Legislation's Backers to Target Senators Who Blocked Action

In addition, Henderson said, the bill's supporters would try to win over Sens. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), John W. Warner (R-Va.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who was not present for the vote but has indicated his opposition to the bill.

The activists will try to use electoral campaigns next year as an opportunity to apply pressure.

"Our issue certainly will not be the major issue" in those campaigns, acknowledged the District's nonvoting House delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D). "But we think our issue can be joined with other issues to make a point about the senator" in question.

It will be difficult to budge some of the senators, though. Warner and Byrd are seen as ardent constitutionalists and have shown little sign of wavering on the bill.

"We broadly share the view that representation in Congress is important," said Carter Cornick, Warner's chief of staff. But, he added, "it has to be done right." That, he said, means a constitutional amendment, which Warner is drafting.

The last effort at a constitutional amendment granting the District full congressional representation failed in 1985, after ratification from only 16 of the required 38 states.

Supporters reject the charge that the bill is unconstitutional. They note that the Constitution gives Congress vast powers over the District and maintain that those powers are sufficient to create a D.C. seat.

Although debate has centered on the constitutionality of the bill, there are other concerns. Some Republicans fear the measure could lead to the District getting two senators, who would probably be Democrats.

The bill also has revived fears that the District could become a sort of city-state with outsized powers. Baucus, in a statement Tuesday night, called the legislation "a slippery slope."

"If we expand the playing field now, then who is to say where it will stop? Will we give votes to territories, protectorates and commonwealths?" he asked.

Some of the bill's supporters said they suspected strong White House pressure on McConnell to fight the legislation. President Bush's advisers have urged a veto if the measure reaches his desk, because of constitutional concerns.

McConnell's spokesman, Don Stewart, denied such White House pressure. He said McConnell has taken strong stands on other constitutional issues, such as when he opposed an amendment against flag-burning last year.

"He's got a long history of this sort of thing," Stewart said. "If he feels it's unconstitutional, he's just not going to support it."