other Senate youth delegates took for granted-voting representation in the Senate and House of Representatives.

You may recall the one day of the Senate youth program that was set aside for the delegates to visit their Senators. I have never before felt inferior to fellow Americans. That day I did. All I could do was listen at dinner that evening when my friends told of how they had discussed important national issues, such as the Panama Canal treaties, health care, and energy policy with their Senators. I, too, have opinions on these and other vital issues. That day, I could share them with no one with a voice or vote in the U.S. Senate.

This was the first time that many of the delegates had ever visited Washington, D.C. and the Senate visits were a highlight of their experience. At the end of the day most of the delegates felt a profound sense of importance that with their Senators, their opinions counted and soon their votes would as well.

I was acutely aware that, because I am a resident of the District of Columbia, I could not share in that feeling of importance and that feeling of being a real part of the democratic process. I felt alone and apart from the others, almost like a foreigner in my own country.

Many of the Senate youth delegates have helped in the quest for full voting representation for the District by writing their representatives in the House. Some have since written me, letting me know how delighted they are with the affirmation of the basic principles of democracy that the House expressed in its overwhelming vote for District voting representation 2 months ago.

The second occasion when I represented the District of Columbia was at convention II, a mock constitutional convention held here from February 8 through February 10. I would like to thank you, Senator Bayh, along with Mr. Boris Feinman, for founding Convention II-it was a marvelous experience; 275 students from 9 States and the District of Columbia considered 155 constitutional amendments. These amendments dealt with a wide variety of issues, many of which are currently being considered by Congress. Only 2 of the 155 proposed amendments were passed. I sponsored one of them. It provided voting representation for the District of Columbia. The vote was 182 in favor and 16 opposed-an overwhelming statement of support by youth for this issue.

I would like to share with you the conclusion I have drawn from this demonstration of solidarity on the District of Columbia representation issue by young people across our Nation. Young people do love and respect democracy, fairness, and our country. Our support for this issue reflects what we have always been taught about our country by our parents and teachers.

I have done extensive reading and research so that I could follow this issue closely and understand it more fully. One of the first things I found out was that, at the time the Federal District was created, there were only 14,000 persons residing in the District of Columbia. Since the population was far short of the 30,000 needed for a congressional district, and much less than the 50,000 needed for statehood, it is understandable that no need for representation

was seen.

I am certain that the Founding Fathers never dreamed that the District of Columbia would someday be inhabited by nearly threequarters of a million permanent residents. The District now has fifteen times the original number required for statehood. It is inconceivable to me that my forefathers fought and died for a principle only to deny, to a large group of American citizens, the very same rights for which they fought.

I have learned that from 1790 to 1800, before the Federal Government moved to this area, District residents were able to vote in congressional elections. Historical oversight is the only rational explanation for our present disenfranchisement.

I am sure that your constituents are concerned about how their tax dollars are spent. Isn't it logical that my parents, too, would share this concern? The Federal taxes my parents pay are figured on the same basis as yours and your constituents-but unlike you, my parents, like all District residents, have no real say in how the money is spent.

I shall turn 18 next fall-in time to vote in the next election. Most of the students I served with in the Senate youth program and Convention II will also be old enough to participate in our Government through the voting process next year. I will be left

out.

Will my opinions ever be counted? How can it make sense to deny me the fundamental basic right to contribute to our participatory democracy? Must I leave the District of Columbia, the city that I love, and where I was born, in order to be a real full citizen of my country?

Please, I implore you. Strengthen my faith in democracy and my love for my country by making me, my parents, my friends, my neighbors, and all other residents of the District of Columbia full citizens of the United States of America.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Natasha.

I must say with all the eloquent testimony that we have had, and will have throughout the remainder or our hearings, I do not think we have had a single witness who has had as large a stake in this issue as you have.

Miss PEARL. I appreciate this opportunity.

Senator BAYH. The importance of your testimony goes beyond the eloquence and perception of it which speaks for itself. I was impressed.

Miss PEARL. Thank you.

Senator BAYH. But I think the real message that comes from those who may have heard you and may read of you, is that you and those other young people in the District of Columbia have a lot longer to live than some of us who are a bit older and thus, to deny you this opportunity for full citizenship is an even greater sin than to deny that of your parents.

This is an evolving problem. It will not go away until we remedy and rectify it, which I hope we will do here today.

So I appreciate your being with us.

Senator Metzenbaum?

Senator METZENBAUM. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, but I am very grateful to both of our witnesses here for their very eloquent testimony.

I am not very grateful for you, Mr. Rodriguez, for having left Ohio to come here. [Laughter.]

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Senator, I left there to come here to dedicate myself to a career in government, however, 10 responsible members of my family who do vote there will hear about Senator Metzenbaum's fine work in support of full voting representation for the District of Columbia. [Laughter.]

Senator METZENBAUM. Natasha Pearl, I am also grateful to you for your involvement and the courage it takes to come before a Senate committee and express your views. I have a reaffirmation of my own belief in the democratic processes working.

Thank you both for being here.

Senator BAYH. Thank you both for taking the time to let us have your thoughts.

Our next witness is Mr. Bruce Waxman, Chairperson of the District of Columbia Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C., chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.

Good morning, Mr. Waxman, it is good to have you here.

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE I. WAXMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE WASHINGTON, D.C., CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

Mr. WAXMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am here today because Mr. William Schapp, chairperson of the Washington, D.C., chapter of the National Lawyers Guild is out of town and is unavailable to appear before your committee.

I am here this morning to talk about the constitutional amendment that is before the committee from the perspective of statehood for the District of Columbia as a preferable route, and as the only route, whereby the people of the District of Columbia may have the full and equal rights which are the same rights as enjoyed by other people throughout the United States.

