[From the Congressional Record, Sept. 21, 1972]

THE CASE FOR STATEHOOD

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Members of this Senate for a long time, have known that I am concerned with the safeguard of citizens rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I believe that it is the responsibility of our Government to insure equal protection and representation under the law to all citizens. It is the right of the governed to have a voice in the councils of Government. Their right to have a voice in the formulation of policies effecting their lives ought not be denied.

I, therefore, find a great deal of agreement with Mr. Sam Smith's article "The Case for Statehood," written in the Washington Post, September 17, 1972. Two years ago I begin to campaign for the District of Columbia to elect two Senators and representation in the Congress based upon its population. Though my amendment dealt only with congressional representation for the District of Columbia, I have always supported and voted for home rule. I firmly believe that the residents of the District of Columbia deserve the benefits of full citizenship that all American citizens enjoy.

Mr. Smith presents an exceptionally reasonable argument for the Nation's Capitol to achieve these benefits through statehood. He fully explains why the Capitol City deserves to operate and function as a self-supporting State. As a State, the District Government could increase its borrowing potential from the U.S. Treasury; it could institute badly needed tax reforms; and it could provide for better jobs and homes for its residents.

The time for the Congress to initiate the exercise of these constitutional rights for the 750,000 citizens residing in Washington, D.C., is long overdue. I am pleased to commend to the Senate "The Case for Statehood." I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE CASE FOR STATEHOOD

(By Sam Smith)

In March, 1969, Douglas Moore, Chuck Stone, Jesse Anderson and several other black activists held a news conference to announce the formation of the D.C. Statehood Committee. They issued a manifesto that declared that "statehood for the District of Columbia is a natural right which can no longer be denied and must be achieved by whatever means necessary by the people."

It turned out to be another 12-hour revolution-beginning with a morning press briefing and ending with the 11 p.m. news. It was not until more than a year later, in the fall of 1970, that statehood emerged as a prominent issue in District affairs with the campaign of Julius Hobson for delegate. In that first delegate election, Hobson and the Statehood Party received 13 per cent of the vote, a surprising figure for a brand new party. Since that time, statehood has moved from being an obscure, eccentric issue to become a major element in the debate over the future status of the District. As an idea, its time may not yet have come, but it is coming.

Two statehood bills have been introduced in the House. Sen. George McGovern came within a few days of introducing one in the Senate in June, 1971, but backed off after a plea from one of Walter Fauntroy's key supporters. Two Statehood Party members sit on the D.C. School Board and the president of the Board, Marion Barry, has said he is for statehood or any other form of self-government the city can get. The same attitude prevailed among candidates in the first delegate race. Even Republican John Nevius said he would support statehood if the people of the District wanted it. Only Democrat Fauntroy, among those running, flatly opposed the idea. And earlier this year, House District Committee chairman John McMillan surprised even statehood supporters when he stated that he might consider statehood as a second choice after his pet plan to give the District back to Maryland. Said McMillan: "The only way you are going to get pure, unadulterated representation is by ceding the city back to Maryland or through statehood."

It hasn't been a bad two years for a radically new proposal to end the nearly 175year dispute over local status. The growing interest in statehood stems in part from the fact for the first time the fundamental principle of self-determination has not been begged. Statehood is the only status for the District that would make Washingtonians fully and irrevocably equal to other American citizens.

HOME RULE PITFALLS

Contrary to popular impression, traditional home rule proposals fall far short of this goal. To meet the constitutional requirement that Congress retain exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District, home rule advocates have usually provided for a presidential and/or congressional veto over the actions of the locally elected government. Thus, the local government would be free only to the extent that it did not alienate the federal government. A commuter tax, a civilian supervisor of the police department, a ban on automobiles downtown are the sort of issues that would be sure to raise a congressional clamor for a veto. If Congress got really mad, it could simply take away the home rule it had granted. As Sen. Thomas Eagleton, chairman of the Senate District Committee, blithely pointed out when this issue was raised: "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."

This is not an idle threat. Congress has rescinded home rule once before, in the 1870s, and has changed the form of local government several times. And the congressional browbeating of the School Board after the release of school children for a war protest march last spring is a reminder that local elections would be no guarantee of an end to congressional interference.

