joint resolution here. At that time I think the pressures and the influences and the voices of the American people will be brought to bear on the Members of the other body so that they, too, will recognize that in fairness and equity the people of the District are entitled to representation and a voice in the Congress of the United States on both sides of the rotunda equal to that of other Americans.

Mr. Chairman, we are not bestowing anything on the residents of the District of Columbia, it would seem to me, as suggested by my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BUTLER). Instead, it seems to me that until we adopt this joint resolution and until it is ratified, we are denying rights and prerogatives of American citizens to which they are lawfully and constitutionally, in my opinion, entitled or to which they should be entitled.

Mr. Chairman, both the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights and the full Committee on the Judiciary considered a similar amendment. The merits of the amendment were deliberated in detail by the committees; and the substitute was resoundingly rejected.

Once it is agreed that the residents of the District of Columbia should share with their fellow citizens residing in the United States voting representation in the Congress, it escapes me how anyone can support anything less than full representation.

Mr. Chairman, may I say, too, that 2 years ago when we considered this same subject, a similar amendment was offered as is being offered now; and it was rejected by a vote of 67 to 388. Therefore, I see no reason for us to cover that same ground today.

Mr. Chairman, it is said that there is going to be difficulty in mustering the approval of two-thirds of the other body for this constitutional amendment. However, if the other body wants to deny the residents of the District of Columbia membership in the U.S. Senate, then I say it should be up to them; and we should not assist them, particularly when rights of U.S. citizens are concerned.

The question before us is not whether this proposed amendment will be acceptable to the other body and ratified by the State legislatures. These are decisions which they are going to have to make, but, the question is rather, whether the House of Representatives will act responsibly today to accord, once and for all, to District residents their constitutional right and privilege to have voting representation in the Congress.

I urge my colleagues to express their votes with a resounding nay on this substitute, and thereafter to support overwhelmingly the constitutional amendment which the committee has recommended to this body.

(Mr. McClory asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) [Mr. Fauntroy addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

Mr. HANNAFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute amendment. Mr. Chairman, I most reluctantly rise in support of this amendment, but I feel impelled to explain for the record and for the Members here the reason that I favor it. I would like to see two new Senators elected from this District. They would almost certainly be black Senators in a body that has only one black Member in a hundred, and I would like to see full representation in the House with two voting Members, but it just is not right in my interpretation of the Constitution. I would like to see the effect that this resolution would have for today, but doing for today is not the way we write constitutions, because the Constitution is for tomorrow and forever.

Equal representation is precluded by our Constitution. Today the District of Columbia has four times as much weight in electing the President of the United States as I have as a Californian. If we could turn that around and give California four times as much weight in electing the President as we in California now have, we could virtually select the President. I would not like the job we would have done in California for the past few elections, but we would have 180 electors out of the present number of electors. In that situation I would not say that California was not represented in this Government, even if we had no vote in the Congress.

The jackrabbits in Wyoming have more power in electing the President than I have as a Californian-or virtually so—and over in the Senate of the United States the people in the District of Columbia would have not four times as much strength but 30 times as much strength as I have as a Californian, for they would have two votes for two-thirds of a million people while we have the same weight for 22 million people.

So we are not talking about equal representation in the Congress. It does not exist. It never has existed. It is locked-in and unamendable that it does not exist in the Senate.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HANNAFORD. Mr. Chairman, in just a moment I will be glad to yield, just as soon as I have finished my statement.

Now we have a situation in which 15 percent of the people of this country who reside in the 25 least populous States control the votes in the U.S. Senate that can veto the actions of this, the people's House. This legislation, if passed, is going to compound that injustice. Out of my respect and my affection for the gentlemen who are leading this legislation and respect for the fact that I know how long and diligently they have fought on this subject, whether this amendment passes or not, I am going to vote for the resolution. I am going to do that, but I wanted to explain why I support Mr. BUTLER's amendment and why I have these reservations about this resolution as it is presented on the floor. It compounds one injustice while attempting to treat another.

