figure out how to pay Alaska and Utah and the District of Columbia and Virginia

The CHAIRMAN. But none of those States receive any Federal funds. Mr. ARONICA. But I am saying, is there any reason that we can't figure out how to do that?

The CHAIRMAN. Is it a question of figuring it out or is it a question of will it be done? If the State of Columbia comes into being and needs $126 million, and you heard Senator Inouye say it might be higher perhaps in the neighborhood of $153 million or even higher, do you envision that funds would be forthcoming from Congress of $153 million for this State and for all the other States-Alaska, Utah, Nevada, the Dakotas, and so forth-which have a large amount of Federal property and could give them equal payment?

Mr. ARONICA. I think that I do not see this an obstacle. On the short run, yes. If we were to become a State tomorrow morning, and the thinking had not changed on this question, the thinking had not developed on this question, yes, we would probably be faced with the possibility of losing somewhere between $125 million and $150 million and maybe making it up and maybe making up half of it, two-thirds of it with other measures and on the short run we may have problems. Please understand one thing, there are many questions that we are taking a look at, particularly the financial questions.

I am not going to say to you other than exactly where our thinking and our knowledge is.

But, one thing that annoyed me is that-let's say we are talking about $60 million-the difference in what we raised and what we would lose in the Federal payment is somewhere, probably, about $75 per capita. Should we really tolerate a consideration for that $75 a person we will sell out our freedom?

I mean, can't the question be raised in that light? Don't we understand fundamental questions? Unless we understand fundamental questions, we are back to this old game of somehow or another saying one thing and not living up to it. We can't go on that way.

Not just on this point, on a number of points.

The CHAIRMAN. I will read into the record so that the record is complete the percentage of land federally owned:

Alaska, 95 percent, Nevada 86 percent; Utah 66 percent; Idaho 63 percent; Oregon 52 percent; Wyoming 48 percent; Arizona 44 percent; California 44 percent; Colorado 36 percent; New Mexico 33 percent; Montana 29 percent; the State of Washington 29 percent; and the District of Columbia 28.4 percent.

My second question: Has your party considered the recession of the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland leaving to the Federal Government the Mall and such other properties as might be considered as part of the Federal jurisdiction? Have you any thoughts of the District of Columbia residents becoming full citizens of the State of Maryland with the right to participate in the elections of Maryland? Mr. ARONICA. We have discussed it and considered it but it is not our first choice. Representative Kyl of Iowa has had a retrocession bill in from time to time for a number of years and it is at least my feeling that 5 years ago or so when this was a semiserious question that the people of Maryland were not particularly pleased to have us. It upset the balance in Maryland quite drastically in terms of urbanrural. Things have changed in Maryland. One-man one-vote has

come through and a number of things, but again I am not sure how that gets to any of these questions. If we become part of the State of Maryland, how does this solve our economic problem? What is to be lost by keeping a community that has an identity intact and granting it the opportunity to a chance for a government for itself to thrash out new ideas, to use its initiative, and possibly to create a fiasco but I would think more probably maybe to do something that is unique and for the good.

You see, if we talk about some of these questions, I think then you get back to other kinds of questions which are answered anyway. So, at this point personally, and I think for the statehood party, we want to explore these things, we very much appreciate the wisdom and the help of you people, of people in the law schools, of political scientists and other people throughout the country who perhaps can come up with some answers to some of these questions.

The only thing that I continually turn to is: Let's make sure that we talk about exactly what is happening. And if there are insurmountable problems, I guess either we evolve a new technique on how to get around them or we ditch the idea, but for the moment my thinking is that we explore those. We have been working on this for about 4 or 5 months. We have gone through a campaign whatever that entails in terms of diverting your energy, there are lots of things that don't get done, for instance, getting a statement prepared where I could give it to you in time.

But I think there is a lot to be explored here and as I said before, we appreciate the assistance of people in looking at these things and possibly coming up with some answers that we don't have right now. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Mathias?

Senator MATHIAS. Among the things it seems to me to explore would be where the police powers would lie.

Mr. ARONICA. You mean the police power in terms of the embassy, the traffic, and the Federal Government-within that State if you will-is that what you are talking about? Within the State itself?

