voted to shaping this new language. I believe it accommodates the legitimate concerns raised by our learned colleagues during the hearings and debates of the previous resolution. I further believe it will withstand constitutional scrutiny and be a sound amendment to our Constitution.

Most importantly, House Joint Resolution 554 does the right thing. It provides for the District of Columbia voting representation in the Senate as well as the House.

It is for those reasons that I support House Joint Resolution 554 as evidenced by my introduction of an identical resolution.

Section 1 of House Joint Resolution 554 will allow the District of Columbia, pursuant to article V of the Constitution, to participate in the ratification of constitutional amendments along with the 50 States. Aside from that change, and the repeal of the 23d amendment at section 3, the effect of House Joint Resolution 554 is the same as that of House Joint Resolution 280, the previous resolution.

Repealing the 23d amendment allows the District, like the States, to have the number of electors to compare to the total number of the District of Columbia Senate and House Members. As presently drawn, the 23d amendment allows the District of Columbia no more than "the least populous State," or three. Repealing the 23d amendment will correct this constitutional deficiency.

I might hasten to add that House Joint Resolution 554 is not a District of Columbia statehood bill. It simply completes the rights of the 23d amendment enacted in 1961, which enabled District residents to vote for the President and Vice President, to include voting representation in the Congress.

The new resolution at section 2 also makes clear that the establishment of boundaries, the manner of filling senatorial vacancies and other responsibilities left to the people of the various States, are likewise left to the people of the District of Columbia.

I am often asked, why seek full voting representation now? Why press for Senate seats for the District with the knowledge of the difficulty of convincing the Senate to do the right thing?

My response to that line of inquiry is that the effort to secure the District of Columbia voting representation is aimed at placing the District of Columbia residents on an equal footing with all other Americans. Equality is not achieved by providing representation only in the House. To be sure, recognition of the right to voting representation lends credence to the right to full voting representation for the District of Columbia.

Moreover, the Constitution, after nearly 200 years since its adoption, has only been amended 26 times. It is thus inappropriate to suggest a piecemeal amendment process to secure District of Columbia voting representation. It is more logical and practical to include all necessary provisions in a single amendment.

Perhaps the most noteworthy response I have given, Mr. Chairman, is that the Senate and the House have different roles. How can it be said that the District of Columbia citizens are represented if they have no voice and no vote in senatorial confirmation of Presidential appointees, for example?

How is there true District of Columbia representation if they have no voice and no vote in the selection of Federal judges serving the

District of Columbia, or more importantly, the ratification of certain treaties with foreign governments?

How can it be said that the District of Columbia is represented when one realizes that had the House voted to impeach Mr. Nixon, the Senate would have tried him, and the Americans of Washington, D.C., would have had no voice and no vote in that most historically important, precedent-setting process?

Again, I submit the response is very obvious.

The Constitution of the United States does not expressly deny congressional representation to the District residents. However, the principles of democracy, the essence of our Constitution, laboriously etched by the blood and sacrifice of Americans throughout the years, those things demand, I believe, that we extend during the 95th Congress, full voting representation to the people of the District of Columbia.

It is, I repeat, a reachable goal. To further delay this fundamental right, is to deny democracy.

I leave with you the words of an English Methodist minister, who on one occasion stated that on some issues-cowardice asks the question, is it safe? and vanity asks the question, is it popular? and expediency asks the question, is it politic? but conscience asks the question, is it right? And on some issues we have to take the position not because it is safe or popular or politic, but because it is right.

And it is right that the citizens of the Nation's Capital be afforded the privilege of full voting representation in the legislative branch of the Government in the 95th Congress. Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Fauntroy, that was the most persuasive argument in favor of full representation for the District of Columbia I have yet heard. I compliment you and your staff on the preparation and scholarly work that went into it.

I hope it gets wide distribution to our colleagues in the House and the Senate.

The gentleman from Massachusetts?

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also congratulate our colleague, Congressman Walter Fauntroy. Would you please elaborate on your point on page 4 where you state that the resolution filed by the chairman and jointly by yourself accommodates the legitimate concerns expressed by our colleagues during the previous hearings and debates?

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Drinan for that question, because I was very much impressed with the argument raised during the course of our hearings and debate in the 94th Congress by our distinguished colleague from Virginia, Mr. Butler, particularly with respect to the need to answer a number of questions, which, at that time, House Joint Resolution 280 did not deal with.

And in the effort to address those problems, we have, we think, come up with a formulation that places District residents on an equal status with all other residents of the country.

So that in the question on the article V concerns about the role of the jurisdiction with respect to the ratification of proposed constitutional amendments, we have created a mechanism by which District residents would have the same participation as do the residents of 'other States.

With respect to the question of the representation in the College of Electors, we have reached over into the 23d amendment, and by repealing section 3 of it, dealt specifically with the equality question by simply stating that District residents shall be represented in the College of Electors in the same manner as are all other residents of the States, and that is on the basis of their representation in both Houses.

So in that sense we have, I think, satisfied the dictates of both conscience and quality in House Joint Resolution 554 by placing District residents on an equal citizenship status with all other Americans, just as they share that status with the residents of Federal districts in England, in West Germany and in France, and in some 14 other nations of the world that have the privilege of voting representation for their residents of the Federal district, in the national legislatures.

Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Fauntroy, would this satisfy the concerns of Mr. Buchanan, who as you recall, 2 years ago, filed the Buchanan amendment on the floor. And that was the issue on which we voted. Would you refresh my recollection? What precisely was the Buchanan amendment? And is that satisfied by this new resolution? Mr. FAUNTROY. The Buchanan amendment last year was designed really to assure that we would not violate the equal status of District residents by denying them representation in the Senate.

