present District to be set aside as the residual Federal District and thus satisfies the Constitutional requirement for a Federal District over which Congress shall have exclusive jurisdiction. Thus to adopt the Dellums bill requires no Constitutional Amendment. This point needs to be made clear if there is any misunderstanding at the present time.

Residents of the last colony within this country's continential borders, we of the Statehood Party have come together to seek an end to seventeen decades' denial of rights that were set out for us in the Declaration of Independence and assured us by the Constitution. We seek nothing less than that granted 200 million of our countrymen: full participation in one of the states of the Union. We realize that to be halffree is to be half-slave. We realize that changes in our local government that do not result in statehood are only colonial reform. We realize that to be granted representation in Congress but not allowed to elect a local government with full and unencumbered powers is to leave us in frustrated limbo.

Would you or any other reasonable men deny that this is the condition of the three-quarters of a million U.S. citizens who live in the District of Columbia? Can you or any other reasonable men not stand with us in our insistence on the full rights of U.S. citizenship?

The drive for statehood for D.C. 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 simple decency. Statehood is not a utopia, it would merely lift us to the status of the rest of our countrymen. Statehood would not guarantee a successful future, but only make it possible. Without statehood, even under the most favorable of the proposed amendments, District residents would be lesser citizens than their countrymen, a status repugnant to the spirit of equality and justice that we profess to honor so highly.

To understand the necessity for statehood, we must first understand the shortcomings and obfuscations of the alternate proposals to bring us up to first class citizens. You have before you proposals to amend the Constitution to provide for D.C. representation in Congress. The Senate three months ago considered in committee the so-called "home rule" measures to provide for local self-government. These latter measures might better be labeled colonial reform legislation, for they do not lift the D.C. residents out of their colonial status, but merely mitigate some of the outward aspects of the present colonial rule. Taken together, your proposals and those of the Senate D.C. Committee attempt to make D.C. "appear to be the equivalent" of a state. But they in fact do not do so. Why should we pretend to accept this situation?

Let us take a look at the overall situation on the various legislative proposals: The CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION which is before you today will require a two-thirds vote in each house of the Congress and then ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Since the present District of Columbia is not a state, various people-including the present occupants of the White House-will argue that non-states should not be represented in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, or perhaps by only one Congressman or one Senator. This representation by less than we would otherwise be entitled if we were a state only adds to the indignities of this situation. Even full Congressional representation would only answer half of the present disenfranchisement of D.C. residents. We still would not have the authority to elect a local government with full powers to act in the interests of the people.

In order to obtain the authority for a local elected government various so-called "HOME RULE" measures have been introduced. The most favorable of these would give D.C. residents an elected mayor and city council, control over the city's finances and a guaranteed Federal payment. But the Constitutional provision granting Congress the power to exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the Federal District, forces the backers of “home rule” legislation to include a provision for a Congressional and/or a Presidential veto over local acts of the D.C. government. In operation, such a veto would restrict the city government's ability to take such locally popular actions as instituting a commuter tax, repealing some of the repressive aspects of the D.C. Crime Bill or ending freeway construction. Even if Congress wished to, it could not through legislation give away its Constitutional last say over the District as long as it remains part of the Federal District. There are less favorable proposals along these lines-the disadvantages of which, from a D.C. point of view are obvious.

I say that unless the "home rule" proposals are rid of the Congressional and Presidential vetoes that they will not be worth the paper they are printed on to the D.C. residents. The only way that this can be accomplished is by a CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT FOR LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, except otherwise by statehood in which local self-government will come automatically. However, if people persist in the present course of "home rule" with another Constitutional Amendment, this second amendment will also require two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Such an amendment would fix the form of the D.C. government through the Constitutional process and would require another Constitutional Amendment to change the form of government proscribed. For example, a Constitutional Amendment might be passed providing D.C. with a mayor-city manager government, including an eleven-man city council and a fixed Federal payment. Obviously, such an amendment would make the District an unnecessary hostage to the tedious amendment procedure. If, for example, the city desired 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. Presumably, a Constitutional Amendment could be passed that gave the District the equivalent of statehood, but it seems an unnecessarily complex and time-consuming approach to the problem.

STATEHOOD

Unlike the "home rule" bills mentioned above, statehood would not leave Congress or the President with a veto over State of Columbia matters.

Unlike the Constitutional Amendments mentioned above, statehood could be achieved by a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress rather than a procedure requiring a two-thirds vote of each house plus ratification by threequarters of the states.

Unlike either the "home rule" or the Constitutional Amendment proposals, statehood could not be revoked.

Statehood could be made possible by the simple expedient of redefining the size of the present District of Columbia, as is done in the Dellums bill H.R. 9599. The Constitution puts an outer limit on the size of the Federal District-ten miles square-but indicates no minimum size. Congress could simply redefine the District to include unpopulated area stretching from the Supreme Court and Library of Congress to the Lincoln Memorial, including the Mall and White House, and grant the rest of the present city statehood.

Statehood would help correct the failure of the present political system to recognize the large minority of Black people in this country. Just as the original states represented compromises between conflicting interests, so D.C. statehood would be a step toward union in a racially fragmented country.

Statehood would permit the District to experiment with innovations in urban government, such as neighborhood councils and other forms of decentralization. As a state, the people of the present District could alter and vary the form of government closest to the people as wisdom and experience dictates. It would not only lessen the feeling that the system can not be moived or made to work, but would also free the spirits of men to cooperation and achievements rather than frustration and hostility.

