full representation in the Congress. The resolution, as reported, was never voted on by the full House; instead an amended version which provided for one Representative in the House, and enabled Congress to provide by law for full voting representation in both the House and Senate, failed to secure the necessary two-thirds vote.

In 1975, as we approached the 200th anniversary of this country, witnesses before this subcommittee, speaking on behalf of national organizations and the residents of the District, led by our distinguished colleague, Walter Fauntroy, spoke of the need to "mend the crack in the Liberty Bell." They reminded us that although they were citizens of the United States subject to all of the obligations of citizenship, their full voice remains silent in this Congress. They reminded us that it was not until 1964 and the ratification of the 23d amendment that District residents were eligible to vote for election for the Office of President and Vice President. They reminded us that for over 100 years, officials of the District were Presidential appointees and that not until January 1975, did the elected District government become operational. Finally, they reminded us that it was not until 1971 that District residents were represented in the House by a nonvoting Delegate.

A broad cross section of Americans endorse full representation for District residents. Their belief that the District have a voice in national affairs was most recently expressed in the swift ratification of the 23d amendment. The administration's emphasis on human rights throughout the world, and endorsed by the American people, is a mandate to this Congress to, at last, provide full representation to the residents of the Nation's Capital.

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Butler.

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join in welcoming our distinguished witnesses once more.

I am certainly anxious to heard the opinions of these gentlemen on the relatively new language which has been introduced this year by the chairman. The language makes a significant departure from the approach we took last year.

I have yet to decide if the language accomplishes the result intended, and at the same time is constitutionally sound.

This subcommittee is the first, and probably the most important step in a lengthy procedure which the Constitution has established for the amendment process. I am pleased that we are beginning reconsideration of this issue and I anticipate a very interesting series of hearings and debate.

I intend to listen with interest to these, and to several other witnesses who will be testifying on this issue after the upcoming recess. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also note the absence of our Democratic colleagues in the deliberation of this subcommittee. This is probably the most important single piece of work that this subcommittee will undertake, an amendment to our Constitution.

And I want to serve notice now, Mr. Chairman, that I am going to do everything I can to embarrass those people for their absence. If they don't want to participate in this deliberation, they ought not to participate in the voting when we get to the nitty gritty of it.

And also, Mr. Chairman, I want to serve notice now that if you undertake to vote their proxies and they haven't been present, that I am going to protest this in every way that I can.

And I will ask that my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory join me in the protest.

I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, that we participate in the hard questions here by listening, by taking careful consideration of. it, and that we be present both in the deliberations and the vote.

There are going to be some hard questions here, it seems to me.

I have made a number of mistakes in my career. I haven't often made the mistake of admitting them, and I am not about to do that now. But I have altered my view of the importance of representation for the District in the Congress of the United States.

I am not impressed by the argument of taxation without representation. In fact, I remind the witnesses that this is the stuff of which revolutions are made. It has never been very successful, even among the British. The argument of taxation without representation wasn't the one that carried the day for the insiders.

But it is government without representation. We are deeply involved in the process of the government of the District of Columbia. Every day it becomes clear to me how deeply involved the Congress is in that. And to continue to deny representation in the Congress is, in my judgment, an inappropriate thing for us to continue to do.

I think we have, as I have said before, exactly the situation which our Founding Fathers envisioned when they established the District of Columbia in our Constitution. But I am satisfied that the time has come for us to change that. Maybe this vision wasn't altogether accurate.

I am anxious that we arrive at something that will become law and part of our Constitution. So I am going to have the hard question for my friends today, as to whether you really want the issue or whether you want the representation. Because I cannot seriously believe that with the composition of the United States as it is today, a constitutional amendment requiring approval of three-fourths of the States will succeed. A constitutional amendment that would give the seven States that are smaller than the District of Columbia, the same representation in the Senate that the District of Columbia would have, is going to have hard, if not impossible, sledding in this country.

I would think that the more appropriate thing, the more reasonable thing, would be to have a constitutional amendment which would provide for representation in the House of Representatives only.

Therefore, I am going to ask my friends when they testify, if they have really considered the practicalities of this proposal.

Do you really want the issue or do you want the representation? Because I don't believe you are going to be able to accomplish the constitutional amendment which will change the representation of the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I know I have spoken too long. But, since I was rather strong and vocal in my objections to this amendment last time, I felt it appropriate to explain to the subcommittee my present view. I thank you and look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his very sincere statement, and I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory.

Mr. McCLORY. Thank you.

I just want to make a very brief statement, Mr. Chairman. I am a cosponsor of the House joint resolution for full representation for the District of Columbia.

I feel that the people of the District are entitled to and should have representation commensurate with the representation of a State or of equal areas of territory in which we do have representation in the House and Senate.

I, frankly, don't favor some kind of hybrid or some kind of partial, or some kind of watered down representation. I think it would corrupt our political system to develop some alternatives to the kinds of representative body we have in the House of Representatives, and the kind of area representation we have in the Senate.

I will be very interested in the testimony that we receive, and I will be interested in the further arguments against that kind of a solution. I am hopeful that we don't start off by arriving at some sort of a compromise because, frankly, I am not favorable to the thought of a hybrid or a watered down or a compromised kind of solution to this.

