procedures we are following here or the merits of our proposal.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts yield to me at this point for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.

Mr. RANDOLPH. As the Senator knows , I am a cosponsor of the legislation which he introduced earlier this year on this subject. I have not cosponsored the amendment being discussed today. The purpose of his legislation has my support. It is a needed measure to secure full representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. And I will vote in the Senate on the merits of that resolution when it is before us, but I cannot today vote for it in connection with Senate Joint Resolution 7, I just make this statement for the REcORD, indicating that I believe presentation of the amendment now, worthy as it is-and it is understandable that the Senator, joined by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON), would present itis not the opportune time. I say that in good purpose, believing in the subject matter and in the cause which the Senator and others have advocated.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from West Virginia. As the Senator might be aware, I have commended him on his efforts to bring about a constitutional amendment to provide for the 18- year-old vote which we are about to consider in the Senate. I believe he has been the earliest sponsor of such a proposition and he deserves great credit for bringing it to the point where we are now having the opportunity to consider it here today.

On the question of timing, we can always consider various alternatives. I remember, when we were considering and proposing this as an amendment to the electoral reform bill, there were those who said, "Well, if we put this amendment onto electoral reform, where we need only five more votes to get twothirds for electoral reform, and if this gets attached to it, we will send electoral reform down to defeat and therefore it is not timely to have that."

There have been those who opposed it in terms of an amendment to the equal rights for women, saying that it would not be able to make it if it has to go with that proposition as well.

So there is always a question of timeliness. I am aware of the observations that have been made by some Senators that if we attached this to the 18-yearold vote we will see a delay and even frustration in the purpose of the direction of the legislation. I am very much aware of those propositions, because I heard them all last year when we were talking about amending the Voting Rights Act with the 18-year-old amendment. There were those prophets of gloom and doom who said that if we attached the 18-year-old vote to the Voting Rights Act we would find delay in the most basic right, the right to vote, and if we attached it the Senate would not take it, and so forth, and there would also be the question of more complication.

We took the better part of wisdom and moved forward. The Senate, on both sides of the aisle, responded admirably to the 18-year-old proposal. The House of Representatives passed it and it was upheld in terms of national elections for 18-year-olds. I think in terms of our present procedures, we are acting prudently and we are acting responsibly. I know there are those who say that this may be blocked in conference, but we can come to that when we have to come to it. We are not there at the present time.

There are also those who say the different State legislatures, if this is delayed for a few days, will not be in session. But once again that proposition has to fall when we realize that coming into next year there will be some 34 State legislatures that will meet in 1972 and nine others later this year, to ratify this 18-year-old voting constitutional amendment even if the District of Columbia amendment is attached to it. There are many other State legislatures that will be meeting to consider reapportionment. There are congressional districts also, so I think we are providing adequately for a possibility of this nature. So I would hope that those who feel this would serve as some kind of hindrance, in terms of reaching orderly consideration of the 18-year-old constitutional amendment by the respective States, would have some appreciation for these facts.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts yield further?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.

Mr. RANDOLPH. When I was serving in the House of Representatives, I introduced legislation for District of Columbia representation in Congress. I believed in it then and I believe in it now. I will welcome the opportunity to support such legislation as a separate measure.

I am not critical of the commendable efforts being made at this time to attach the amendment to the pending resolution. I am only saying that each Senator in his own thinking has to resolve a matter of this kind. That is why I have explained my position today.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate that, and I understand the Senator's position.

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield me 3 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I address myself to the only objections that have been voiced vocally by the Senator from Kentucky and will then, in a shadowboxing way, try to address myself to such objections as I can conjure that might be raised by others who have not spoken and will not speak before 2 o'clock. It is a bit difficult and rather hypothetical, but it is about the best we can do under these circumstances in this debate.

Insofar as the objection of the Senator from Kentucky is concerned, he loves the Kennedy-Eagleton amendment. He loves it to death. He loves it so much that he says it does not go far enough. It is not good enough for him to have two Senators and two Congressmen, which is what the current population of the District of Columbia would warrant if it were a State. He is very much worried what will happen when the city has 5 million people with the gigantic highrises by that time built on the Four Sisters Bridge, or will it be the Five Sisters Bridge or the Six Sisters Bridge.

