1

knocking at the door of the Capitol Building demanding to be paid, or some of the other horror stories that our Founding Fathers were concerned about, if we did not establish a separate National Capital.

Mr. Chairman, I don't need to treat this committee to any long extended discussion of taxation without representation and some of the basic philosophies that underlie our Government. I just think the time has come to give the people of the capital of the greatest democracy in history the same rights that all other citizens in this country have, the same rights that we espoused around the world, but which are by unique circumstances, denied the citizens of the capital. That ends the minibuster.

[Laughter.]

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Senator Bayh. Your being here, presenting your excellent statement, gives us confidence that you and your colleagues in the Senate are going to be of great assistance in this important constitutional matter.

The gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, want to congratulate our colleague, Senator Bayh, for his perseverance and patience in this regard.

I have just one question, because I don't want to delay the Senator from getting back to the floor of the Senate.

But if we were fortunate enough to be able to pass this on the floor of the House by the two-thirds that is required, would you be able to assess the possibility of action that would be favorable in the Senate?

Senator BAYH. I think we have a reasonable chance of passing it, Congressman Drinan, and I am sure you know, it is never easy to get two-thirds for anything agreed to in the U.S. Senate, except to recess. [Laughter.]

In fact, we agreed yesterday to not have a recess, temporarily. I predict we will probably agree to have one again in the near future.

But it is difficult. All I can promise you and the other members of the committee is to make the best effort I know how to make to make the case persuasive hopefully, we will be propelled into action by action taken here. I think this will greatly increase our chances.

Mr. DRINAN. Let me just say that if we didn't have you there as our spokesman, I am certain that we wouldn't go forward. But we go forward with the hope that we can pass it here, and with the hope and expectation that you will be successful in the Senate.

Thank you very much.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Father Drinan.

I can't overestimate the emphasis that action here would have on our colleagues.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Butler?

Mr. BUTLER. I thank the Senator for taking the time to share his thoughts with us. And one thing I want to thank you for, my predecessor in this office, Congressman Richard Poff worked with you, I think on the 25th amendment.

Senator BAYH. I am sure he did.

Mr. BUTLER. But one of the things he told me was the biggest mistake the Republican Party ever made was to let the Democrats steal Thomas Jefferson.

So I am tremendously pleased to note in your statement this morning, that you referred to Thomas Jefferson as a Republican, and reminded us that he did call himself a Republican, and I am grateful for that little historical lesson. [Laughter.]

I too, Senator, share the concerns of the gentleman from Massachusetts with reference to how this measure is going to fly in the Senate.

I am sure we will have no problem getting the Senate of the United States to agree to amend the Constitution to increase representation in the House of Representatives. You recognize no problems there, I presume?

Senator BAYH. Perhaps not in the Senate. I leave that to your jurisdiction here. Take first things first.

Mr. BUTLER. That's right. That is going to be the hurdle here.

But, I judge that the problem in the Senate is to get the Senators to agree to share that high estate with one additional group, the District of Columbia. And we have your assessment there.

My question is, is your burden increased, decreased or not affected by the additional provision of the constitutional amendment before us, which extends to the District of Columbia, the power of participating in the ratification of a constitutional amendment as if it were a State. Does that alter its chances in the Senate?

Senator BAYH. I don't think so, sir.

I think you put your finger on the sensitive nerve of the Senate. To me it seems to be a very selfish argument. It lurked in the wings during the time Hawaii and Alaska were considered, that any one of the 100 of us is diminished in power by adding another two colleagues, which seems to me to be very selfish.

It is not a well-founded argument. That seems to me is the argument we can direct our attention to. And I am not at all concerned about the ratification issue.

Mr. BUTLER. I thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory.

Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if the Senator from the State of Indiana, one of the adjoining States of Illinois, would comment on the subject of retrocession which I addressed in a question to Mr. Fauntroy.

Senator BAYH. My good friend Bob McClory, I have to say if we think getting two-thirds of the Senate to give the citizens of the District the right to vote as citizens of the District is going to be difficult, I think you can multiply that at least times two as far as the possibility of retrocession, I just don't envision that possibility has much chance of flying in the Senate.

But really, we are not trying to break up the District, so to speak in any way. We are just trying to give to citizens who live in the Nation's Capital, a right that now is possessed by others.

Mr. McCLORY. Well, we did retrocede the Virginia part, the part on the other side of the Potomac to Virginia, and those citizens don't seem to be complaining. They don't want to come back into the District and get this kind of enhanced representation which we are considering for the remaining part of the District which adjoins Maryland.

But I am, as are some of my other colleagues, skeptical about the support of this proposal in the Senate. There were, I think, four Mem

bers, two Republicans and two Democrats who joined us at the time we had a press conference announcing the program, and it was suggested to me that maybe that would be the sum total of support for this resolution in the U.S. Senate

But I am encouraged by your expression of optimism of getting two-thirds there.

Are you firm in your support of this proposal?

Or do you consider that this is sort of a bargaining proposal? Would you consider it as a bargaining proposal with the idea that some compromise like the compromise proposed in the last Congress might satisfy the people of the District of Columbia, and we would have this hybrid type of partial representation solely in the House and not in the Senate?

Senator BAYH. Well, Congressman McClory, I want to get as much representation as we possibly can for the District. I think the ideal, and to me, as I sit here now, most acceptable vehicle is full representation.

I think at a time, hopefully which we will not actually come to, that this is no longer possible, that the effort is fraught with no chance of success, that stage of the game we might think about some half a loaf. But right now, I think is the wrong time to consider halfway

measures.

Mr. McCLORY. Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS. If there are no further questions, we will excuse the witness, with many thanks.

The Chair believes that the chances for passage really are much better this year, and we are moving full steam ahead with additional hearings right after the recess.

Senator, we thank you very much.

The subcommittee is adjourned.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen.

[Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was adjourned.]

REPRESENTATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1977

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m. in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Don Edwards (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Edwards, Drinan, Volkmer, McClory, and Butler.

Also present: Thomas P. Breen, counsel; Ivy L. Davis, assistant counsel; and Roscoe B. Starek III, associate counsel.

Mr. EDWARDS. The committee will come to order.

Today, we continue our series of hearings on resolutions introduced this session, which would amend the Constitution by giving the residents of the District of Columbia full voting representation in the Congress.

Our next hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, September 21, in this room and at this time.

Each witness this morning shares a common purpose: To correct what many believe was an oversight by the framers of our Constitution. Whether or not the voices of District residents were intentionally or mistakenly silenced in the Congress, it is clear their continued silence will no longer be tolerated.

The fundamental right to vote must be expanded and vigorously protected. To continue to deny that right to the residents of the seat of government strikes a blow to the very foundation of this democracy. Our first witness today is my distinguished colleague from Alabama, John Buchanan. Mr. Buchanan, you are remembered by all as an effective and dedicated supporter of House Joint Resolution 280 in the 94th Congress and, through your leadership, helped bring the matter to the House floor for debate and vote. It was the first time in our history that such a resolution reached the House floor.

John, we are delighted that you are here. We are looking forward to your continued support on the floor of the House.

And before I recognize you, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory.

Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to welcome to our hearing our colleague John Buchanan and indicate again my strong interest for a constitutional amendment which would provide for full voting representation for the District.

(21)