federal government to the government of the new
state.

(2) To give special consideration to the
relationship that should be developed between the
new state and the federal government with respect
to securing and maintaining any special federal
interest in the new state and with respect to
continued and cordial relations between the federal
government and the government of the new state and
to propose any necessary compact agreements to
insure this interest as well as any services which
are necessary or advisable for one governmental
body to perform for the benefit of the other.
(3) As soon as is practicable, and in no case
later than one hundred and eight (180) days after
the establishment of the State Compact Commission,
to submit to the constitutional convention its
recommendations, based on findings arrived at as a
result of its study, for the appropriate measures
it deems necessary to complete the transfer of
authority and functions as specified in (1) of this
section, and

4.17

4.19

4.20

4.21

4.22

4.23

4.25

4.26

4.27

4.28

(4) To hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence, as the Commission deems advisable

4.30

4.3]

for the purposes of carrying out its responsibilities

under this act.

(c) To prepare and submit to the Council and the Mayor,

4.32

4.33

a report which shall account for the disbursement of funds allocated to the State Compact Commission.

(d) There is hereby authorized an appropriation from

the general fund of the District of Columbia the sum of $50,000
to the State Compact Commission for such expenses as it may have
in carrying out its duties and responsibilities under this act.
Sec. 9. If any section or provision of this act is held
to be unconstitutional or invalid, such constitutionality or
invality shall not affect the remaining sections or provisions
of this act.

Sec. 10. This act shall take effect at the end of the 30 day period provided for Congressional review of the acts of the Council in Section 602 (c) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act.

4.34

4.35

4.36

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 26, 1976]

BILL FOR D.C. STATEHOOD BACKED

(By Paul W. Valentine, Washington Post Staff Writer)

A bill offered by D.C. City Councilman members Julius Hobson to grant statehood to the District of Columbia has won the endorsement of all but one of Hobson's 12 fellow Council members.

This first formal attempt to gain statehood since two abortive efforts in Congress in 1971 has gathered considerable momentum, although Hobson frankly admits Congress will ultimately block the effort even if it passes at the city level this year. He contends, however, that congressional resistance is wilting, and statehood will be a reality within the next few years.

"Statehood is being talked about more today, he said in an interview, "and people are realizing it is not such a radical idea. Before, people backed off from the idea because it was pushed by a splinter group (Hobson's D.C. Statehood Party)... But now we have a seat on the City Council, and statehood had become a respectable notion."

(Hobson won 44,030 votes in the 1974 at-large elections for the city council, a close third behind Democrats Marion Barry and Douglas E. Moore. Two Statehood party members are on the D.C. School Board, and Statehood Party activists picked up six seats in the recent Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner elections.)

Critics, including Council-member Polly Shackleton (D-Three), the only Council member who refused to cosponsor Hobson's bill, say the measure is politically unfeasible, following too closely on the heels of the city's congressionally granted home rule charter last year.

"We just got one government reorganization," Shackleton said. "There are a lot of rough spots to work out, and I don't see how at this time we can go back to Congress again and ask for another reorganization.'

Mayor Walter E. Washington has said the statehood concept is "interesting" but will commit himself no further.

Hobson argues that statehood for the city's 730,000 residents should appeal to both liberals and conservatives.

"The left likes it because it means the end of colonial oppression," he said. It appeals to the right because in the strictest sense of the word, rightists are individualistic, and that is what statehood is all about."

66

Some of the resistance to statehood, he says in a formal position paper on the subject, is racial in origin,

"Community control is our cities means more black power."

He adds, "There is also a fear of the apparently new and (an) acceptance of the myth perpetuated by America's corporate and planning suzerains that bigness means efficiency. Further, those who now have the power just don't want to give it up."

Hobson's long-championed cause for statehood rests in part on his deep distrust of the current trend toward regionalism and metropolitan government.

The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and even the Metro subway authority are anathema to him.

For one thing, he says, they tend to dilute the urban black power base of Washington.

"Just as blacks are gaining political clout in our cities," he says, "it is being dispersed through metropolitan government.”

For another thing, he says, regional authorities are undemocratic "supergovernments run by officials not elected to their positions.

Hobson's statehood bill would provide for a fully autonomous government for the 69-square-mile District of Columbia except for a small downtown federal enclave embracing the Capitol, White House and national monuments on and adjacent to the Mall.

The new entity would be called the "State of Columbia" and would have a unicameral legislature and a governor in much the same form as the present City Council and major system, Hobson said.