Statehood, we contend, would assist the city's financial situation. Statehood would not per se mean a smaller financial base. First, since the state would have two Senators and most likely two Congressmen, its leverage for fair treatment by the Federal government would certainly be increased. The present situation, as a study by the League of Women Voters indicates, is not particularly advantageous to D.C. In 1967 the total contribution of the Federal government to D.C. amounted to 29.8% of the D.C. revenues. At the same time there were thirteen states-from Alaska with 56.7% to Utah with 30.8% and including: Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming-which receive higher percentages of their revenues from Federal funds. Second, the present D.C. government is highly inefficient. It is unlikely that a self-governing state would tolerate such an expensive cost-benefit government. Per capita costs for services such as schools and police are out of line with those of comparable cities. The recent inquiries of Senator Inouye are only scratching the surface of a pattern of wasteful spending by a city government not responsible to an electorate.

Third, many sources of revenue are denied the District because of Congressional or White House objections. Such potential sources include a reciprocal income tax, levies on all-day parking, a truly progressive income tax, or municipal ownership of liquor stores. In addition, the District's present status makes it rely unduly upon the Federal government to solve all its problems. As a state, we would feel more compulsion to develop a wider economic base by seeking new non-Federal light industry and commercial operations and developing programs that truly relate to

29-287 - 78 - 15

the economic needs of the city rather than to the whims or political goals of the White House or Congress.

Various arguments arise which indicate that statehood is either impossible or inappropriate. If these arguments are inspected they often lead to contrary conclusions, e.g., THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S SECURITY IN THE CAPITAL WOULD BE REDUCED -not only have other nations found an answer to granting self-government to the people of their capital city but also, do not colonized people represent a far more dangerous threat to the Federal government than would a state enjoying the fruits of full citizenship?; THat the District is Too Small To Be a State-not only is D.C.'s population now larger than ten states, but also every territory since 1789, except Oklahoma, had fewer people at the time of its admission to the Union than D.C. now has (in any case, governments are created to serve people not acres); THat State Government is Obsolete not only would the new state be more homogeneous and compact in size and common sense of purpose, thus eliminating the typical upstate, down-state, rural vs urban schism which plagues other states, but also since the creation of a state would be a new departure for a tortured city, the creative instincts of men newly liberated, may well come to lead to new approaches which would well serve the entire nation.

The Statehood Party sees no argument which precludes the creation of a state. You in Congress and we in the city should be able to meet and face any of the questions which have been brought forth. However, underlying many of the arguments is the great unspoken one: race. Few people in the District doubt that the racial composition of the city has been the major obstacle to the granting of full self-government. Even those friends of the District' who propose partial self-government, implicitly indicate a belief that D.C. is 'not ready' for full freedom. To many in D.C., the step-at-a-time approach to full self-government is itself a racial slur, creating special hurdles for Blacks to leap through before they are granted entry into the democratic system. Equal Treatment Under Law and Democracy Are Not a Degree To Be Achieved, or a Privilege To Be Earned, But an Inherent Right.

From:

Captive Capital: Colonial Life in Modern K by Sam Smith: Bloomington Indiana: Indiana Un Press, 1974

9/ Taking Care of Business

HERE WE GO FROM HERE DEPENDS IN LARGE

outraged by the prospect of 750,000 of their fellow citizens being denied full self-determination. In nearly 175 years of Washington's history, the cyclical peaks of the country's social conscience have somehow neglected the city's plight. Even today's information-glutted media transmissions have passed Washington's status dilemma by.

Raised to believe they could not be free, Washingtonians, like residents of colonies elsewhere in the world, have long tended to accept their proscribed limits. This ac ceptance has often been called apathy, but it is closer to fatalism-a reasonable assessment of one's powerlessness to do anything about one's condition. Little in Washington's history suggests that any but Washing tonians care about the injustices inflicted upon the city:

as far as Washingtonians can tell, presidents do not care, nor does Congress, the press, or Americans generally.

Government, schools, and the local press have tended to discourage the development of local awareness; Washingtonians are taught implicitly and explicitly that they are residents of a national capital, as opposed to a city that can be called their own. The federal symbols are revered; the local ones denigrated.

Many Washingtonians are personally hostage to federal interests. A government employee too involved in the fight for local freedom risks retribution, as Julius Hobson discovered when several congressmen expended considerable effort to get him fired from his civil service post. Other Washingtonians, representing powerful interests, find the status of the city quite to their liking. Finally, the will of the people of the District, even if it were to be vigorously pressed, is no match for the police and military might of the federal government. The political freedom that other Americans take for granted is considered a threat to the state in Washington, DC. In a democratic community equity can be sought through the accumulation of votes. In a colony one chooses between rebellion, argument, and resignation.

While the latter choice has been characteristic of the city, things are changing. The rise of black power, with its sophisticated understanding of the nature of colonialism, is speeding the change. More and more Washingtonians are unwilling to accept that being the seat of government should deny them the right to enjoy the supposed fruit of that government, freedom; and more and more Americans are coming to sympathize with their sense of injustice and with the need for self-determination.

Until 1970, it was generally assumed that there was but one way for the District to achieve self-determination: through what was known as "home rule" legisla