amendment. The 91st Congress recognized the necessity of providing at least a voice in the House of Representatives by creating the Office of Delegate. Should not this House, in this 95th Congress, complete this work and meet your responsibility to assure full voting participation in our national life for this capital city?

We rest our case on the simple principle upon which this great Nation was founded. The phrase, "no taxation without representation," is just as applicable to this matter as it was to our forefathers who fought and often died to see that it became a reality. We cannot imagine that they had the slightest intention of making that principle of law applicable to most rather than all of our Nation's citizens.

There is nothing to indicate that the framers of the Constitution intended to preclude full voting representation for the District. Reading the document carefully, it is evident that the only concern of the framers was to afford Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the Federal area which, at that time, consumed most of the District. It is a matter of historical oversight that our Founding Fathers failed to foresee the rapid expansion and more local identity of the District of Columbia in terms of democracy, economy, and governmental services. The District has become a major residential population center.

The District of Columbia now has a resident population larger than that of the States of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. The District is treated like a State for purposes of national legislation based upon congressional power to regulate interstate commerce; District residents pay a per capita Federal income tax greater than the overwhelming majority of citizens in other States, and the District, as a whole, pays more Federal taxes than the citizens of 15 other States. All of these responsibilities-in addition to the sometimes supreme task of defending America on the battlefield: the District of Columbia, incidentally, had the fourth highest number of casualties per resident in the Vietnam conflict-are borne by the citizens of the District without the same democratic privileges that other citizens enjoy. One nonvoting Delegate in the House-despite his outstanding qualities-is hardly an adequate or fair share to represent responsibilities of this magnitude.

There are, then, many good reasons why the District of Columbia should have full voting representation in the House and the Senate. In a period which has seen this Nation celebrate 200 years of freedom premised on representational government and a now renewed and aggressive policy in support of human rights and human dignity. it is unthinkable that the people who live in the Nation's capital should be without these fundamental rights. As former Representative Gilbert Gude has said, "It is right, it is fair, and it is an essential element of representative democracy." It is for these reasons that the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade supports this legislation. We hope you do, too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Drinan.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Arata. and we thank all three members of the panel for their splendid testimony. I always think I have heard every argument which can be raised in support of full voting representation for the District, and then almost every wit

ness has something new to add. For example, I did not know the District of Columbia had the fourth highest number of casualties per resident in the Vietnam conflict. Yet we don't allow the survivors or their parents or relatives to be represented in Congress. When you think about it, it is really outrageous. In fact, the more you think about this subject, the more resentment one can feel, because not having voting representation in both Houses really makes you less than a citizen. That is unacceptable.

I hope that resentment is understood in the Congress. We have a big battle ahead of us.

Thank you.

And now I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I echo the chairman's words. I'd like to get mad about this all over again, and then I begin to wonder, "Well, who are the enemies?" We have all types of friends here supporting representation.

I'm glad to see the League of Women Voters back. Mrs. Clusen, I agree with you that I hope this is the last time on this subject. But the League, as everyone knows, started years and years ago on this topic, and here we have Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives. But I keep wondering: who are the people who still vote no?

Well, I hope that the support of President Carter and Vice President Mondale will turn things around.

One of my minor frustrations, Mr. Chairman, is that I can't find any questions to ask because I agree with everybody. So, I'll yield to counsel. Maybe I'll think of something to say.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Drinan.

We have the gentleman from California, Mr. Beilenson.

Mr. Beilenson?

Mr. BEILENSON. No questions.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Starek?

Mr. STAREK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. Mr. Tucker, may I ask you if you have any idea about the number of eligible voters in the District of Columbia who are domiciled and vote in another jurisdiction? In other words, how many people voted in the last election in the District of Columbia?

Mr. TUCKER. In the Presidential election, there were-I'm not exactly sure of the figure-around 150,000 or 160,000. I don't knowI don't have the answer to the other part of the question; there must be that many voters who are here who maintain their voting residence elsewhere because they don't have full representation here.

A VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE. Do you have any idea how many eligible voters there are people who are eligible to vote out of a population of 720,000?

Mr. TUCKER. I don't know the figure on that. It would probably be a fourth of the population-more or less.

Mr. STAREK. So that would mean there would be a substantial number who either do not choose to vote and are, in fact, registered elsewhere because they cannot vote. Would that be

Mr. TUCKER. We're satisfied there are a large number who vote elsewhere, or who at least retain the right to vote elsewhere, much

22-873-785

larger than it ought to be, and that, further-I might say, counselhas a negative effect on their relationship, often, to the Districtmany of them-because they still identify elsewhere though residing here. Many of them, for many years, don't fully feel involved or become involved in District affairs because of that identification that they retain elsewhere.

And I think, with this full voting representation, that part of that loyalty, where it is not fully here, would be transferred here, and that would reflect itself in their involvement in local affairs.

Mr. STAREK. I imagine, for instance, that that would cut down on the number of people who are participating in city elections.

Mr. TUCKER. That is correct. It certainly does affect that number. It cuts down.

Mr. STAREK. One more question if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Arata, I would like to ask you: On page 3 of your statement you note that residents or citizens of the District of Columbia "pay more Federal taxes than the citizens of 15 other States."

Mr. ARATA. That's right.

Mr. STAREK. I assume I don't know, but I assume that included in that number of 15 would be the 8 you cite that are smaller than the District in population. Is that true?

