less than those customarily exercised by similar bodies in municipalities elsewhere in the United States;

Further noting that Congress continues to act as a super-city council for the District, a function for which it is not well suited, which serves only to divert its attention from broader national and international problems, and which has resulted in a government unresponsive to the needs and desires of the citizens of the District;

Affirming that the District remains unrepresented in Congress itself, that the citizens of the District-virtually alone among the peoples under the American Flag-are denied a voice in choosing the members of the legislative bodies who rule over them, in determining the national and local policies which affect their lives, and in deciding how the federal and local taxes they pay are levied and spent ;

Be it resolved, That the 1970 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association urges the Congress of the United States to propose, and the States to ratify, an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for full voting representation in Congress for the citizens of the District of Columbia. The General Assemby further reaffirms its 1962 resolution urging the Congress to reinstate democratic self-government in the District of Columbia. Adopted by greater than a two thirds vote of the Ninth General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association, held in Seattle, Washington, July 4, 1970.

Mr. MIKVA. I wonder if the gentleman from Indiana would yield for the moment for the purpose of correcting the record in that in the Era of Good Feelings, we made it appear that all the capital cities of the world have home rule, and as far as I know they do, with one small exception.

There is a piece of one city that is run absolutely internally, and I think we ought to put that on the record. It is not run by the people who live in it. The area inside the Kremlin walls of Moscow is absolutely a national place where nobody has any say.

Mr. MCMILLAN. How about sticking to the United States?

Mr. MIKVA. I just wanted to make it clear on the record that that piece of Moscow is nationally run. The rest of it, the Muscovites are on their own.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, Self-Determination for D.C. had requested to testify today at an earlier date. We did make arrangements with the Committee to postpone our testimony until the next hearing, which I understand might be next Tuesday.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Tuesday at 10:30.

Mr. CLARK. We did make arrangements with the Committee to testify at that time.

Mr. MCMILLAN. You don't care to start now?

Mr. CLARK. No, we don't.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Does anyone here have a statement they want to file with the Committee at this time?

STATEMENT OF MRS. SUSIE HAMMOND

Mrs. HAMMOND. My name is Susie Hammond, 6903 5th Street, N.W. My statement is not quite the same as the others, it's a little different. My name is Susie Hammond, I am a student at Federal City College and the mother of six children, ranging in age from twenty-one to eight years. I have been married for twenty-five years and I have been a resident of the District for twenty-eight.

When our Founding Fathers founded the District of Columbia in 1891, they never realized the problems its residents would encounter. Washington, D.C. has all the problems of a State. Its population is larger than eleven other States.

We would like the sovereign position of a state.

Being a long-time resident of the District of Columbia with fond memories of having grown up in a state, that of Pennsylvania, I seek the same advantages for my sons and daughters and their friends. We are here to say that we don't want higher things, we want the highest-not the sky, but the stars. We don't want a slice of anything, we want its entirety.

Ladies and gentlemen, we do not want Home Rule. We want Statehood.

Thank you.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Just a minute.

Would anyone like to ask any questions?

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, but I certainly want to compliment the young lady on her statement and the obvious feeling that she has for her Federal City. I think it's commendable that you would take the time to come.

Mrs. HAMMOND. Thank you.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I want to thank you also. Thank you for taking the time to come in and spend the morning listening and then making a statement.

Mrs. HAMMOND. I enjoyed it; it has been very educational.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Are there any further statements that anyone here wishes to present for the record at this time?

If not, the Committee will stand adjourned until 10:30 Tuesday morning.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearings were recessed to reconvene Tuesday, February 29th, 1972 at 10:30 a.m.)

HOME RULE BILLS

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1972

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable John L. McMillan (Chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives McMillan (Chairman of the Full Committee), Jacobs, Cabell, Mikva, Link, Dellums, Nelsen, Gude, Smith, and McKinney, and Delegate Fauntroy.

Also Present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Hayden S. Garber, Counsel; Patrick E. Kelly, Assistant Council; John Hogan, Minority Clerk; Leonard O. Hilder, Legislative Assistant.

Mr. MCMILLAN. The Committee will come to order. I believe that we adjourned last week on Richard W. Clark. We were about to hear him, and we will hear him this morning.

Mr. Clark, do you have anyone you want at the table with you? The Committee will be happy to hear any statement you would care to make.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. CLARK, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SELF-DETERMINATION FOR D.C., THE NATIONAL COALITION, ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL BEARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard Clark and I would like to introduce Mr. Michael Beard who was Executive Director of Self-Determination for D.C.

I am here today in behalf of the National Coalition, Self-Determination for D.C. The Coalition is comprised of forty-five national organizations representing millions of Americans of divergent political opinions and parties, and from many walks of life, and from all parts of the country. We have united to advocate the return of the rights of our republic to the citizens of the Nation's Capital.

This is a beautiful city, its monuments, its parks, its public buildings are a fitting tribute to the world's oldest and in many ways greatest, democracy. Yes, it is a national city. The Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court and all the other symbols of a working republic situated here belong to all American citizens. But the people of this city do not.

Beyond the monuments and the mall are nearly 800,000 human beings who have as much right to participate in their local govern

ment as do the citizens of Detroit, of Minneapolis, of Mankato, or of any other American city.

Columbia is the Capital of South Carolina and as such it belongs to the people of South Carolina. But no one would suggest for that reason its citizens should not elect their own Mayor or city government. Neither did the founding fathers wish to disenfranchise the citizens of the Federal district when they drafted the Constitution. A key author of that document, James Madison, stated without reservation in the Federalist Paper #43 that: "A municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrage, will of course be allowed" District citizens.

Federalist Paper #43 has been quoted very often. There has been previous testimony, both that submitted for the record as well as oral testimony, and I think we all do reognize that it is not a legal document, but certainly the historical perspective that it brings is quite significant and bears directly on the question before us today. As we approach the 200th anniversary of the founding of this country, it is appropriate that we reflect on why so many men risked their lives and fortunes in declaring their independence and fighting the revolution. As a grade school student, I can remember this problem of democracy. Was it not because they believed that the rights of governments, any government, do not preclude the rights of the people? Did they not fight and die because they believed that no people should be taxed without proper representation in the tax-making body? Did they not suffer so that the people would have their own courts of law and their own elected leaders?

I'd like to say that as a grade school student, I believed that, and I want to believe it today, but as a relative newcomer to the District of Columbia, as a recent resident of the District of Columbia, I find a great anomaly here.

But now we look at the District of Columbia, the free world leader's capital city-a city without participatory democracy. Here we see a people whose local taxes are higher than all but three of the selfgoverning states. Yet, these same people have no voting representation in the taxation process.

We see a people whose rights as citizens are denied in the name of the "federal interest"-an ambiguous concept pursued with vastly unequal fervor among the various political jurisdictions. At the same time, I've heard no movement afoot indicating that there should be an abdication of the rights of citizenship for and particularly of local self-government-for those people who happen to live in areas or in localities where those federal installations are located.

Again, the point I am making is that the concept of federal interest is not clearly defined and has been pursued, again, with vastly unequal fervor.

We see a people whose local courts and high offices are manned not by men they have chosen, directly or even indirectly, but by appointees from an outside power. Whether these judges or officials be just or benign is not the point. The point here, as in the preceding instances, is that in a democracy the institutions and offices of government should belong to the citizens.