Now I will be glad to yield to the Delegate from the District of Columbia. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman is going to support the resolution, I do not wish to have him yield to me.

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HANNAFORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman explain to me why he comes up with this ratio on the Senators? As I understand it, the Senate is not established on a proportional representation. As I understand it, each State has two representatives in the Senate. If the gentleman wishes to change that, he can offer that amendment. He could do so.

Mr. HANNAFORD. If I could do that, I would be glad to do so. It was an arrangement arrived at out of a stark necessity to get a Union. If we would have to do that again to get a Union, I would be glad to do it for that noble purpose. But this is the one provision in the Constitution that specifically cannot be amended out, and I am not really ready to abolish the Senate today anyway. The point is that it is not representative of people and that is the subject to which this resolution speaks. Neither is the electoral college.

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HANNAFORD. I yield to the gentleman from Wyoming.

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, speaking as a jackrabbit out of Wyoming, I would like the gentleman to know how much I respect his conclusions, so I will vote against the joint resolution.

We have had two U.S. Senators for some 74 years around here and it is time to do justice. But to state that we are trying to establish equality and have one-man, onevote, that is a fiction.

Mr. HANNAFORD. I thank the gentleman from Wyoming, and I did not mean to disparage the jackrabbits of Wyoming.

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BUTLER).

(Mr. HUBBARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 554, and urge my colleagues to join me in passing this measure, without amendments on this substitute, in the name of fundamental fairness and democratic equality.

It is unthinkable that the Congress, to whom the people of this Nation have entrusted the principles of democratic representation, would condone for 1 more day the disenfranchisement of three-quarters of a million District of Columbia residents. These people have borne the full burdens of American citizenship, yet they are without a voice in the Senate, and without a vote in the House of Representatives. They contribute more than a billion dollars annually to the Federal Treasury, and struggle with a per capita tax burden exceeded only by seven States. District residents have given their lives in every war since the Revolution; only three States suffered more casualties in the Vietnam conflict than the District of Columbia. The States of Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming all have smaller populations than the District of Columbia. All have had full voting representation, while the District of Columbia has not.

These forceful arguments have fallen upon deaf ears so many times that I fear they may have lost their forcefulness. Let me leave my House colleagues with one final consideration, perhaps one which has not been raised before.

The current Senate debate on the new Panama Canal Treaties serves as an example in which these people have been denied the opportunity to be heard on an issue of pressing national and international importance.

This should not be. With the support of my colleagues for the passage of House Joint Resolution 554, without amendment, it will not be in the future.

House Joint Resolution 554 is the most important civil rights issue before this 95th Congress.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this substitute offered by my colleague and friend Mr. BUTLER.

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUBBARD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BUTLER. Is it the gentleman's intention to vote for the resolution if my amendment is defeated?

Mr. HUBBARD. Yes, it is.

Mr. BUTLER. The gentleman realizes I am sure that his State has not ratified the 23d amendment. What does the gentleman think the odds of his State passing the constitutional amendment proposed under House Joint Resolution 554 are?

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I did not fully understand the inquiry of the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BUTLER. I am asking the gentleman to speculate on this constitutional amendment, in whatever form it will be, as to whether it will be rejected or adopted by your State, since the 23d amendment was not adopted by the gentleman's State. Mr. HUBBARD. The gentleman is referring to the 23d amendment to the Constitution?

Mr. BUTLER. I am not talking now about the 23d amendment, I am talking about the proposed constitutional amendment in the resolution now before us.

Mr. HUBBARD. I believe my State of Kentucky would ratify that. I might say that we did ratify ERA in 1972 which has not been ratified by the gentleman's State of Virginia, and we just might ratify this one and I predict we will. I will be among those from the Congress to speak to my own home legislature in which I served for 8 years in the State senate and I will ask them to support this particular constitutional amendment.