He wonders what we will do when we have 5 million people. He thinks that we must provide for this contingency. I am sure that the Senator from Massachusetts and I will be very willing to accept a perfecting amendment to this amendment from the Senator from Kentucky to this amendment, which we hope will be the 26th amendment to the Constitution, that would rectify the inequities that have been created by the 23d amendment.

Mr. President, we appreciate his warm embrace of our proposal. We wish he loved it a bit more realistically than stated on the floor.

As to the objections that might be raised, the Senator from Minnesota raised a question in a very appropriate way. He asked what would happen if this proposed amendment to the Constitution containing both the right for the 18-year-olds to vote and congressional representation for the District of Columbia goes to the 50 State legislatures. He asked whether they must ratify it en bloc or separate it and act expeditiously and promptly on one part and be deliberative on the other. The answer is a categorical yes. Any State legislature can ratify it en bloc, in toto, or one part or the other, as they see :fit. In no way, in my judgment, will it impede the ultimate progress and success of the 18-year-old amendment.

Finally, the point may be raised that this is not the way to do it procedurally. As is so often the case, we have with us people who agree with us on the merits but say that procedurally this is not the way to do it. They say that we should take the clean bill reported from the committee.

Mr. President, if we were to do that, this would be a long way down the road. Mr. President, District of Columbia home rule bills, representation bills, and the constitutional amendments relating to the District of Columbia have been pending in the committees of Congress, I guess, since the very :first day that Congress convened.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Missouri 2 additional minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, if procedure be a hangup-and I am not sure that it is-I point out that the 23d amendment to the Constitution, which was promptly acted on by the Senate committee, was adopted by the Senate as a floor amendment. That was the only way we could get it acted on. It could not come out of the committee. That is the amendment that provides that the people of the District of Columbia could vote for the President and have three electoral votes. That measure had been kicked around in Congress not for a millenium, but for a century.

Interestingly enough, that was one of the most swiftly ratified constitutional amendments in the Nation 's history. From the time in 1960 that Congress tacked the 23d amendment on as a floor amendment to the time it went to the States and was ratified, it took 10 months. That is almost a track record for brevity insofar as State ratification of a proposed or submitted constitutional amendment.

So, in my judgment, talking somewhat legalistically, it is a precedent. It is a case in point, first, for doing this by the amendment route on the floor; and, second, it is illustrative of the fact that it in no way impedes, impairs, obstructs, or delays action. That amendment, as I have pointed out, was one of the most swiftly ratified of all constitutional amendments.

Mr. President, I attempt, as best I can, to meet objections that have been voiced and try to anticipate the objections that might be raised in the minds of some.

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

Mr. EAGLETON. I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would setts <Mr. KENNEDY) not the Senator agree with me, as suggested by his recent comments, that this is really a question on which the American people really do not understand that there are 750,000 people in the District of Columbia that really do not have voting representation?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as we might require.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am convinced that great numbers of American people never realized that the people in the District of Columbia did not have the right to vote in presidential elections.

As pointed out by the Senator from Missouri, when the people realized that fact, they were just as amazed and surprised as one could possibly imagine. They then took action to insure that the people of the District of Columbia would have the right to vote.

I think it is an exact parallel in terms of representatives in the Government. Obviously if they have the right to vote in presidential elections, they should have the right to vote for people who would represent them.

Would not the Senator agree with me that the people of this country are, by and large, unaware of the fact that the District of Columbia does not have voting representation in the House of Representatives or in the Senate?

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Massachusetts, I state that he is unquestionably correct. The unawareness and, I am sad to say, the unconcernedness-pardon my sematics-of the American people in the 50 States for the governmental structure, the problems, and the plight of those in the District of Columbia are appalling.

Let me cite one example. When it was announced that I had become a part of the Senate power structure, having become chairman of the District of Columbia Committee, I went back to my State.

They inquired at the Kiwanis Clubs and the Rotary Clubs lunches as to the job I held. I told them it involves whether one can fly a kite in the District, what a dog license will cost, and also that I sponsored a bill to provide for $100 closing costs in the District of Columbia.

Without trying to be clever, the truth is that people in my State do not know, and, I am sad to say, do not care whether in the District of Columbia people vote for President, for a Senator, for a Congressman, whether they have a Governor or a mayor, an elected or an appointed council.

They do not know. It is out of sight. It is out of mind. It is out of heart.

