status of the concentration of Federal, foreign and other related properties. The question of turning back parts of the District over to Maryland gets to the whole question of impacted aid, which the Bureau of the Budget and all Administrations in the past have been very hostile toward. It's the question of how you are going to support this aspect of the Federal involvement here. Another question under self-government is how do we assure that local regulations and policies will not impede the work of the Federal Government here. I don't think either the financial support question or the protection of the Federal government's legitimate needs are insurmountable problems for those of us who have the basic resolve to enfranchise this city, whether its majority is white or black. Neither of these additional problems is attached to voting representation in Congress. Therefore, as a supporter of both voting representation in Congress and greater self-government here, I hope that this nation and this Congress will again be stirred by the very principles of democracy that are the bulwark of this nation and that we think about so much during the month of February. After all, our Congress has preached democracy to others around the nation and throughout the world, and I think we are remiss if we can't find the will to practice democracy right in our own back yard in the District of Columbia. And thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings. Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to keep us from hearing these witnesses, but I wonder if the other members of the Committee could have leave to insert their statements in the record at this point, lest our silence connote disinterest. Mr. MCMILLAN. Anyone who wants to insert a statement in the record or make a few remarks may do so if you like. Mr. MIKVA. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCMILLAN. Do you want to make a few remarks in connection with the bill? Mr. MIKVA. I would just ask for leave to introduce a statement in the record at this point so as not to take up the time of the Committee. Mr. MCMILLAN. Without objection, those statements will be made part of the record. Mr. MCKINNEY. I would ask also the same. Mr. MCMILLAN. Any member may file such a statement. (Subsequently, the following statements were received for the record :) STATEMENT BY HON. DONALD M. FRASER Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, once again we consider the question of home rule for the District of Columbia. We have been over this ground in great detail in the past. The issues are clear to us all. Simply put, elementary principles of democracy which apply to everyone else in the United States have for nearly one hundred years not been applied to residents of the District. That the right of the people of the District to govern themselves has not been granted is an intolerable reflection upon the American commitment to democracy and a gross injustice to the people of the District. 72-762-72— -9 The chairman's introduction of a retrocession bill suggests that he supports the right of the people to govern themselves. My own position has been clear for many years. This year I have co-sponsored the home rule bill introduced by the elected representative of the people of the District, Congressman Fauntroy. Let us presume, then, that a majority of this Committee has already decided that the residents of the District should have the normal rights of democracy. What remains is the question of how to organize home rule. The problems of organizing home rule are real. We all recognize that because of the Federal interest, the District is not quite like other cities. This Committee must decide how to balance the Federal interest and the legitimate rights of the residents of the District. While various members of the Committee have already indicated their support of one approach or another, I am sure that we remain flexible, and that we will be able to agree upon an approach which is both workable and just. As I have said, the issues are clear. I am confident that this Committee will face these issues and resolve the problems swiftly, so that this session of the Congress may redeem the promise of democracy and grant home rule to the District. STATEMENT BY HON. ABNER J. MIKVA Mr. MIKVA. Mr. Chairman, since my appointment to this Committee at the beginning of the 92d Congress. I have viewed my principal responsibility to be promoting and protecting the interests of the people of the District of Columbia, because the present state of affairs gives Washingtonians no effective voice of their own. Over the months, as I have experienced the complex charade which passes for a budget process, and as I have become embroiled in matters of great import to the people of the city which were of little import to the members of the Committee, it has become obvious that the most important single thing this Committee could do for the people of the District of Columbia would be to institute self-government, or home rule. Mr. Chairman, I happen to believe in the theory of democratic government. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is going to be a better government than one controlled by absentee landlords who are not accountable to the people and who have no real stake in the outcome of their own actions. It is unconscionable that Congress continues to rule the District of Columbia in the year 1972, aided by a Mayor and a City Council appointed by the President. The ends of good government, not to mention the principles of democracy established in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, compel us to provide home rule for the District of Columbia. As a cosponsor of the home rule bill introduced by my friend and colleague from the District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy, I am persuaded that Congress can retain necessary power over the destiny of the Federal City, as foreseen by the Constitution, without seriously impeding the right and the ability of the people of the city to run their own everyday affairs. Home rule for the District of Columbia is not a new notion. I am sure that the members of this Committee have given it much thought and discussion, as have I, both before and after assuming a place on the D.C. Committee. For myself, I do not feel a need to spend the time of the Committee and the funds of the taxpayers rehashing all the well-worn pros and cons. I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that these hearings will provide an opportunity for the authors of the several different home rule measures to appear before us to expeditiously describe the details of their proposals, and that we can then move promptly to an up or down vote on what form of self-government will be provided for the people of the Nation's Capital. Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Rarick. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN R. RARICK, A REPRE- Mr. RARICK. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Mr. RARICK. My bill is H.R. 355. I welcome the opportunity to testify today in support of my bill H.R. 355, "to retrocede a portion of the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland," which is in many ways similar to the Chairman's bill, H.R. 12823. Let me say at the outset, I am in favor of home rule for the District of Columbia as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and as provided for in the Constitution. The District of Columbia is our Federal city, the home of our Nation's government; therefore, it is presently under home rule the control of the Congress of the United States. The framers of the Constitution understood the importance of a neutral environment. They had experienced the threat of mob rule to a republican form of government; indeed, the Continental Congress was itself surrounded and imperiled by such a lawless mob from which it was powerless to protect itself. