by taking away the District from them as the Nation's Capital. I think you would have a lot of people who would sit up and say, "Wait a minute. Why haven't we dealt with this problem earlier?” Look, you are not opposing this amendment; is that right?

it.

Mr. WAXMAN. That is correct. We neither support it nor oppose

Senator BAYH. We can discuss the statehood battle another time. Mr. WAXMAN. We hope you can give serious consideration, however, to the qualifying language that we have proposed this morning.

Senator BAYH. We will look at it and see whether we need language in the amendment or whether we need language in the committee report which might be sufficient.

You have given attention to that distinction?

Mr. WAXMAN. I am concerned because, as indicated, the language says, "seat of government". There would still be a seat of government even if the rest were to become a State. So, I am concerned that that seat of government would then have Members in the Congress which would be somewhat of an anomalous situation if there were no longer people living in that seat of government.

Senator BAYH. We will look at that.

I want to thank you very much for being here.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

[The exhibits submitted by Mr. Waxman follow:]

AMENDED RESOLUTION ON STATEHOOD FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Whereas approximately 750,000 persons reside in the District of Columbia;

Whereas these persons have no voting representatives in Congress although they are subject to federal laws and pay federal taxes;

Whereas Congress and the President of the U.S. retain veto power over locally passed laws and control over the District budget;

Whereas Congress and the President retain control over criminal legislation of the District and the appointment of judges to the local courts;

Whereas over 80 percent of the residents of the District are Afro-Americans, Latinos and other oppressed national minorities and are being denied their basic democratic rights;

Whereas the U.S. Constitution would permit Congress to create a federal enclave for the federal area while declaring the rest to be a state;

Whereas to quote a founder of the D.C. Statehood Party, the late Julius Hobson: "The drive for statehood for D.C. stems from the bitter experience of colonies everywhere, even those under the most beneficial administration; neglect, misrule, and arbitrary, capricious government. Gaining statehood should not be viewed as a panacea, just simple decency. Statehood is not utopia, it would merely lift us to the status of the rest of our countrymen."

Therefore be it resolved, THAT: the National Lawyers Guild supports the program of the D.C. Statehood Party to achieve statehood for the District of Columbia. Submitted by the D.C. Chapter

[From the Eagle, Apr. 15, 1977]

DIVISION ON STATEHOOD SHOWN IN LOCAL POLL

(By Stephen Proctor)

Residents in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia are split along racial and political lines over the issue of statehood for DC, with those from DC and Maryland overall favoring the move and those from Virginia opposing it.

The split in opinion was reported in the American University Poll, which was released yesterday and directed by Robert Hitlin, associate professor of government at AU.

According to the poll there is a noticable split in opinion between blacks and whites over the issue of statehood for DC. Blacks in each area are more in favor of statehood for the district than whites, the poll showed.

In the District "there is considerable racial difference on this issue," Hitlin said. Blacks are in favor of statehood, by 59 per cent to 22 per cent. (20 per cent not sure). The white vote on the issue was somewhat closer, with 35 per cent in favor of the move and 46 per cent against (19 per cent not sure).

There are also political divisions involved in the questions. The poll showed that Democrats in each area were in favor of statehood, while Republicans were opposed to the move. In DC, political opinion on the issue breaks down as follows: Democrats, 55 per cent in favor, 24 per cent opposed; Independents, 50 per cent in favor, 34 per cent opposed; and Republicans 39 per cent in favor, 44 per cent opposed. The total figures of the poll showed that DC residents favor the statehood proposal by 51 per cent to 28 per cent (21 per cent not sure). Maryland residents were also in favor, but by a closer margin with 41 per cent in favor and 31 per cent against (26 per cent not sure). Virginia was the only area polled that opposed the move, with 31 per cent in favor and 44 per cent against (25 per cent not sure).