It is going to take an educational campaign to acquaint the people of this country with this problem, and the only way we can get one going is by passing this amendment today so that we can then submit it to the 50 State legislatures.

Then the Senator from Massachucan go to Bost.on. I can go to Boston, I can go to Jefferson City, and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) can go to his State capital. We can educate our general assemblies that there are 750,000 American citizens in the District of Columbia. who pay $345 million in Federal taxes, who have had more sons-as the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out--that died in Vietnam than 14 other States. They are fit to pay taxes. They are fit to die. But they are not fit to vote for the Senators who ratify treaties, and who vote on the most pressing national issues. They have no voice in that. But they are fit to pay taxes which pay the costs of these proposals.

It came as a shock to the Nation, as the Senator knows, when the people of this country first learned a few years ago that the people in the District of Columbia could not vote for President. They admitted that that was unfair.

Three-fourths of the States quickly ratified that in 10 months. I will wagereven though I predicted the victory of Mohammed Ali--

(Laughter.]

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, may we have order in the galleries.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The galleries will be in order.

Mr. EAGLETON. I will wager that if we adopt this amendment at this time as part of the 18-year-old vote measure, it will be ratified by three-fourths of the States in under 10 months. If I am wrong someone will point it out.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Massachusetts has expired.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was under the impression that the majority leader had yielded the remainder of his time, reserving the final 9 minutes of his time. Am I correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GAMBRELL). According to the understanding of the Chair, a statement was made to that effect but a unanimousconsent agreement was not entered into.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, the able Senator from Massachusetts has clearly stated the position of the majority leader. He did indicate he would like to yield all the time, with the understanding that the final 9 minutes be reserved.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that agreement? If not, it is so ordered.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the final point.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I ciary Committee. have time remaining from the Senator from Montana, I would like to yield to myself whatever time I might use, with the understanding that the Senator from Montana reserves the final 9 minutes, and with the understanding that if he wants any of that time, it will be yielded to him.

Mr. MANSFIELD. No, I do not want it back. Nine minutes is plenty.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator Mr. President, the fact remains that the great majority of the American people really do not understand the lack of representation on the part of the people of the District of Columbia. When they have been made aware of it, they have been extremely sympathetic to this proposition.

I am reminded of the fact that the League of Women Voters made this proposition one of _ their priority items last year and they were able to get 1.5 million signatures from people all over the country on this question. Time and time again when they presented this matter to their constituents, on every occasion when they went to the American people, the people were willing to sign up; and they were amazed by the fact that there was no representation of the people of the District of Columbia in Congress. I think this supports the argument of the Senator from Missouri and myself that most Americans are unaware of the situation and that once they are aware, if given the chance to address this question, they would support the kind of proposition we have advanced here today.

On the question of adequacy of hearings, I would like to include a short excerpt from the RECORD in the Senate of September 16, 1970, which is a partial list of congressional hearings on representation for the District of Columbia in Congress. There is a list of the different hearings going back from June 1, 1970, by the Committee on the Judiciary, to February 24, and March 9, 1960, by the Senate District Committee. The list contains page after page and hour after hour of testimony, in many instances with recognition of the fundamental tenet which motivates our amendment today, and that is the fact that the District of Columbia does not have representative government.

I ask unanimous consent that the list to which I have referred be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

PARTIAL LIST OF CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON

REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS FOR THE DIS­

TRICT OF COL UMBL-\

Congressional Representation for the District of Columbia-June 1, 1970; 91st Congress, 2d session; Senate Judiciary Committee.

Congressional Representation for D.C.­ November 8, 9, 1967; 90th Congress, 1st session; Senate Judiciary Committee.

D.C. Representation in Congress-July 19- August 2, 1967; 90th Congress, 1st session; House Judiciary Committee.

Congressional Representation for D.C.­ May 23, 25, 1962; 87th Congress, Senate Judiciary Enfranchisement-April 6, 7, 1960; 86th Congress; House Judiciary Committee. D.C. Enfranchisement-September 9, 1959; 86th Congress; Senate Judiciary Committee. D.C. Enfranchisement-August 17, 27, 1959; 86th Congress; Senate Judiciary Committee.

National Representation for D.C.-May 20, 1954; 83d Congress; Senate Judiciary.

Delegate to Congress for D.C.-July 1, 1953; 83d Congress; Senate District Committee.