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Founding Fathers, therefore, provided in the Constitution for the creation of a Federal district, the District of Columbia over which the Congress should have plenary and exclusive legislative power. This provision of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, guarantees a neutral, nonpolitical sanctuary for the seat of our Government, where the representatives of the people could meet in safety far from the "madding crowd," issue oriented as they are or can be made. This Clause is worth noting in its entirety: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the Tnited States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenels, dock-yards, and other needful buildings;" The framers of the Constitution recognized that the Nation's Capital belonged in the same category as these other essential Federal properties. It serves the people of the nation; it is supported and maintained by the people of the nation, and it is controlled and governed by the representatives of the people of this nation. This is the function of this Committee-to exercise the control and authority over the District in the name of the people of this country. The Constitution gives "home rule" to the Congress; to surrender it in any manner would be to abrogate the power of the people over that which is rightfully theirs to hold and control. The inhabitants of the District of Columbia have no more entitlement in logic or in morality to "home rule" than do the inhabitants of Fort Polk, Louisiana, Redstone, Arsenal, the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the Chicago Post Office, or, for that matter, the Navajo Indian Reservation located in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. There are those who attack the peoples' present system of "home rule" in the District and argue instead that the District of Columbia should have either statehood and/or Congressional representation as a separate and unique entity. There is, however, no available evidence to indicate the people of the District are deserving of such compensatory recognition. On the contrary, the District of Columbia has never been self-supporting; it is not now able to pay its own way nor will it ever be able to do so. Unfortunately, such shibboleths as "home rule," "democracy," and "government by the people" seem to have caused the Congress to forget the lessons of history and to relinquish step by step our responsibility and authority over our home to residents whose inability to operate a city of this size and complexity has made Washington an international joke, the laughing stock of people the world over. We would not be surprised to find that the capitals of certain undeveloped or emerging nations were regarded as hazardous posts by civilized people in the foreign service; but it is more than a little disturbing to find that our own capital-supposedly the showplace of democracy is regarded as hazardous duty by the personnel of many of the foreign embassies resident here. The other aspects of the domestic situation here in Washington certainly do not indicate that the residents of the District have the ability to govern themselves. Crime is rampant; rape and murder occur during the daylight hours within a block of the White House, indeed, the Executive Office Building itself. Are we to believe Home Rule would restore law and order? SCHOOLS The level of public education in the District is certainly an illustrative example. The Superintendent of Schools here in the District doesn't know how many people are on the school board payroll, and has no idea of the disposition of school funds. Superintendent Hugh Scott has been quoted as saying, "We don't know the scope of the deficit and we don't have the system or the people to provide it," yet these are the same people crying for "home rule." The state of education itself is worse. There are now 51 completely black schools without one white student, and as late as June 3, 1971, Superintendent Scott announced that the average reading level of 8th grade students in the District is equivalent to 6th grade reading ability on a nation-wide basis. The District student actually progresses at a rate of about 3/4ths the national average, and the situation becomes worse as the progressive education programs force more and more whites and intelligent Negroes to flee to the suburbs. Are we to believe education would improve because of home rule? The apologists and interpretative analyzers seek to explain the exodus of decent Americans on the failure to pour more and more taxpayers' money down this disgrace to American democracy for more giveaways and more free public accommodations to encourage more squatters on the federal reservation. Few dare to comment on the obvious reasons for this mass migration of decent Americans from their nation's capital; that is, the fear of violence and even death; the concern for human safety and property; and the natural desire to be with the people of one's own choice and kind. The local and national news media continue to violate the principles of free speech and free press and they continue to suppress these truths because those who control the "right to know" mechanism in American society regard the right to choose your own society, your neighbors, and your friends as being foreign to our "free society." Are we to believe the press would be more free and impartial because of home rule? SOLUTIONS Neither home rule nor massive outlays of money can solve the District's dilemma. There are but two solutions: first, our many liberal and moderate citizens who profess to have dedicated their lives to the cause of integrated brotherhood, permissiveness, and tolerance to return to the District to live and take part in community affairs, including sending their children to the public schools in the District; or, secondly, remove all the people from the Federal district who are not here on government business and resettle them in areas of the country that have sparse population, and living room, the Yankee challenge of creating something from nothing. Unfortunately, the former possibility seems more and more unreal as news articles continue to indicate that our country's leaders make laws and enforce them, that they themselves do not adhere to or that they circumvent in one way or the other; therefore, the only real possibility is to resettle the people of the District in other areas of our country. Again, it is unfortunate that the cost of relocating these exploited people to the sparsely populated areas like Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, or Kansas is prohibitive; certainly the people of those states would benefit from such close association with the people of the caliber of those in the District. It is, therefore, logical to give serious consideration to the retrocession of that part of the District populated by people whose business is other than governmental to Maryland. Such a move would entail no cost; it would not uproot any of the District's population, and it would give them what they seem to want so desperately-the right to vote and the right to selfgovernment. Under the principle of retrocession, the people of the |