Under present congressional apportionment, the new state also would be entitled to two representatives and two senators in Congress.

Perhaps more fundamental, Hobson says, the new state would be independent of the federal government in fiscal policy, like other states. It would raise revenues and set budgets without the present congressional and White House review procedures.

If passed by the City Council, Hobson's bill would call for a referendum by city residents to approve or reject the concept of statehood. If accepted, a constitutional convention would be called and a state constitution drafted.

Next, a statehood commission and a state compact commission would be established to expedite technical aspects of transition to full statehood status.

The final-and toughest-phase would be congressional approval. A majority vote by both houses would be necessary.

Hobson contends there is ample precedent for District statehood. The fact that Congress can approve statehood by simple majority vote, rather than the more cumbersome and time-consuming process of constitutional amendment, suggests that the founding fathers intended statehood to be easily achievable, he said.

In response to arguments that the District is too small to become a state, Hobson notes that the city currently has a greater population than 10 states and that every territory admitted since 1789, except Oklahoma, had fewer people at the time of admission than the District has now.

Under Hobson's plan, the new state would continue to receive a federal payment currently about 25 per cent of the city's budget total-to compensate for extensive untaxed federal properties in the District and for the use of municipal services.

With continuation of the federal payment and an independent taxing authority, the new state would be able to support itself, Hobson said in response to critics on that issue.

That last attempt at statehood came in 1971, when Reps. Ronald V. Dellums (DCalif.) and Fred Schwengel (R-Iowa) introduced similar bills, both of which died in committee.

The Dellums bill was drafted largely by D.C. Statehood Party activists, and Hobson's present bill is almost a carbon copy of it.

Del. Walter E. Fauntroy, the city's only representative in Congress, had indicated little enthusiasm for statehood. When the Dellums bill was introduced in 1971, Fauntroy compared achieving statehood to the federal government putting Indians on a reservation "after they kill all the buffalo."

Nelson Rimensnyder, a former Library of Congress researcher now with the House District Committee, says there have been few attempts to gain D.C. statehood in the past. A number of bills providing for advisory referendums on the state ory referendums on the statehood question were introduced between 1914 and 1920, but all were bottled up in committee.

"I know of no other attempts at statehood dating back to the 1880s," he said, “... and I doubt there was anything before that time."

Hobson sums up his demand for statehood this way: "Full self-determination rests not on the promise of excellence; Washington has as many fools, hustlers, bunglers, jivers and merchants of myopia per capita as any city in the country. Rather, the demand rests on the simple need for equity.”

NATIONAL CAPITAL SERVICE AREA (Federal Enclave)

Basic Authority: Public Law 93-198, Sec. 739, Dec. 23, 1974 (87 Stat. 825) Mission and Functions: The President, through the National Capital Service Director, shall assure that there is provided, utilizing District of Columbia Governmental services to the extent practicable, within the area specified in subsection (a) and particularly described in subsection (f), adequate fire protection and sanitation services. Except with respect to that portion of the National Capital Service Area comprising the United States Capitol Buildings and Grounds... the United States Supreme Court Buildings and Grounds. and the Library of Congress Buildings and Grounds... the National Capital Service Director shall assure that there is provided within the remainder of such area specified in subsection (a) and subsection (f), adequate police protection and maintenance of streets and highways.

Composition and Administration: There is established in the Executive Office of the President the National Capital Service Director who shall be appointed by the President... The Director may appoint... and fix the pay of... such personnel as may be necessary.

Area of Jurisdiction: [subsection (a)]. the principal Federal monuments, the White House, the Capitol Building, the U.S. Supreme Court Building, and the Federal executive, legislative, and judicial office buildings located adjacent to the Mall and the Capitol Building. [See subsection 739(f) of P.L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 826, for exact delineation; also map following this entry.]... the President shall make such adjustments as may be necessary in order to exclude from the National Capital

Service Area any privately owned properties, and buildings and adjacent parking facilities owned by the District of Columbia Government.

Application: Except to the extent otherwise specified in the provisions of this section, and amendments made by this section, all general laws of the United States and all laws enacted by the Congress and applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia,... in effect on [January 1, 1975]... shall, on and after [January 2, 1975] continue to be applicable to and within such National Capital Service Area in the same manner and to the same extent as if this section had not been enacted... In no case shall any person be denied the right to vote or otherwise participate in any manner in any election in the District of Columbia solely because such person resides within the National Capital Service Area.

Organizational History: P.L. 93-198 of December 23, 1974, established the "Federal Enclave" and the rules for its administration and application.