Congressional Representation for D.C.­ September 25, 1945; 79th Congress; Senate Judiciary Committee.

Congressional Representation for D .a.­ February 14, 1945; 79th Congress; House Judiciary Committee.

Congressional Representation for D.C.­ June 16, 1943; 78th Congress; House Judiciary Committee.

Congressional Representation for D.C.­ April 16, 17, 29, May 6, 8, 1941; 77th Congress; Senate Judiciary Committee.

Suffrage for D.C.-May 18, 19, 20, 1938; 75th Congress; House Judiciary Committee. National Representation for D.C.-January 24, February 2, 6, March 8, 15, 1928; 70th Congress, 1st Session; House Judiciary Commit t ee.

National Representation for D.C.-Apr1120, 21, 28, 1926; 69th Congress; House Judiciary Committee.

Delegate to House of Representatives for D.C.-January 15, 1923; 67th Congress, 4th session; House District Committee.

Suffrage for D.C.-November 8, 14, 21; December 13, 1921; January 12, 13, 1922; 67th Congress; Senate District Committee.

Representation of D.C. in Congress and Electoral College-January 11, 12, 15, 1921; 66th Congress; House Judiciary Committee. Representation of D.C. in Congress-February 24, 29, March 2, 1916; 64th Congress; Senate District Committee.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to include at this time a comment from Senate Report No. 507, 67th Congress which states:

Yet in the District of Columbia, the seat of the government of the United States, 437,571 Americans, performing justly and honorably all the duties of peace and war, remain without any representation whatever in the Government which rules and taxes them, makes the laws they must obey, and sends their sons to battle.

What is there in our scheme of government that requires that the Capital of the United States should be the one capital among the civilized nations, the inhabitants of which are excluded, deliberately and of set purpose, from all participation in their government? Mr. President, the excerpt I have just read is taken from a Senate committee report prepared in 1922. One could make the same statement today about the situation in our Nation's capital. Except that now the population figure should read 760,000 Americans. The situation is the same today as it was in 1922; and some 50 years later we in this body should be able to meet the responsibilities in providing for representative government.

Finally, I observe that those of us who are sponsors of this amendment have been trYing to respond to the interrogatories that might be addressed to us in the best way we can, and the reasons we have put forward this proposition in terms of its procedures, and the substance of the issue. We are prepared to discuss and debate this matter within the framework of time, but we are frustrated by the fact that we are unable to engage in the kind of illumination which I think would be of great service and great value to the Members of this body.

I think once again it is part of the tradition, and that is when the Congress considers questions affecting the District of Columbia, that far too often those questions are decided in the quietness of the committee room or in the isolation of the Senate Chamber. That obviously has been part of the tragic tradition of this measure. But we are still firm in support of this proposal and we are extremely hopeful that we may be able to get the kind of support necessary to have it implemented.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The 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 shall not speak long. I wish to touch on a few points in support of the amendment, on which shortly a motion to table will be made. There are a few final observations that I would like to make.

First of all, the amendment which will be considered in just a few moments has bipartisan support. Only yesterday we had a meeting with some of the leaders of the Republican Party in the District of Columbia and with national committeemen from the District of Columbia who represent the national party, who expressed quite clearly and unequivocably support of the members of the Republican Party for the efforts we are undertaking here this afternoon.

I think the support and cosponsorship we have been able to gather for the total amendment, as an independent proposition as well as the proposition we are making here today, indicates that there is strong bipartisan support for this proposition, as there should be. I commend those leaders of the Republican Party who have taken this position and for the support they have indicated for it. So there is no issue of partisanship involved in the consideration of this matter.

Second, I am certainly hopeful that the contemplation of representatives from the District of Columbia who might be elected by people whose skin is black would not be a justification for rejecting this proposal. I think it is significant and important to realize that, in view of the tion. fact that the overwhelming majority of the people who live in this community have black skin, there is every reason to believe and justifiably so, that those who would be sent to represent them in the House of Representatives and in the Senate would have black skin as well. And that is as it should be. I certainly am hopeful we have moved beyond the point where there would be any reservation on the part of any Member of the Senate in terms of opposition to this proposal because of the possibility that in the future individuals who would be selected to this body would be of a different color.