Mr. BUTLER. Was the gentleman there in the Kentucky State Legislature when they were taking up the 23d amendment? The constitutional amendment that expanded the Electoral College to permit District of Columbia representation in the Electoral College.

Mr. HUBBARD. No; I was not there for that one.

Mr. BUTLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HUBBARD. I might ask the gentleman in what year was that passed?

Mr. BUTLER. 1961.

Mr. HUBBARD. In 1961?

Mr. BUTLER. That is correct.

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Chairman, I have to state that I was a 23-year-old and a junior in law school in 1961.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUBBARD. I yield to the Delegate from the District of Columbia.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his great leadership in supporting full representation for the District of Columbia. Let me also say that the 23d amendment to the Constitution of the United States did correct the situation where nearly three-quarters of a million people who were governed by the laws of this country had no right to vote for its President. The Congress in its wisdom decided that the American people ought to have the opportunity to make a decision as to whether they should continue to deny the right of franchise to the residents of our Federal District.

The gentleman should know that within 9 months the people of this country through their State legislatures did the right thing, did the fair thing, did the responsible thing. They said, we cannot ourselves claim to be true to our Constitution and deny to the citizens of our Nation's capital the right to vote for president. Within 9 months 38 States ratified that, so I think the gentleman is on good grounds for supporting this full voting representation resolution. I am confident that following the kind of leadership that he gives, the State of Kentucky will be as fair on this issue as 38 States were on the question of the right to vote for President. Mr. HUBBARD. I would add to the remarks of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from the District of Columbia, that, indeed, it is my belief that Kentucky would ratify this and would be glad to see 750,000 people in the District of Columbia given the same voting rights that the people in my congressional district have—and we have only 480,000 people in my district.

I would add further that my esteem for and confidence in the gentleman from the District of Columbia (Mr. FAUNTROY) are two of the many reasons I support this House Joint Resolution 554.

I might say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BUTLER) that to have this Baptist minister from the District of Columbia speak to our Kentucky Legislature would probably make this issue unanimous in our State's general assembly.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BUTLER).

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BUTLER) there were-ayes 7, noes 11.

So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?

Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am not entirely satisfied that a colloquy between the Members of the House of Representatives for the purpose of establishing legislative history is of much value in the case of constitutional amendments. The reason, of course, is that we are only one small part of the total process by which an amendment becomes a part of the Constitution. Our views of the meaning of language may not represent the views embraced by State legislators as they ratify the words of the proposed amendment. However, imperfect as it may be, I should like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. EDWARDS) with respect to certain language in the amendment.

Section 1 of the amendment provides that for purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and for purposes of article V-that is the amending article-the District of Columbia shall be treated as though it were a State.

In section 2 we read that the exercise of the rights and powers conferred-and I take that to mean those rights and powers specified in section 1-shall be by the people of the District of Columbia and as provided by the Congress

My first question: Since one of the rights and powers conferred in section 1 is the election of a President, does the language in section 2 "by the people of the District" entitle the people to vote directly for the President of the United States?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WIGGINS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. EDWARDS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am pleased that we can have this dialog on this particular issue. This is the same issue that we discussed at some length in the markup in the full Committee on the Judiciary. I respect the gentleman's concern. The gentleman from California (Mr. WIGGINS) is known as one of the best constitutional lawyers certainly in the Congress and perhaps in the United States. However, I might disagree with this concern on this issue. This issue is not of such concern to me, as I pointed out as we marked up the bill.

A couple of years ago the bill was different. The resolution for full voting representation for the District of Columbia was written differently than House Joint Resolution 554. We changed it on purpose to the language that the gentleman is asking about for what we think, and what the Legislative Counsel thought, was a very good reason.