Mr. ARATA. That would be a good assumption; yes. I don't know the actual States by name-the 15-but I would assume that's so. Mr. STAREK. I wonder, do you have a cite to that statistic?

Mr. ARATA. I can supply you with that; yes, sir.

Mr. STAREK. If you would supply it for the record. It is an interesting statistic.

Mr. EDWARDS. It will be accepted for the record without objection. [Subsequent to the hearing, the following information was supplied for the record:]

THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON Board of Trade,

Washington, D.C., September 27, 1977.

Hon. DON EDWARDS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish to take this opportunity to express my thanks to you for permitting me to testify before your Committee last week on the matter of voting representation in the Congress of the United States. We feel very strongly about this matter and hope that you and your colleagues are successful in getting the necessary votes to have it passed from the House over to the Senate.

During the hearings Counsel for the Committee asked that we supply information on a specific point in my testimony in which I said that the citizens of the District of Columbia pay more Federal taxes than the citizens of 15 other states. Counsel asked what those states were and they are, in descending order, as follows:

Another interesting fact is that there are only 6 states which pay a higher Federal individual income tax per capita than the residents of the District of

Columbia. These are: Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Delaware, New Jersey, and
Illinois.

I trust that this information is helpful to you in your deliberations.
Sincerely,

CLARENCE A. ARATA.

Mr. STAREK. I would like to ask just one other question on that: If that is the case, how is the Federal payment affected by this statistic. Is it included, or excluded, or are you looking at the amount of taxes paid by the citizens?

Mr. ARATA. Paid by the citizens.

Excuse me; there is no relationship that I can find-I'm sure Sterling would agree with me-there's no relationship between the Federal payment and the amount of taxes paid by the District residents in the Federal Treasury. We sometimes wish there would be.

Mr. STAREK. Sorry?

Mr. ARATA. We sometimes wish there would be.

Mr. STAREK. OK, thank you.

Well, maybe this panel is the appropriate panel to ask: I would like to ask all of you your observation on statehood for the District of Columbia. I assume you all oppose, but I would like to know why. Mr. TUCKER. Would you like to speak first, Mrs. Clusen?

Mrs. CLUSEN. I think we have always seen the situation in the District of Columbia as somewhat special since it is the seat of the Federal Government. Statehood has never really seemed a viable option, and. I think we have also said that residents of the District were not enthusiastic about the possibility and would much prefer to leave things the way they are, seeking only special representation. But I really can't speak for them. Mr. Tucker is closer to them than I am.

Mr. TUCKER. Speaking for myself and for the Coalition of SelfDetermination, our position at the moment is that we would like to see enacted into law that which is before us, the amendment. We do have under study the question of statehood, because it continues to come up. And while our position now, as I've indicated, is that we believe that all of the questions on the many complex issues outstanding on that whole question, which cannot quickly or easily be resolved, and we are trying to get those questions and issues sorted out and the answers to as many of them as possible so that as we pursue in the future the possibility of statehood, we and all of us who will be debating these matters will have as much facts and data before us as possible and proposed solutions.

And our feeling now is that a discussion of statehood merely confuses, pretty much, the possibility that is available to us, which we all understand and the ramifications of which are familiar to us. But statehood is not an issue that is totally out of the question for sometime in the future, and we are pursuing our research and analysis of that question now.

Mr. STAREK. Thank you.

Mr. ARATA. I would just like to add to that that we on the Board of Trade, the business community, are very conscious of the Federal presence here. We are very conscious of the initial design and concept of the District of Columbia, that of being under the Federal authority to some degree. But we are, despite that, totally and wholeheartedly in support of this legislation which we are testifying on today,

and we would prefer at this moment-as Sterling said-to lay the statehood matter aside.

Mr. STAREK. Thank you very much.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, members of the panel. We appreciate your contribution.

There is a vote in the House of Representatives; the subcommittee will recess for 10 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. EDWARDS. The subcommittee will come to order.

Our second panel of witnesses is, indeed, representative of the myriad effective spokespersons here in the District of Columbia: Melvin M. Burton, an attorney in the District, appears as vice chairman of the District of Columbia Republican Central Committee; Robert E. Petersen, as president of the Greater Washington Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, represents over 200,000 union members and their families in the Greater Washington metropolitan area; and John D. Isaacs appears both as president of the Greater Washington Chapter of Americans for Democratic Action and as a member of the National Board of ADA.

I recognize the gentleman from California for a resolution.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary permit coverage of this hearing, in whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast and still photography, or by any of such methods of coverage pursuant to committee rule V.

Mr. EDWARDS. The resolution submitted by the gentleman from California has been approved without objection.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. EDWARDS. Nice to have you here and you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF MELVIN M. BURTON, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN, D.C. REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT E. PETERSEN, PRESIDENT, GREATER WASHINGTON CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO; AND JOHN D. ISAACS, PRESIDENT, GREATER WASHINGTON CHAPTER OF AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to first congratulate you and the other members of the subcommittee for your efforts, again directed toward voting representation for the residents of the District of Columbia.

I have a short statement here which I would like to read into the record. And before I commence, with regard to a statement, a question that was asked by counsel concerning the number of eligible voters in the District of Columbia, I am advised that the Board of Elections estimates that there are approximately 400.000 eligible voters in the District of Columbia; and, of course, in addition there are less than 50,000 residents, approximately, who retain voting rights elsewhere. I just want to throw those figures out to you.