Senator MATHIAS. Today the police powers in the District of Columbia are exercised by the Federal Government.

That was, in fact, the only reason for creating the District of Columbia government.

What happens to that?

Mr. ARONICA. I think we are basically talking about a situation in which we depart from a common interest. I don't think that the Federal Government would have an interest in seeing this small-in-area State fall apart, be destroyed, or that the State would see otherwise than to preserve the Federal Government and everything else.

Senator MATHIAS. That is what the Federal Government thought about the city of Philadelphia but it didn't work out, did it?

Mr. ARONICA. No, given that point of departure, I see no reason why something comparable to the executive police force which now exists should not continue. The reasonable basis for the executive force to move about in the State so that the

Senator MATHIAS. So, that would be a restoration of certain police powers to the Federal Government?

Mr. ARONICA. That is right. I think much of that presently exists. I understand that when the policemen went on strike in New York City

that Federal police were sent to New York City to pick up the slack because of the question of the conflict in the U.N. and so forth. I don't know the details of that. Someone mentioned that to me. I do know that we have used in recent years the National Guard when a riot or a crisis has broken out so that the record is not without precedent in terms of dealing with the situation as it arises.

Now, as far as the police force for the person who lives on a certain block, in a certain place I would hope that the policeman that he would see and deal with, the man who walks the beat, would be someone that he has rather intimate control over.

That is, you could have a neighborhood police force, you could have a statewide police force, and obviouly with the consideration of the Federal presence in scattered parts of the State, there could very well be a relationship between a Federal police force and a citywide police force. But, again, I don't see that as an insurmountable problem if we set our minds to it and if the spirit of cooperation exists.

Now, my feeling is that to a large extent, that reservoir of goodwill is being depleted. I again come back to this question-if we do not answer the fundamental question, I ask you how much longer any goodwill at all is going to exist? Once you have done that job, then I am not sure the creation of anything is going to matter very much in the preservation of anything other than a police state.

Senator MATHIAS. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for appearing today. Our next witnesses are Mrs. Cynthia Hannum and Miss Wilma Martin appearing together from the League of Women Voters.

STATEMENT OF MRS. CYNTHIA HANNUM, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE, AND NATIONAL BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS; AND MISS WILMA MARTIN, PRESIDENT, D.C. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

Mrs. HANNUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The League of Women Voters of the United States wishes to express its strong support of home rule for the District of Columbia. Since the purpose of the league is to "promote political activity through informed and active participation of citizens in government,” it is abhorrent to league members that nearly a million Americans, almost within sight of the Capitol dome, do not have the right to elect their local governmental officials or to have a local government with power to legislate.

The right of Congress to legislate over the District, the Capital in which all U.S. citizens have an interest, is amply protected by article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, but there is no reason for not delegating the administrative and legislative powers for purely local affairs to a body duly elected by local citizens. Although the District is tremendously important to its citizens, Congress should not have to be concerned about local function. There are so many vital issues facing the Nation that Congress should devote its full time to solving these problems rather than expend its energy on issues more appropriately handled by District of Columbia residents. While it is true that the Federal Government contributes part of the District. governmental revenue, this is no reason for congressional refusal to

delegate to a locally elected body the responsibility for local District affairs. Several States receive a higher percentage of their total revenues from the Federal Government than the District, but no one would suggest that citizens in those States should be denied the right to elect their legislatures or Governors.

The League of Women Voters supported self-government and representation in Congress for the District since 1938. In these 33 years member interest in the governmental plight of the Nation's Capital has grown. Last year we mounted a week-long national petition drive to acquaint citizens everywhere with the injustices suffered by District of Columbia citizens. By May 1970, League of Women Voters members had gathered over a million and a quarter signatures on the petition asking that Congress propose for State ratification an amendment granting District of Columbia citizens full voting representation in Congress.

While our efforts were not successful in obtaining voting representation, we believe we have shown that people all over the country do care about the plight of District citizens and do support a change in the present system when they understand the dilemma.

The League of Women Voters believe it is a disgrace that there should be, in a nation whose heritage and tradition is dedicated to representative government, a considerable number of citizens who fullfill their obligations as citizens but who, except for permission to elect their school board, have no choice in the conduct of their local affairs. We therefore support the legislation before the committee and will work for its passage.