It would also be possible, although not widely favored, to seek home rule through a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment would fix the form of government in the constitutional process and would require another amendment to change that form. An amendment might, for example, provide the District with a mayor-city manager government, an 11-man City Council and a fixed federal payment. If the city wished to eliminate the city manager's office, change the payment or alter the size of the council, it would be unable to do so without years of national consideration.

Statehood would avoid these 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 D.C.'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.

A SIMPLE PROCEDURE

Statehood could be made possible by the simple expedient of redefining the size of the District. The Constitution puts an outer limit on the size of the District-10 miles square-but indicates no minimum size. Congress could redefine the District of Columbia to include an unpopulated area stretching from the Supreme Court and Library of Congress to the Lincoln Memorial (including the Mall and the Federal Triangle) and grant the rest of the city statehood.

The technical procedure for obtaining statehood is relatively direct:

1. Congress could authorize and fund an elected constitutional convention to draw up a state constitution and negotiate an agreement with the federal government for an annual payment in lieu of taxes and for transitory grants to get the new state on its feet. The enabling legislation would define the area of the new state and of the remaining federal district.

2. The District would hold a constitutional convention, draw up a constitution and submit the issue of statehood to referendum.

3. The convention, upon the approval of the people, would petition Congress for admission of the proposed state to the Union.

4. Congres, by majority vote, would grant admission.

Naturally, such a profound change in the status of Washington has aroused criticisms. One of these is that statehood would weaken the federal government's security in the city. Yet dozens of other stable countries, such as England, France and West Germany, manage to grant self-government to their capital city without endangering national security. Should problems arise, the federal government has abundant power to deal with riots, as has been demonstrated by the use of federal troops in other cities in recent years.

It is also said that the District is too small to be a state. Yet it has a population larger than 10 states and 20 independent nations, including 12 that have an equal voice with the United States in the U.N. General Assembly. (One of these, Iceland, is a member of NATO, although it has a population about a quarter that of the District.) Every territory since 1789, with the exception of Oklahoma, had fewer people at the time of its admission than the District has now.

THE FEDERAL PAYMENT

Perhaps the most frequent criticism of the logic of statehood is that the new state could not support itself. Critics suggest that the present federal payment to the city would dwindle or disappear entirely, leaving Washington essentially bankrupt. Yet the District's colonial status has in no way assured it a reliable and just federal payment. The payment has varied from 12 to 50 per cent of the local budget and the percentage today is about half what it was in 1878.

The fact that the federal payment has varide so markedly under the single status that the District has experienced in the past century points to a major misunderstanding concerning the payment: It is not a function of status so much as of simple equity. The federal government absorbs a great deal of otherwise taxable land; it requires a large number of municipal services; and it consumes manpower and space that might otherwise be used in activities more profitable to the city, such as industry and commercial services. These conditions will remain regardless of status, and fairness requires that the federal government offer proper compensation-more than the present $250 per capita.

As a state, with two senators and two congressmen and with no congressional veto over local affairs, the city would be in a better position to seek a fair payment from the government than it is now or would be under home rule. One would be hard-pressed to find examples of Congress attempting to bully a state in the way that it now does the District and would most likely continue to do under home rule. One of the basic principles of Congress is a reluctance to undercut the special interests of its members. The back-scratching tradition on local issues is based on the realization that the vote one casts today can be reclaimed tomorrow. The citystate would benefit considerably from this new leverage. It is hard to conceive of a Congress deliberately alienating the four-member delegation from Washington in a dispute, say, over a mere $20 million of federal payment. Congress just doesn't work that way.

The argument that the new state could not support itself is a familiar one in the history of statehood movements. It was one of the major reasons cited for opposition to Alaskan statehood. But it has also been true that new states have historically been aided towards financial self-sufficiency through special grants of money and, more dramatically, immensely valuable lands. Statehood, in fact, may be considered almost a prerequisite to financial self-sufficiency for units of the federal system. In order to be financially equal, one must first be politically equal.

The two most recent states, Hawaii and Alaska, benefit from enormous federal grants at the time they were granted statehood and for years thereafter. Hawaii got a trust of public lands to support public schools and other public improvements. Alaska got 103 million acres of federal land, $28.5 million in transitional grants, 90 per cent of the proceeds of government-owned mines and 70 per cent of the sales of fur seal skins and sea otter skins.

