Albright, Madeleine K., president, Center for National Policy; John W. Hechinger, chairman, Hechinger Co.; Eugene J. Rohrer; and James Robertson, Esq., president, D.C. Bar Association: Albright, Madeleine K. 287 Hechinger, John W. 295 Robertson, James.... 311 Rohrer, Eugene J.. 313 Brazil, Hon. Harold, member, D.C. Council; and Norma Melendez, vice chairwoman, D.C. Common Cause: Brown, Hon. Jerry, former Governor of California, prepared statement. 560 549 Diner, Dr. Steven J., professor of history, George Mason University. 458 Durant, Guy F., D.C. resident.... 474 Griffin, Susan, chairwoman, Committee for Statehood, Fifty-First State National Organization for Women...... 384 Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa. 453 Kerrey, Hon. J. Robert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska, prepared statement... 558 Livingston, Rodney, CEC-DICEE. 523 Prepared statements with attachment...... 525 Mason, Hilda H.M.; Harry Thomas, Sr.; and Jack Evans, D.C. Council mem McSweeney-Johnson, M., Concerned Citizens of the District of Columbia.. Raskin, Jamie, American University School of Law; and Peter Raven-Hansen, Savoy, Phillip Michael, president, Native Washingtonian Club.. 390 395 572 Tsongas, Hon. Paul E., Democratic candidate for President, prepared statement.. 559 Wilder, Hon. L. Douglas, Governor of the State of Virginia. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, 570 Robertson, James, attorney, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; letter to E. Faye 569 MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD "Voting Amendment 'Would Not Free D.C,' "article from the Washington Post, Bob Levey's Washington, November 20, 1991.... 280 STAFF SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS D.C. Statehood Bill, H.R. 4718 No other piece of legislation coming before the committee on the District of Columbia is of greater consequence than the bill H.R. 4718, the D.C. statehood bill. Historically, three criteria have been used to determine whether or not a jurisdiction seeking entrance into the union should be granted statehood. First, are the people and the proposed constitution committed to the republican form of government Second, does the jurisdiction have resources and a population sufficient to support statehood? Third, have the residents expressed strong support for statehood? The answer to all three is an unequivocal yes. A reading of the statehood constitution removes any doubt about the commitment of its framers to the principles of democracy. With a population that exceeds six hundred thousand and locally raised revenues of nearly $2.9 billion, the District has both the population and fiscal resources to support itself as a State. In figures received from the Congressional Research Service and submitted for the record on March 24, 1992, by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Representative from the District of Columbia, the revenues raised by the District of Columbia exceed those raised by 22 other States. Its population is greater than four other States. In November 1980, the statehood initiative won the approval of a vast majority of District voters. H.R. 4718 is patterned closely after the most recent admission acts Hawaii and Alaska. Few differences between H.R. 4718 and the Hawaii and Alaska admission acts except those which set forth those things that are peculiar to each State. However, the fundamentals of each are nearly identical. Ten full pages of H.R. 4718, from page 6 through page 15, are nearly identical to the same provisions in the 1959 Hawaii Admissions Act. In addition, Hawaii and Alaska came into the union in 1959 and continue to stand in good stead after 33 years. Questions have been raised regarding whether or not an admitting act can contain certain certain prohibitions on a State barring it from doing specific things after its admittance. In particular, is the language in H.R. 4718 prohibiting the State of New Columbia from changing the 1910 height of buildings act, and from taxing Federal properties unless permitted by Congress, unprecedented in admissions acts? These questions were answered in the Hawaii Admissions Act which expressly prohibited Hawaii from changing the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, an act concerning native people of Hawaii, without the consent of Congress. Further, questions have been raised regarding whether or not a constitutional amendment must be passed in the House and Senate (VII) by two-thirds majority and ratified by three-fourths of the 50 States before the District can become a State. Legal and constitutional experts testifying before the committee have argued that article 1, clause 8, section 17 is clear and unequivocal when it states that the Congress has the authority to exercise exclusive authority in all cases whatsoever over "such district (not exceeding 10 miles square)." Nowhere does the Constitution limit the Congress from reducing the size from 10 miles square to whatever size it deems appropriate, nor does it limit Congress from doing so for whatever reason it deems necessary and proper and in keeping with its basic commitment to ensure that all its citizens have full and equal standing under the law. Nowhere does the Constitution state that the Congress is limited in anyway from its powers as expressed in article 1, clause 8, section 17. Therefore, reducing the 10 miles square of the District cannot be deemed a violation of expressed congressional authority. H.R. 4718 does not abolish the Federal seat of government, rather it reduces and the delineates what are to be the jurisdictional boundaries of the Federal seat of government. In fact, in January 1847, Congress reduced the size of the original seat by retroceding Alexandria and Arlington to Virginia and in the words of Professor Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago, "In the view of history it is hard to argue that this act was unconstitutional.” Additional questions have been raised regarding the 23d amendment to the Constitution, which granted three electoral votes to the District of Columbia. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs and Health of the Committee on the District of Columbia, the Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr. of New York stated that, "Once statehood is approved, overwhelming national support for repeal of the 23d amendment can be anticipated. Repeal will remove any lingering doubts about the amendment." During the ensuing debate, full committee chairman, Hon. Ronald V. Dellums committed to work for a repeal of the 23d amendment as soon as New Columbia is admitted as the 51st State. On June 3, 1987, he stated that, "The Chair would say to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Mazzoli, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Parris, and the gentleman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy, that the Chair would be more than willing to state on the record that at the appropriate point we should move for a repeal of the 23d amendment, simply because it would remove for all time any doubt." Mr. Dellums continues to stand by that commitment today. While the Constitution would have to be amended in order to remove what some consider an absurdity, it is the opinion of expert testimony this need not be done prior to the Admission Act being passed by both Houses and signed by the President. Questions have been raised regarding whether or not it would be necessary for the State of Maryland to pass a resolution approving the use for the new State part of the territory originally ceded to the United Stated for purposes of establishing the permanent seat of the government. Not only was the land in question ceded by Maryland, the cession was ratified by the State of Maryland. The ratifying language provides detailed terms and conditions of the cession, In the words of Professor Peter Raven-Hansen in his material submitted for the record on November 18, 1991, entitled the |