The poll was taken between Feb. 23 to 28. The pollsters interviewed 1,126 residents of DC, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax County, Fairfax City and Falls Church. The respondents, all of whom were 18 or older, were selected at random in a size designed to insure accuracy to within four to six per cent. Demographic characteristics were also adjusted to match their respective areas.

In other areas, the poll showed that DC residents were in favor of a tax on commuters by two to one, while Virginia and Maryland residents oppose that tax by five to one. The poll also showed that residents in all of the three areas were strongly in favor of completion of the Metro system, with support from 62 to 72 per cent in favor.

[From the Board of Trade News, January 1978]

VIEWPOINTS: VOTING RIGHTS FOR D.C.

A RESOLUTION TO THE CONSTITUTION WILL GIVE FULL VOTING RIGHTS TO THE DISTRICT

(By WALTER E. FAUNTROY, Congressman (D-D.C.))

The Declaration of Independence that revolutionary document of human principles-which serves as one of the underpinnings of American society, states: governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

That is true for all American citizens except those of us who live in Washington, D.C.-the capital of the U.S. and the "Free World." We are the only citizens in our great country who cannot elect our own voting representatives to the United States House of Representatives or to the United States Senate. It is simply a case of democracy denied.

It is now time to complete the work of our Founding Fathers and provide liberty and justice for three-quarters of a million District of Columbia residents who have no voting voice in Congress. The means of achieving this justice is a Constitutional Amendment/Resolution (H.J. Res. 554) which, if passed, will give the District of Columbia two Senators, the number of House members and presidential electors commensurate with its population, and participation in the ratification of Constitutional Amendments.

STATEHOOD NOT RECOMMENDED

This resolution does not recommend statehood for the District of Columbia in order to achieve full voting representation-this would be in direct defiance of the prescriptions of the Founding Fathers. When the capital city was formed, the legislators sought to provide for the creation of a site completely removed from the control of any state. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution states that Congress would “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district."

Nothing about the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress is incompatible with District voting representation. There would be absolutely no threat to continued Congres

sional authority over the Federal District were an amendment granting such representation adopted. In addition to this fundamental purpose of a neutral Federal City, the convention prescribed that the inhabitants "will have had their own voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them as a municipal legislature for all local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will, of course, be allowed them.

Within this unique governmental entity, then, the framers of the Constitution included in their grand design of a democratic government, a federal municipality which would equally reflect the state-federal relationship while carrying out the broader democratic principle of representation for all citizens. The state was set 186 years ago, but the details have yet to be implemented.

In addition to specific Constitutional prescriptions involved, consideration of statehood for the Federal District would require an enormous expenditure of time and effort-Alaska's statehood drive took 24 years; Hawaii's 34 years. A mandate from the District citizens would be the first step in such a process, and this is not evident at present. What is evident, though, is the long-standing mandate from the District citizenry to be granted full representation in the political community.

THE DISTRICT IS TREATED AS A STATE

The District's unique lack of statehood does not warrant its exclusion from Congressional representation. The House and Senate were created to provide a balance of votes between large and small states and entities. The District is a geographical and political entity as are the states and should be represented accordingly. In fact, the long-time inclusion of the District in several governmental contexts normally reserved for the states not only illuminates the similarity between the functions of the District and the states, but also gives precedence for the proposed amendment on voting representation in Congress. Without actually being a state, the District already participates in such statehood activities as paying federal taxes, having the commerce between the District and other states regulated by Congress, and being included in the right to a trial by jury.

The facts are:

The per capita tax payment for District residents is $77 above the nation's average a payment only exceeded by seven states.

The population of the District of Columbia is larger than that of ten states. District residents have fought and died in every war since the War for Independence, and, during the Vietnam War, District of Columbia casualties ranked fourth

out of 50 states.

Of the 17 Federal Districts in the world community, only two, other than Washington, D.C., are not represented in their national legislatures.

QUESTION OF RETROCESSION

Two other suggestions for District representation, which are not acceptable or practical, concern the retrocession of the original Maryland part of the District back to Maryland or allowing District residents to vote in Maryland.