SELF-SUPPORTING STATE

But the economic justification for statehood does not rest on the assumption of fair compensation from the federal government, but rather on the economic potential of the city itself. Contrary to the myth of the "dying city," Washington has been, and will continue to be, a center of expanding opportunity for many of its citizens, especially the black majority. As George Grier, vice president of the Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, wrote in a recent issue of the Voice newslet

ter:

"Racial transition has not turned Washington from a white middle and upperincome city to a black poor city. It is more prosperous today than ever before. The total number of black families in the District with annual incomes over $15,000 approximately tripled in the decade (1960-1970), even after the correction for inflation. The same was true for those earning over $12,000. The number with incomes of $8,000 or over more than doubled. There now are actually more black families at these higher income levels than there were white families with the same incomes in 1960."

When people talk about the city's eroding tax base, they are really talking about the fact that government expenditures have outstripped the growth in the tax base. The financial erosion is not taking place on the streets of Washington but in the District Building. If anything is dying in the District, it is the District government. The reasons for this again argue for statehood: the inability of the District government to set policy without approval of Congress and the White House, the unresponsiveness of an appointed local government to the citizens of the city; and incompetence and bureaucratic self-aggrandizement unchecked from above by Congress or from below by the people.

Under statehood, the city-state would be able to raise revenues in a manner of its own choosing without fear of a congressional veto or, worse, the potential that the limited form of self-government granted under home rule might again be repealed entirely. Sources for the increased revenues might include:

Increased borrowing: Under the present system the District has a limited ability to borrow from the U.S. Treasury. Under statehood it could sell bonds to finance public school construction and other public works. If the District borrowed at the per capita level of the Maryland suburbs, for example, it would double the borrowing level of the city.

Property tax reform: Property taxes are a major source of local income. Yet the District does not administer these taxes fairly, nor does it tax all the property it could. For example, under statehood the city might end the property tax exemption for profit-making holdings of otherwise non-profit organizations. Further, the introduction of a progressive property tax, with those owning more property taxed at a higher rate, could add to receipts, as could a tax on other forms of wealth.

Lotteries and race tracks: Julian Dugas estimated the other day that a locally owned lottery and race track could produce as much as $50 million a year in new

revenue.

An improved tax base: The District government has done little or nothing to attract the type of employment that would enable the poorer residents of the city to pay more taxes. Unlike almost every other city in the country, our government has failed to seek light industry and service firms that require blue collar employment, preferring instead to subsidize the construction of office buildings for nontaxpaying suburbanites. While businesses produce pollution, so do the tens of thousands of Maryland and Virginia cars that pour into the city daily. The encouragement of low-polluting commercial enterprises would be a net gain for the city.

More tourism: Perhaps the greatest potential lies in further development of the city's tourist trade. While the District government subsidizes the Board of Trade's tourist promotion efforts, tourist facilities have increasingly been allowed to drift into the suburbs. Further, the city has totally failed to take advantage of one of its long-term assets, its status as a black city. Properly promoted, Washington could become the Quebec of America, attracting people not just because it is a center of monuments and political power, but because it is culturally unique. This would mean jobs and money for black residents.

In its housing programs such as they are, the District has likewise failed to provide lower-income residents with a chance to become bigger taxpayers. It has failed to provide the basic equity that supports the American middle class: home ownership. Instead, the government has either done nothing or else dabbled in showcase programs for the middle class such as Southwest and Fort Lincoln.

The city's use of available land and housing has been unimaginative. Thousands of abandoned homes put a drag on the tax rolls. Lots are rented to Parking Management, Inc., at ridiculously low prices instead of being put to productive and potentially higher taxed use. Meanwhile, the city fritters away time and funds on childish and costly schemes like the ill-fated sports arena which would have drained rather than filled the city's treasury.

To top it off, programs such as urban renewal and freeway construction have driven people off taxable land permanently or for years at a time. One of the prime victims of this myopic policy has been the small businessman, an important taxpayer, who must honestly regard the District Building these days as his enemy rather than his friend.

Under statehood, it would be easier for the District to reverse the destructive policies of local planners and the federal government over the past two decades and not only make a better, more attractive city but improve the tax base dramatically as well.