In February 1978 the National Lawyers Guild joined the District of Columbia public interest research group, the National Capital area affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union and others in the statehood movement under the leadership of the District of Columbia Statehood Party.

Senator BAYH. Without objection, the material submitted on this subject will be inserted in the record.

Mr. WAXMAN. The guild's support of statehood derives from our belief that statehood is the only method which offers full equal rights to the people of the District of Columbia under the existing political structure in the United States.

As I am sure you are aware, Senator, with statehood comes full voting representation in both Houses of Congress, as well as control over local affairs without a congressional veto. That is something that this constitutional amendment cannot offer us. Furthermore, only statehood is permanent, because once it is achieved it cannot be taken away. This constitutional amendment may very well be ephemeral because constitutional amendments may be repealed. So, we will have the situation, to some extent, whereby the elected representatives of the District of Columbia through the constitutional amendment, if it should be passed, will sort of always be on their good behavior. If they don't perform in accord

ance with the wishes of, let's say, persons in other jurisdictions, or if some people don't approve of actions by the political body of the District of Columbia, there is a possibility, however remote, that those rights could be taken away.

Although the drive for statehood is only a few years old, and the number of statehood activists is admittedly relatively small, the idea of statehood has been gaining considerable support. The most recent poll on statehood showed 51 percent of District residents in favor, according to Professor Robert Hitlin of American University. Senator BAYH. Without objection, the article submitted with reference to this will be inserted into the record.

I think that is doing pretty good considering that the statehood movement really only got underway in 1970 when it was founded by the late great civil rights leader, Mr. Julius Hobson Sr. At that time, basically, when we said statehood, people laughed, if they knew what we were talking about at all. We have finally come to the point where Professor Hitlin's poll shows that the majority of District residents were, in fact, in favor of statehood.

The consideration by the House and Senate of a constitutional amendment for voting representation in Congress as I mentioned, places the concept of "home rule" and the "statehood" movement in juxtaposition. As explained by Hilda M. Mason, the Statehood Party's member elected to an at-large seat on the Council of the District of Columbia, statehood guarantees self-government as well as full voting rights.

You may or may not be aware, Senator Bayh, but there are three major political parties in the District of Columbia and the Statehood Party is one of them. We do have a member on the local Council of the District of Columbia.

Senator BAYH. Without objection, the article submitted referring to this will be inserted into the record.

Furthermore, as noted in a paper published by the late founder of the Statehood Party, Julius Hobson Sr., entitled, "Why Statehood?" Statehood removes the Presidential and congressional vetos over local affairs. I would like the contents of this paper included in the record, if possible.

Senator BAYH. Without objection, the material will be inserted into the record.

Mr. WAXMAN. In other words, this constitutional amendment is still not going to remove the problems that we face when certain congressional committees or leaders of those committees dictate to the elected representatives of our local government what items will or will not be funded, which, in effect, gives them control over the day-to-day operations of the District government, including our economic developments. You all know that currently the District's budget for fiscal year 1978 has not been approved by the Congress, and we are operating under a continuing resolution. Under statehood, this control over our financial affairs would be eliminated and we would have the right to control our own destiny. This would be, not only by voting representation here in Congress, but also by having total control over all local government.

The paper also points out, as I mentioned, that statehood is irrevocable. The procedures for statehood are summarized in Ms.

Senator BAYH. Mr. Waxman, that is a very thoughtful offer you have made to give Mr. Fauntroy the chance to be in front of the television camera. I know he appreciates that. [Laughter.]

I was wondering, inasmuch as you have been so conscious of the presence of the television camera, would you feel more at ease if I move my seat over there directly under the camera?

Please proceed. Let's get on with the issue. We don't need to get involved in this. You are making your case very eloquently. I think it would be better if you rested it there. So please proceed. I don't want to cut you off.

Mr. WAXMAN. I accept your remarks in the spirit in which they are offered.

Senator BAYH. We don't want to embarrass or put anyone else in a position they may not want to be in at a given time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Your point is well taken.

When statehood comes in we will be proud to see our star added to the other 50 on the flag. The Statehood Party has already designed a 51-star flag and I have submitted a copy of this design for the record.

Senator BAYH. Without objection, this will be included as a part of the record.

Mr. WAXMAN. The senior Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy, in 1972 entered into the Congressional Record some very strong reasons why the capital city "deserves to operate and function as a self-supporting State". I have provided copies of those to the committee, and I am sure that you and your staff will have the opportunity to look over some of those materials.

Senator BAYH. Without objection, this material will be inserted into the record.

Mr. WAXMAN. Those reasons remain true today. I would like to note that in advocating statehood for the District, Julius Hobson said, in testimony before Congress nearly seven years ago:

The drive for statehood for the District of Columbia stems from the bitter experience of colonies everywhere. Even those under the most beneficient administration: neglect, misrule, and arbitrary, capricious government. Gaining statehood and thus full citizenship should not be viewed as a panacea, just ample decency. Statehood is not a utopia, it would merely lift us to the status of the rest of our countrymen. I have submitted a copy of this testimony for inclusion in the record.

Senator BAYH. Without objection, this material will be inserted into the record.

Mr. WAXMAN. I might note that the constitutional amendment is not a utopia either. I know that a lot of people have come up here with great enthusiasm. I certainly respect their great desires. I live in the District of Columbia. I have the same frustrations that they do in our lack of full political rights. I just think those efforts are misguided.

I would also like to mention for those persons on the committee, and others who are interested in improving life in this captive capital, that there is a book by Sam Smith, published by the Indiana University Press entitled, "Captive Capital." This book presents our case in great detail, including a ortant chapter on the recent history of the statehood mov

ve enclosed