Although the land which Virginia ceded to the Federal District was subsequently retroceded in 1840, Maryland's ceded land remained to comprise the District. The Maryland Legislature, in the Act of December 19, 1791, concerning the territory of the Columbia and the City of Washington, "Forever ceded and relinquished to the Congress and the Government of the United States, the full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction of soil as well as of persons residing or to reside thereon, persuant to the tenor and effect of the eight sections of the First Article of the Constitution of the United States." Since that time, the District has developed a unique character which appropriately reflects the concept of a Federal District. Furthermore, retrocession would seriously dilute this concept as well as destroy a culturally rich and politically unique governmental entity. Retrocession would also sacrifice the autonomy of residents and substantially reduce the federal interest in the planning and development of the Capital City.

In regard to allowing District residents to vote in Maryland, it simply would not be advantageous because it would not give them the representation due them. Under this plan, District residents would be sharing delegates whose constituencies are already suitably apportioned to the optimal number of citizens according to the most recent census data. If this plan were implemented, the affected delegates would have to assume additional burdens of representing citizens who are not Maryland residents, who would not vote in Maryland state elections, and who live in a city unlike any other in the country. Furthermore, the Maryland legislature has expressed strong sentiment against this plan.

EQUAL SUFFRAGE

One last rebuttal to those who are against District representation because it would deprive other states of their "equal suffrage" in the Senate. The Article V provision that "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate" would not be violated by District representation in that body. "Equal suffrage" simply means that each state is entitled to the same number of Senators. This provision gives balance to the geographical entities' representation and prevents the more populous states from having greater say than the smaller ones. If “equal suffrage" were intended to mean that each state's percentage of the total number of Senators would never decline, then thirty-seven states could not have been admitted to the Union since the Constitution was adopted. In other words, each of the original states had one-thirteenth of the vote in the Senate, while it now has one-fiftieth of that vote.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, District representation in Congress would swing the suffrage pendulum back to where it was before December 1800 when Congress moved to its Potomac site and inadvertantly disenfranchised District residents. The resolution being considered is in no way incompatible with Congress' continued exclusive jurisdiction over the District. And, most importantly, it would further the principles of democracy that the Founding Fathers intended to have flourish among all citizens and thus give citizens of the nation's capital what their fellow Americans already have full citizenship.

STATEHOOD GUARANTEES SELF-GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS FULL VOTING RIGHTS

(By HILDA M. MASON, Councilmember at Large)

The people who live in the District of Columbia are entitled to the same political rights as those possessed by other citizens of the United States. I believe that entering the union as a state is the only way in which District residents can obtain irrevocably and fully those rights. The concept of statehood is not a new or radical concept. There is a well-defined process by which the rest of the states of the union have joined the original thirteen.

The proposed constitutional amendment which would grant the District of Columbia full voting representation in Congress is not self-determination. It would simply add two District of Columbia senators and probably two voting members of the House. It would not change the relationship between the District government and the Congress in any way. Congress would continue to exercise the power to review and disapprove legislation passed by the Council and signed by the Mayor. Congress would continue to have the final say to all District appropriations. Also the proce dure for passage of such a constitutional amendment is a long, hazardous and uncertain one requiring a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Statehood is a less cumbersome and less lengthy process requiring a simple majority vote in each house of Congress. And, unlike any form of home-rule, statehood could not be revoked.

PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING STATEHOOD

Statehood can be made possible by the simple expedient of redefining the size of the district set apart as the seat of the government of the United States. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution places a top limit on the size of the Federal District set apart as the seat of the government-not to exceed ten miles square-but places no minimum limit on its size. There is ample precedent for redefining the size of the District. In 1846 that portion of the District of Columbia known as the county of Alexandria was retroceeded to Virginia.