NOT SO RADICAL

To some, statehood appears an attractive idea but politically impractical. This criticism often comes from those who have spent the better part of their political lives failing to achieve home rule.

Actually, the long-term outlook for statehood is hardly bleak.

One of the hopeful signs is that it has attracted interest on both the left and the right. Rep. McMillan's comments were not merely cant aimed at upsetting Del. Fauntroy. To the conservative mind, statehood fits neatly into the traditional federal system. The Constitution made it easier to create new states than it did to allow blacks, women or those under 21 to vote; statehood can be achieved by simple majority vote of Congress. The steady enlargement of the Union throughout its history has not been the result of radicalism; the last two states admitted, for

example, came in during the hardly radical Eisenhower administration. For liberals and radicals, on the other hand, statehood is attractive because it offers an end to the colonial administration of three-quarters of a million Americans.

If the District were admitted, it would not, in all probability, be the last state. Statehood has been seriously proposed for Puerto Rico and New York City. At least one economist has suggested that the urban crisis might best be resolved by granting statehood to the 17 largest metropolitan areas, ending the subservience of so many cities in rural-dominated state legislatures. The creation of new states is one of the built-in flexibilities of the Constitution designed to permit the nation to change as it grows. The potential should not be allowed to lie fallow.

Building a political base for statehood has obviously just begun. The first step is to break the century-old allegiance to the belife that home rule is the best that we can hope for. This is happening. The politicians, the local civic elite and the media are slowly becoming aware of statehood and are being forced to deal with it. Although much of the present pressure comes from the D.C. Statehood Party, other organizations may soon feel secure enough to add statehood to their goals now that the Board of Trade has endorsed home rule.

Once a local consensus for statehood has been achieved, Congress would begin to feel the pressure. As a national issue, statehood would be easier to explain and attract support for than home rule has been. Labor unions, big city mayors, black organizations and others would welcome an urban state; its votes in Congress would give them an interest in its creation. The support from these sources for home rule has been pathetic, largely because hardly anyone outside the District has a vested interest in home rule.

If Congress failed to act, the District could follow the pattern set by Tennessee when it entered the union in 1796. Tennessee held unofficial elections and sent unauthorized “members" to Congress. The elected "members" pressed for statehood and Congress granted it. The same procedure was used by Alaska. In 1956, an officially approved nonvoting delegate, Bob Bartlett, was sent to Washington, but so were "Sens." Ernest Gruening and William Egan and "Rep." Ralph Rivers. This socalled Tennessee Plan has been used on six other occasions to help obtain statehood for territories.

The drive for statehood for the city of Washington stems from the bitter experience of colonies everywhere even those under the most beneficient administration. It gains strength from the realization that any solution short of statehood would leave District residents short of full citizenship. It does not guarantee a successful future; it only makes it possible.

TESTIMONY OF THE D.C. STATEHOOD PARTY

My name is Julius W. Hobson. I am a member of the steering committee of the D.C. Statehood Party. I am here to discuss and ask that you examine the relative merits of the Constitutional Amendment measures which are before you and the one idea that is both logical and fair: Statehood for the people who now reside in the District of Columbia.

The discussion on providing a remedy for the present colonial status of the District can not and should not take place in the abstract. There are many who will come before you during these hearings, as others have when the Senate D.C. Committee heard testimony on the so-called "home rule" measures three months ago, and say that they will accept anything that Congress grants the District. I say that this is most inappropriate. What we of the Statehood Party are saying is, grant the residents of the District of Columbia the same rights enjoyed by all other residents of the United States-STATEHOOD. No more-no less. We ask that you examine very carefully the consequences of actions which would add to the United States Constitution more amendments which only partially alleviate our disenfranchisement and further neglect Constitutional guarantees set out for all U.S. citizens. We believe that you have the power to grant us statehood for the District. The Constitution of the United States stipulates, in Article IV, Sec. 3, that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." It does not, however, define the conditions under which statehood may be granted. Congress, therefore, has the power to determine the prerequisites of admission. This general authority is limited by only two restrictions: (1) "No new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State"; (2) no State can "be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

Congressman Dellums of California has introduced legislation to provide statehood for the District (H.R. 9599). The Dellums bill carves out a section of the