There are those who say, well, the District of Columbia is just another American city; there are many cities in this country that have a larger population, with many of the same kinds of problems that are attendant in the District of Columbia, whether they be in education, health, welfare, rebuilding of the cities, or pollution. If we are going to provide representation for the District of Columbia in terms of two Senators and two Members of the House of Representatives, why should we not do the same kind of thing for New York City, Maimi, or Boston, and ensure that there will be appropriate representation?

There is, of course, one obvious distinction , and that is that the cities of this country and the inhabitants of those cities are represented uniformly throughout the country by spokesmen within the Senate and the House of Representatives. The District of Columbia is the only city that fails to have that kind of representation. Therefore, it is a unique situation, which requires a unique but fully justified proposal.

Finally, there is the proposition that article V of the Constitution provides that no State's representation shall be diluted in the Senate of the United States. That proposition has been interpreted as meaning that if we are in fact to allow the District of Columbia representation in the Senate, in effect we are diluting the voting power of the representatives of the 50 States.

There has been no such interpretation of article V, nor could there be, because if we were to follow the rationale of that argument, we would still be 13 States scattered along the eastern seaboard. Time and time again when new States have been admitted to the Union that article has been interpreted to permit representatives to come to this body to represent the people of their respective States. Therefore, there should not be any reasonable interpretation of that position as justifying the exclusion of Members here in the Senate.

Finally, let me just reiterate that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS), and other Senators who have stated unequivocal support for this proposal have indicated that we would not advance this proposal as an amendment to the 18-year-old voting amendment if we thought there was a chance of jeopardizing the ratification of that proposition. is no such justification made by those who are opposed to it, th a t this would be the case. And there will be no sub3tan tial delays, Mr. President, in achieving this 18-year-old proposition. This is a proposal whose time is well overdue. The equities require, I believe, that we provide this opportunity for representative government to the 760,000 people who live in the District of Columbia, and I am exceedingly hopeful that we can have favorable consideration of it.

Finally, Mr. President, I would like to make a brief summary of the issue.

The time has come for Congress to bring the people of the District of Columbia out of the shadows and into the sunlight of American democracy. For nearly 200 years, we have condemned the people of the Nation's Capital to the status of second-class citizens-subject to all the burdens and responsibilities of American citizens, but deprived of the most basic right of all in a democratic society, the right to vote, the right to a voice in making the laws by which they are govemed.

For too long, Congress has played George III to the colonists of the District of Columbia. At a time when 50,000 Americans have fought and died thousands of miles a way in Asia to secure the right of self-government for the people of Vietnam, it is intolerable that we should deny the self-same right to the people on our own doorstep, the people of the Nation's Capital. By some cruel irony, a nation founded as a haven from oppression and tyranny denies to the citizens of its Capital the blessings of democracy.

The facts of the situation are clear:

Washington, D.C., today is a city of 756,000 people. It has a population greater than that of 10 States. Yet, each of these States has two Senators and at least one Congressman to help in writing the Nation's laws. The District of Columbia has none.

Washington, D.C., has had more sons killed in Vietnam than nine States. Yet, the people of Washington have no voice or vote in making the laws by which their sons are drafted to fight and die half way around the world.

In 1970, Washington, D.C., paid $990 million in taxes to the Federal Government--more Federal taxes than were paid by 15 States. In addition, the people of the District of Columbia paid $341 million in local taxes-more local taxes than were paid by the people of 12 States. Per capita, the District of Columbia has one of the heaviest tax burdens in the Nation-$427 per person, heavier than in 43 States. The 200 million Americans in the 50 States have a voice in determining the taxes they pay. Yet, "taxation without representation," the war cry of the American revolution, is a way of life for the people of the Nation's Capital.

Tragically, the plight of the citizens of Washington is virtually unknown to the people of America at large. But that ignorance, however much it may explain our years of neglect for the basic rights of the people of the District of Columbia, cannot excuse our inaction. Wherever I travel in the Nation, I find people amazed to learn that self-government is a myth for the people of Washington. Wherever I travel, however, I also find people anxious to remedy this glaring injustice, if only we give them the opportunity.

At last, the call for an end to this mockery of American democracy has reached the floor of the U.S. Senate. The movement for reform has begun in earnest. We are no longer whistling pious platitudes in House and Senate hearing rooms.