At this point that the league does not specify the type of government preferable to the District. We feel that the local league in the District of Columbia should make that determination but we do support their decision at present which is favoring an elected mayor and city council.

Now, I would like to introduce the president of the League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia, Miss Wilma Martin. The CHAIRMAN. Miss Martin, welcome here today.

Miss MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The District of Columbia league has filed a written statement and I will only summarize that statement at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. The prepared statement, in its entirety, will be entered in the record.

(The prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia applauds and heartily endorses the statement of Congressional intent which is set out in the preamble of the Bill now before this Committee.

We firmly believe that it is only through full and enlightened participation in the electoral process that a responsible citizenry can be developed. It is essential and axiomatic in our form of government that the voters have the right and the duty of electing the officials who govern them as well as the ability to hold their officials accountable at the polls. Governments acquire their just powers from the consent of the governed. But in the District, this does not hold. Our officials are appointed from above. If they do not perform to suit the citizens of this city, there is no way these citizens can remove them from office. Taxes are imposed without the consent of those affected. We have all the duties of American citizens without the rights that other Americans take for granted.

60-560 O 71 17

With the passage of the Delegate Bill in the 91st Congress, a small step was taken to right these wrongs. At least, it gave us the same representation we last had in 1874. But one representative for more than 756,000 citizens, and he without a vote in the Congress, cannot cope with all the problems that beset this city. Nor can he alter the local government in any way to make it more democratic, more responsive to the citizenry.

Specifically, the League of Women Voters supports the restoration to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia the powers of local self-government through the electoral process. This will promote the development and well-being of the community, provide for more effective participation in the development of the community and the solution of local problems, and will relieve the National Legislature of the burden of legislating upon purely local affairs.

These objectives can be implemented by provisions such as those in this bill for an elected Mayor and an elected Council if they are fully authorized to carry out the duties of their respective offices. The District of Columbia League of Women Voters has considered numerous Home Rule proposals on their merits and we are of the opinion that the most desirable form of local government is the mayor-council type, the most widely accepted pattern in government today. We also feel that within this framework, the authority of the mayor should be as strong as possible.

We support, in general, the control of local financial matters by the elected government. We urge, however, that care be taken that the Federal payment be completely adequate to compensate for the Federal functions in the city. For too long, D.C. citizens have been unfairly burdened with an excessive portion of the costs of purely Federal activities in this city, costs which should be shared by all Americans. We are also concerned that borrowing provisions without a Federal guarantee will not enable the District to raise the funds it needs for capital expenditures.

We believe the Federal interest is fully protected by the provisions in this proposed charter for a Presidential veto of local legislation and by the reservation of the right of the U.S. Congress to exercise its constitutional authority in retaining ultimate legislative powers over the District.

We endorse the submission of the charter to a referendum by the voters of Washington.

Our comments today are necessarily of a general nature. We hope that there will be additional opportunities in the future to comment in more detail on specific provisions of this bill after further study has been made. We appreciate, however, the opportunity given us to appear before the Committee today to reiterate our support of Home Rule for the District of Columbia. As you know, Home Rule and National Representation have had the highest priority on our program since the District League was organized in 1920.

In just five years, this country will celebrate the two hundredth anniversary of its founding. We Washingtonians, along with other Americans, would indeed have extra cause to celebrate this momentous anniversary if before then the three-quarters of a million native American citizens of the Last Colony had been brought into the mainstream of our democracy. We sincerely urge the passage of a Home Rule Bill at an early date.

Miss MARTIN. We wish to thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to reiterate our support for home rule for the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia League has supported home rule since it was first organized in 1920. Our comments today are limited to S. 1603. We have not had the opportunity to examine Senator Mathias' bill. We do, however, endorse wholeheartedly the purposes set out in the preamble of S. 1603.

We believe that the citizens of the District of Columbia should have the right to determine who governs them and to hold them accountable at the polls. In this way they can participate in the solution of local problems and the development of the community.

The Congress should relinquish its control over purely local matters. As I said, our statement today is necessarily brief and of a general nature. We hope that as this bill and other bills progress, we will have