Mr. Chairman, I am very frank in stating my preconceived position which I have evidenced earlier in the previous Congresses with my vote. And to depart from that, I would have to be persuaded that my position is and has been wrong.

So, with you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony in the hearings, and I hope with my colleague, Mr. Butler, that the Members will be present to hear the case, and will not be noticed by their absence and then have their proxies voted by others. I don't believe that will be the case. I will try myself, to be in attendance regularly.

Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to commend everybody who has once again brought this to our attention. It was exactly 2 years ago that we had hearings and that we brought it to the floor. We didn't make the two-thirds. But I have the hope that with the perseverance of our colleague, Congressman Walter Fauntroy, and with the perseverance of Senator Birch Bayh, that finally we are going to remove the stigma of "The Nation's Last Colony" from the District of Columbia.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Volkmer. Mr. VOLKMER. It is good to see my good friend Walter here this morning.

How is your leg, Walter?

Mr. EDWARDS. Our first witness this morning is the Honorable Walter E. Fauntroy, our distinguished colleague who has meritoriously represented District residents in the House as a nonvoting delegate since his election in 1970.

We are delighted to have you here, Walter, and you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF HON. WALTER E. FAUNTROY, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHNNY BARNES, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

First of all, let me say how delighted I am to have this opportunity to come before you. I am very pleased to welcome both the former members of the subcommittee from the 94th Congress, and the new members who are joining with us and sharing with us in the exploration of this issue in the 95th Congress.

I am pleased to have at my side my legislative assistant, Mr. John Barnes, who has been in constant contact with the staff of the subcommittee, and who has been of great help to me.

Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure for me to appear before you today and to share with you thoughts and views on one of the most important matters affecting the citizens of Washington, D.C. and, I believe, the integrity of the democratic processes of our Nation.

I want to especially thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having the courage and the patience to initiate the process of bringing this matter before the House once again.

I believe we are on the threshold of an historic occasion. This hearing, I believe, marks the beginning of a new chapter in the history of Washington, D.C, as well as the history of the Nation.

Full voting representation for the District of Columbia during the 95th Congress is a reachable goal. It is a reachable goal if, as we have been told, we can expect the President of the United States, to bring his world quest for human rights home here to the Nation's Capital.

It is a reachable goal if the just and fair-minded Representatives in the House, who during the 94th Congress voted with a majority of the Members to enfranchise the three-quarters of a million Americans residing in the District of Columbia, are able to persuade just 21 additional Members to vote in favor of District of Columbia full voting representation.

It is a reachable goal if Members of the Senate follow the lead of Senator Kennedy and Senator Bayh and other cosponsors of the similar resolution in the Senate that was introduced just this year.

And finally, it is a reachable goal if the American people also decide that this simple case of democracy denied must, after nearly two centuries, be corrected.

It is, Mr. Chairman, a reachable goal in the 95th Congress.

It is only reachable, however, if those Members of the House and the Senate, who believe as I do, that this serious flaw in our democracy must be removed, if those members play an active role in convincing the unconvinced, in educating the misinformed, and in persuading the stubborn.

We must remind the President that of the 17 federal districts in the world community, only 2 other than Washington are not represented in their national legislatures. Surely, our Government is more progressive than the Governments of Brazil and Nigeria, for ex

ample, which deny the residents of their federal districts representation in their national legislatures.

Surely, our Government is at least as progressive as that of England, France, and West Germany, whose residents of London, Paris, and Bonn are represented in their national legislatures.

Human rights is as important here as it is abroad. We must give our President that message, and he, in turn, must convey it not only with words, but with deeds as well, to the Congress and to the American people.

Those who agree with this effort to secure simple democracy for the people of Washington, D.C. must speak out to ensure that the Senate and House vote for the most enduring principle of our Government that “*** governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Despite this tradition of representative government, Mr. Chairman, you know that District residents do not enjoy the same rights as every other American. They are relegated to the status of second-class citizens. They have no representation in the Senate of the United States, and they have only token representation in the House of Representatives.

The District of Columbia has no voting congressional representation despite the fact that District residents pay more than $1 billion every year in Federal taxes; despite the fact that the per capita tax payment for the District of Columbia residents is $77 above the national average, a payment only exceeded by seven States; despite the fact that the population of the District of Columbia is larger than that of 10 States, including Alaska and Delaware, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming; and despite the fact that District of Columbia residents, like all other Americans, have fought and died in every American war and conflict.

Like all other Americans, District citizens are subjected to Federal laws, yet the only representation available to District residents, is one nonvoting Delegate in the House of Representatives.

Are we to continue to say to District of Columbia Americans, like we said in the Dred Scott decision to another group of Americans, that you are less than whole persons in our eyes?

Are we to continue to espouse the virtues of democracy to the world and halt that democracy at the borders of the District of Columbia? Are the gates to equality, freedom and independence to remain closed within view of the Washington Monument?

The responses are obvious and compelling. They are more compelling during this Congress and with this administration than ever before. Mr. Chairman, we are, I believe, on the threshold of an historic occasion and full voting representation is a reachable goal.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I yesterday introduced a joint resolution, whose language is identical to the language of House Joint Resolution 554, which you introduced on July 5 of this year.

I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of the long hours and considerable thought which lawyers on your staff and mine, along with others, de