Earlier in this decade, we saw what can happen when the Nation is aroused to the plight of the District of Columbia. In 1961, the people of Washington obtained the right to vote for their President. The constitutional amendment that accomplished that goal-the 23d amendment-was one of the most rapidly ratified amendments in our history. I am confident that the same rapid ratification would be granted for the District of Columbia representation in Congress amendment, if only we can get the issue to the people and give them a chance to work their will.

Indeed, the 23d amendment is a striking precedent for our action today. That reform itself began its life as a Senate floor amendment, offered by Senator Kenneth Keating of New York to give the citizens of Washington the right to vote in presidential elections. It is precisely this procedure, justified by recent history, that I seek to follow for the amendment to achieve full voting representation in Congress for the people of the District.

Although the present opportunity to achieve District of Columbia representation has come up quickly, I believe it may be the only real chance we will have--now and for the foreseeable future--to reach the goal.

We start with the proposition that the District of Columbia amendment, on its own, simply cannot survive the gauntlet it has always been forced to run in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Rules Committee. For nearly a century, since the first District of Columbia representation amendment was introduced in 1888, hundreds of amendments and dozens of legislative hearings in the Senate and the House have been ignored by Congress. It is a tragic commentary on the fate of these amendments that the hearings held in 1970 are almost a precise replay of hearings held half a century ago. The record is always the same. All we ever do is change the needle.

I doubt, therefore, that there has ever been a more meritorious case in Congress that called out for the unusual procedure of legislation by rider. For generations, the basic rights of hundreds of thou ­ sands of our citizens have been ignoredor worse, actively suppressed-behind the closed doors of congressional committees. Now, however, the debate has reached the bright light of the Senate floor.

The record we make today is a record of a new kind. It will be heard by millions of Americans throughout the Nation. I am confident that the people will respond, that the conscience of the Nation will be seared, and that we will be farther toward our goal.

It is entirely appropriate that the vote today seeks to use the 18-year-old voting amendment as a vehicle to win District of Columbia representation in COngress. At a time when Congress is moving to extend the franchise to millions of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds in State and local elections, it is extremely fitting that we should also seek to give the franchise to the hundreds of thousands of Washingtonians who have been denied this right for so long.

The argument that somehow the District of Columbia amendment will jeopardize the voting age amendment is false. Indeed, the present parliamentary situation has a double irony.

Many of the Senators who so vigorously oppose the District of Columbia amendment today as a threat to the voting age amendment were the same Senators who joined me so vigorously last year in our successful effort to amend merce. the Voting Rights Act on the Senate floor to lower the voting age to 18 by statute. We heard the same claims last yearthat our floor amendment would jeopardize the Voting Rights Act. We know that argument was false, just as I believe the argument of jeopardy is false today, and even more so. Support for the voting age amendment is overwhelming. Rarely, if ever, have so many Senators- 86-supported any measure as it reached the Senate floor.

Last year, when we sought to add the District of Columbia amendment to the direct election amendment, many Senators asked us to delay, to wait for a vehicle that had clear support in the Senate. Today, we have that vehicle, but still they ask us to wait. The message is clear. So far as the District of Columbia is concerned, the time is never now.

At the very most, if the Senate accepts the District of Columbia amendment, there will be a brief delay-of the order of days, not weeks-while the two amendments proceed through the House of Representatives. I believe that the House will accept the District of Columbia amendment. But if the House should refuse to do so, I would fully acquiesce in action by the conference committee toremove the District of Columbia provision. The point is that we should try, and abide by the result.

A brief delay now is a small price to pay to achieve the great goal of District of Columbia representation in Congress. Whether or not the District of Columbia amendment is added, the voting age amendment can easily be ratified in time for the 1972 elections.

In 1972 alone, at least 34 State legislatures will meet and have the opportunity to ratify the amendment. Another nine legislatures will have the opportunity to ratify it in their regular sessions later this year, 1971. In addition, in both 1971 and 1972, many State legislatures will be meeting in special session to reapportion

CXVII--366-Part 5 their congressional districts on the basis of the 1970 census.

Clearly, there will be ample opportunity to ratify the voting age amendment before the 1972 elections. It makes no sense to me to pass by this extraordinary opportunity. We must end the long night of injustice for the citizens of Washington. We must reject the cruel and myopic argument that we have to get the voting age amendment to the States today and not tomorrow.

The opportunity is at hand to perform an act of simple justice for the people of this city, and I urge the Senate to embrace it.