The last time the bill was before us in the last Congress, it was House Joint Resolution 280. That resolution contained this kind of language:

"The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” This boiler-plate language caused concern among some committee Members as to whether the Congress, consistent with its power and exclusive legislation over the District, as set forth in article I, section 8, clause 17, would determine on behalf of the District such things as election of electors in the electoral college and ratification of constitutional amendments.

It is the intent of paragraph 2 of House Joint Resolution 554 that it is up to the Congress to provide the mechanism, after this becomes a part of the Constitution, under which these determinations would be made by the District.

So we want to make our intent very clear. That is why this dialog is important. The intent of the resolution in its present form would show that while Congress has this residual power, it will have to grant that power to the District of Columbia. Mr. WIGGINS. I appreciate the distinguished Member's comments. I wish to restate them more succinctly, so there will be no ambiguity in the legislative history. I understand the gentleman to mean, if the resolution is adopted, the intent of Congress in using the words "exercise of the rights and powers by the people"clear and unambiguous as it may seem-does not mean that the people shall directly elect the President of the United States in the District of Columbia. Mr. EDWARDS of California. The gentleman is exactly correct.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. WIGGINS was allowed to proceed for an additional 5 minutes.)

Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, is the same answer true with respect to the ratification of constitutional amendments under article V?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. That is correct.

Mr. WIGGINS. I wish to call my colleague's attention to the fact that this legislative history may contradict the literal words of the amendment; but it is clear that Congress does not mean that ambiguity. It means that the power to ratify constitutional amendments which is now granted to the legislatures of the States may by Congress be granted to some legislative forum within the District of Columbia. Mr. EDWARDS of California. If there is any ambiguity, which I am not sure there is, the gentleman is 100 percent correct.

Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, let us go on to section 2. I previously said that the language there indicates that the rights and powers conferred under article I shall be exercised by the people of the District "and as shall be provided by the Congress."

Does the use of the word "and" in section 2, that is on page 2, line 9 of the resolution, require the concurrence of the Congress in the exercise of the powers granted to the people of the District of Columbia?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. No. What the gentleman is asking is that when the District acts after authorization by Congress, after the machinery is set up by Congress, then would Congress have to confirm what the District, or whatever unit of Government was operating; no, the answer is "no."

Mr. WIGGINS. It clearly implies joint action, but the explanation is that joint action is not required.

Mr. Chairman, let me give a slight reverse twist to that. Does the use of the word, "and," in section 2 imply that the people of the District must coneur in actions taken by the Congress in respect to the exercise of those powers granted in the first section of the amendment?

I am just looking at the other side of the coin. I have told the gentleman before in committee that I am troubled by the use of the word, "and," since it rather clearly suggests to me that it requires concurrent action by the Congress and by the people. The gentleman has said that the Congress can act absent concurrence by the people, and now I am taking the other side of the coin: Can the people act absent concurrence by the Congress?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. No, the people would have no such power under this provision.

Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, to which the gentleman has previously referred, grants to the Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District.

To what extent if any does the proposed amendment modify the power granted to the Congress in Article I, section 8?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. It does not amend it at all. Congress retains the constitutional power over the District of Columbia.

Mr. WIGGINS. Particularly with respect to the creation of congressional districts, which is part of the congressional representation process and which power is apparently granted to the people of the District, does Congress or the people of the District have the power to establish congressional districts within the District of Columbia?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Congress would have that power today within the several States to establish congressional districts.

Mr. WIGGINS. I believe the gentleman is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to the matter of the filling of vacancies in the Senate if the District is granted status as though it were a State and two Senators were elected to represent the District in the Senate.

If a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the present constitutional language indicates that vacancies may be filled by the executive authority of the State. For purposes of this constitutional amendment, who constitutes the executive authority of the District of Columbia?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. That would be taken care of in the provisions of House Joint Resolution 554, and Congress would make that decision as to what entity within the District of Columbia or what person would have that appointive power.

Mr. WIGGINS. May we exercise that power directly and appoint a Senator to fill a vacancy?

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to make a record on that matter right now and say that the answer would be no.