Bill 2-1, the "District of Columbia Statehood Act," introduced in the Council by Julius W. Hobson, in January 1977, defines clearly that portion of the District which would remain under federal control. The "Federal District of Columbia" would include the area stretching roughly from the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress to the Lincoln Memorial and would include the White House, Lafayette Square, the U.S. Capitol, the Executive Office Building, etc. The White House is the only building on that strip of land which is used for residential purposes. The remainder of the District of Columbia would be granted statehood.

Naturally, such a change in the status of what is now the District of Columbia has aroused some criticism. One complaint is that statehood would somehow threaten the federal government's security in the nation's capital. However, numerous

stable democracies such as Great Britain, France, Canada, and West Germany grant full self-government to their capital cities, apparently without endangering national security. Another criticism is that the District is too small to be a state. Yet, the District of Columbia has more people than seven other states. The District is small geographically, but statehood and votes are based on population, not area.

ECONOMIC CASE

Perhaps the most frequently cited criticism of statehood is that the new state would not be economically viable.

Critics often suggest that the present federal payment to the District would dwindle or disappear entirely, leaving the government virtually bankrupt. Yet, the District's present status has in no way assured that the federal payment would be reliable or just. Since 1921, the payment has fluctuated from as low as 8.52 percent to as high as 42.92 percent of the District's operating budget. The Home Rule Charter sets a ceiling of $300 million on the federal payment. It is estimated that for Fiscal Year 1978 the federal payment would account for approximately 24.39 percent of the operating budget.

Many people think that the federal payment is an annual gift to the District government to help it along. To the contrary, the federal payment is not a gift. It is only partial compensation for tax losses which result from the tax exempt status of the federal government and other related activities as well as payment for municipal services which the District renders to the federal government. The total negative impact of the federal presence, in terms of reduced property, income, franchise, and sales taxes was estimated at $488.5 million for F.Y. 1977. In F.Y. 1978, the negative economic impact figure will be about $517.8 million. In addition to the above figure there should be added the cost of such other factors as the imposition of federal salary scales on the District which have resulted in higher salary costs than might otherwise have been in effect.

As a state with two Senators and two Representatives and with no congressional veto over local affairs, the state of Columbia would be in a better position to seek fair payment from the federal government than it is now under the present "home rule" government. Because of the process of political give and take and vote trading in Congress, as well as traditional Congressional reluctance to undercut special interests of its members, the State of Columbia would benefit considerably from this new leverage. It is hard to conceive of Congress deliberately alienating the four member delegation from our state by denying or reducing the federal payment. As a state, we would be able to raise and spend revenues in a manner of our own choosing without fear of congressional veto or Home Rule Charter restraints. If, for example, the local government were allowed to tax income earned here by persons living elsewhere in the same manner as is done in New York and Pennsylvania we could gain an estimated $225 million in revenue. It is apparent that economic viability is a function of political equity.

CONCLUSION

To some, statehood appears an attractive idea but politically impractical, and therefore a concept not to be considered seriously. Others have opted for an "incremental" approach to full self-determination by working to obtain partial home rule and a constitutional amendment granting the District congressional representation. However, these measures are only limited solutions to the dilemma of our second class citizenship. Partial self-government and partial, or even full, representation is not the answer. Equity is not divisible. We must have the power to control our own affairs in order to insure governmental accountability. Entrance into the union as a state would accomplish this end and make it unnecessary to deal separately with the issues of Congressional representation and fiscal autonomy.

WHY STATEHOOD?

Home rule with its congressional veto is not self-determination. The local government can be free only to the extent that it does not alienate the federal government.

Statehood would avoid such pitfalls. Under statehood the District would be granted political equality with the other units of the federal system. Unlike home rule, statehood would not leave Congress or the President with a veto over District affairs. Unlike a constitutional amendment to change DC's local government or grant it national representation, statehood could not be revoked. It would, by simple majority vote of Congress, permit the three-quarter million residents of the District to join the Union as full and equal members.