As you recall there were arguments made, as were probably made this year, that it would be very difficult to move full voting representation to the Senate, and that perhaps the best we could do in terms of a constitutional amendment, would be to amend the Constitution to allow voting representation in both Houses, and in the course mandate representation in the House and leave representation in the Senate to a legislative process by which both Houses passed by majority vote and the President signs a bill to allow it in the Senate.

That was the essence of the Buchanan amendment.

Mr. DRINAN. But would resolution 554 be subject to the same objection?

Mr. FAUNTROY. I think that this resolution of course, would be subject to the same amendment, although I am sure, as Mr. Buchanan will testify, his position as is mine, and I think most of those who have studied the issue, his position is that we ought to grant to the District residents, what every other citizen has, and that is full voting representation in both Houses. And we ought to do it by constitutional amendment that is straight out on the subject.

Mr. DRINAN. I thank you. And I hope that with this new resolution, our friend from Virginia, Mr. Butler, will be born again, and that 20 more people will be born again, and that we will pass it by two-thirds on the floor.

Thank you very much.

Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. BUTLER. I want to thank you. It is always a difficult adjustment to realize that there is such a thing as "born-again Catholics." That was a new line and it will just have to take me a while to get used to it. [Laughter.]

Mr. FAUNTROY. Amen, brother.

Mr. BUTLER. I would like to say to our colleague from the District that I have often worried about the problem of people in your profession, that is how do you get a new sermon every Sunday. Especially when you have the same old theme. So I am really impressed with your ability to come back here and ride this same old horse with so many new and different nuances, really, that I congratulate you on your ability to develop this question and the new points that you have raised.

It is very persuasive, and I congratulate you on that. And while I haven't been born again, I have certainly not lost my interest in this matter; I am anxious to work on a compromise that will pass.

You have introduced something which I haven't thought about before, quite frankly, the ratification virtues which you think full representation include. And I would judge that certainly is one feature which we haven't thought of before.

But really, each time you get closer to statehood without becoming a State, you are trespassing on the prerogatives which our Constitution has assigned to the States, and which they must surrender in the amendment process.

So I want to ask you seriously, now, since it takes only 13 States to buck a constitutional amendment causing it to fail-you mentioned the 7 States do you really think that those 7 States would, out of the goodness of their hearts-those small, 7 States-extend to a city representation in the Senate of the United States?

Are you planning to get some votes from those seven States, or have you written them off?

Mr. FAUNTROY. I have great faith in the sense of fairness in the American people. And I have every reason to believe that if the Congress in its wisdom, passes this resolution, that we will probably beat the record in the ratification process on the 23d amendment to the Constitution.

I think when asked, when the American people asked the question, when they are asked the question, is it right to deny full-fledged American citizens full voting representation in the House and in the Senate simply because they happen to live in the Federal District, they will answer "No."

And I think perhaps the seven States to which you made reference, will probably be our best supporters in this quest because they would answer, is it right to deny the 600,000 people of Montana, for example, the right to representation in the Senate and in the House simply because they have less people than reside in the Federal District? Is it right to deny the 400,000 or more people in Idaho the right to representation in the Senate and the House simply because they have less people than reside in the District of Columbia?

When they are asked that question. I think the demands of conscience, and the dictates of equity and fairness, will make them our chief supporters.

Mr. BUTLER. Well, I can only express disappointment with that. When you are hanging this proposal on the conscience of the people of Idaho as your best supporters, then I am really apprehensive about it. I just don't think that human nature is such that you are going to be able to persuade those States.

Consider the equal rights amendment floating around here. There are still about 15 States, I believe, who haven't adopted that. Now most of them are neighbors of ours.

Do you really think those 15 States are going to be any more enlightened about enlarging the Senate than they are voting the equal rights amendment?

Mr. FAUNTROY. Again, I rest my case on the demonstrated experience in getting the American people to respond to the question, is it right to deny the citizens of our Federal District the privilege of voting for President.

They said obviously that is not right, there is no reason to do that.

I think, confronted with a simple, similar argument and that is all that this is, when asked is it right to deny the citizens of our Federal District, simply because they live there, what every other American has, and that is representation in both Houses of the Legislature, I think that simple argument will find simple and positive response in all of the States.

Mr. BUTLER. Well, let's look at it once more. If you were persuaded, quite frankly as I am, that the ratification of an amendment may not be such an obstacle, because that is too subtle for the average person to take in. But with reference to expanding the size of the Senate, if you were persuaded as I am, that this just will not fly in three-fourths of the States, would you think it would be more important to continue to try to persuade these States in what is right?

Or, would it be more appropriate to settle for the present as we did before, as you did before I wasn't here-with reference to the expansion of the electoral college representation?

Would it be appropriate to take another small bite that has some reasonable assurance of adoption, or do you want to fight this thing on until we can bring enlightenment to the world?

Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes. I think it is important and a reasonable goal that we try to convince the unconvinced. And as I said, inform the misinformed. And I believe that with a serious effort on our part-and we have friends across the Nation and many Members of the Congress, who I think are prepared to reason on this subject, with that kind of effort I think we can move the American people to make the kind of hard, frank judgment that the Founding Fathers made when they were confronted with the question of whether or not in the Senate, there shall be equal representation on the basis of jurisdiction.

Now I know that was a difficult decision. The large States like New York said, all right, we understand that in the interests of equity, in the interests of the principles of constitutional government, we, in New York, will agree that little Delaware will have two Senators, and we will have two Senators.

That was a hard judgment, but they made it. And if they could make it, I think the American people can be persuaded to follow their instructive example.

Mr. BUTLER. The chairman tells me my time has expired.

Just historically, though, I think it was more of a pragmatic decision than it was the goodness of the heart of the people of New York, with which I haven't had much experience.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.