Mr. TUCKER. I am familiar, Mr. Nelsen, with your concern about this problem, and I think it is a very important concern you have expressed here.

In my capacity as Vice Chairman of the City Council, I chair the Housing Urban Development Committee. I am very much aware of this overlapping entanglement, which I think does frustrate planning. My general belief is that matters which affect the District of Columbia primarily, and its residents, which are purely local, whatever reorganization takes place with reference to these agencies, the central authority must rest in city hall because there is where the rsponsibilitiy must be. Whatever reorganization takes place, that must be the case.

Mr. NELSEN. I remember testimony when the Reorganization Bill came up. The argument was for a strong mayor, yet in the Reorganization Plan there was nothing there that gave the mayor the authority to resolve a deadlock that did occur. There was nobody really umpiring the ball game. There were all kinds of vetos all around, but nobody could finally resolve it. I agree there should be some finality somewhere.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have another committee meeting at 2:30.

Mr. TUCKER. I can only say, Mr. Nelsen, there is an excellent opportunity for this all to be corrected through an adequate Home Rule bill.

Mr. NELSEN. I am sure you believe that.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Fauntroy?

Mr. FAUNTROY. I just want to ask that the testimony of the organizations that were called, which are prepared to enter written testimony, be included in the record.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I have already ruled upon that.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Those who were not able to get back this afternoon. Mr. MCMILLAN. Yes.

Are there any further questions?

If not, thank you for your statement. I assure you this matter will be gone into thoroughly. Some may not agree with what some witness may say, but we are certain to see that every witness is treated with respect in their presentations.

Mr. TUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Fauntroy.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER E. FAUNTROY

Mr. MCMILLAN. We are happy to have our colleague, Mr. Fauntroy, make a statement on this important subject. I guess there has never been a more controversial subject presented to this committee. We will be glad to have you proceed.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You will note that my testimony was written with the understanding that I would be the first to testify at the hearing today. I will make appropriate adjustments through its text to account for the fact that I was not the first.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I have served on seven committees since I have been in Congress, and every time we have conducted hearings on any bill

before any committee, the visiting Congressmen are always given the opportunity to testify and leave. I thought that was the purpose of the procedure we followed this morning.

Mr. FAUNTROY. My information was that it was Mr. Broyhill's understanding that members of the committee would testify first. I have had our staff clarify that and they did tell me that we had a commitment that I would testify first. But that aside, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to move right along.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I don't think it makes any difference, anyway who testifies first. Usually everyone wants the last word and not the first statement.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Accompanying me, Mr. Chairman, at the table, are, to my left, Mr. Delano Lewis, my Administrative Assistant, and to my right, Mr. Harley Daniels, my Legislative Assistant.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:

I want to begin my testimony by thanking the chairman for scheduling these hearings on self-determination for the people of the District of Columbia.

It is my hope that we may rapidly bring these hearings to a conclusion so that the committee can begin considering the many bills we have before us and report out a home rule bill before this session closes.

To that end, I have asked the hundreds of organizations and individuals who would normally have requested to testify before the committee to coordinate their efforts, and, where possible, to submit written testimony for the hearing record.

I come before you today as the first elected Congressional Representative from the District of Columbia in a hundred years. My mandate from the people of this city is to secure the strongest and most effective home rule legislation possible.

This is without question an issue that is bipartisan in nature. My Republican opponent in the general election last March argued as strongly as I in favor of self-determination for the long oppressed people of the District of Columbia.

It is a question that transcends partisan concerns and brings men and women of all political parties, races, and beliefs together. The right of the people of the District of Columbia to govern themselves and to determine their own destiny is a matter upon which the people of our city stand united.

Historical Perspective:

As these hearings begin, I think it may be useful to place the question of home rule in some historical perspective. Home rule is not a new or radical proposal. The precedents for allowing the people of this city to govern themselves begin early in our history as a Nation.

Almost immediately after the City of Washington was incorporated in 1802, Congress established a local form of government composed of an elected 12-man council and a mayor appointed by the President.

In 1812, the Congress moved in the direction of providing a greater measure of self-rule by granting to the elected council the authority to appoint the mayor. Finally in 1820, Congress took the final step and granted to the people of the city the right to elect their mayor.

This elected mayor-city council form of government was retained for some 51 years until 1871. In that year, a territorial form of govern

ment was established, consisting of a government, an upper chamber appointed by the President, and a 22-member lower chamber elected by the people of the city.

This form of government remained in effect until 1874, when the right of self-government was tragically withdrawn from the District of Columbia, a right that has yet to be restored.

For over 70 years, then, the people of this city enjoyed some measure of self-government consistent with the Federal interest in the Nation's Capital. It is ironic that as the historical trend in this Nation has been toward expanding the franchise, the people of this city enjoyed fuller voting rights 100 years ago than they do today.

The issue of home rule is not new. President Truman was a strong advocate of home rule for the District of Columbia. President Eisenhower on many occasions urged more self-determination. President Kennedy, both in his days sitting as a member of this committee and as President, strongly backed an elected government for the District of Columbia. President Johnson's efforts are fresh in our minds. And President Nixon has called for ever-increasing measures of local selfdetermination.

As early as 1948, the party platforms of both the Republican and Democratic Parties advocated home rule for the District of Columbia. In 1948, Representative Auchincloss of New Jersey, then Chairman of the House District Committee, introduced a wide ranging selfgovernment proposal which was actually approved by the committee but was laid aside in the press of business at the close of the

session.

In 1949, a bill passed the Senate but was killed by the House District Committee. That year, Representative John F. Kennedy initiated a discharge petition that fell 22 signatures short of the necessary 218. Throughout the 1950's and 1960's, home rule measures passed the Senate by large margins only to be buried in this House District Committee.

I believe that a new day has arrived in 1972, when the legitimate demands by the people of this city for a voice in their local government will no longer be denied, and this committee will restore to the people of the District what is rightfully theirs-the right to govern themselves.

Constitutional Arguments:

Some have and will continue to argue that the Congress cannot grant self-government to the people of the District of Columbia because the Constitution grants "exclusive" jurisdiction over the District to the Congress.

I hope that we can put that argument to rest in these hearings and move on to consider home rule on its merits. Almost every legal scholar who has investigated the matter has concluded that the "exclusive" jurisdiction language in Article I, section 8, does not prevent Congress from delegating its legislative authority to a locally-elected government, subject to the ultimate legislative power of the Congress.

It is clear that this language was intended to prevent another State jurisdiction, such as Maryland or Virginia, from having control over the District.

There is no indication that the Founding Fathers intended the people of the District to be disenfranchised or intended the Congress

to carry on the day-to-day affairs of the municipal government. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary.

As I pointed out, only a few short years after the Constitution was ratified, Congress established an elected local government for Washington, At the time the Constitution was being considered by the States, James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 43, that the inhabitants of the new Federal City should "of course have a voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them." In addition, Congress over the years has repeatedly delegated small measures of legislative authority to the appointed local government. The power to establish local property taxes, and the authority to establish automobile installment loan standards are just two examples.

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court in Thompson v. U.S. clearly held that the Constitution provides no bar to home rule for the District.

Reasons for Home Rule:

I think that when we as a committee begin the serious business of reporting a D.C. self-government bill, we shall find every reason to support such a measure and no valid reason to oppose it. To begin with, home rule is right and just. It is a mockery of democracy for the people in the capital of the greatest democracy in the Western World to be relegated to colonial status.

The District of Columbia is the last colony. I know that some members of the committee believe that I am exaggerating our claim of oppression. But I ask you to place yourselves in our position. Suppose that I, elected by the people of the District, had the final say in deciding how much money the people of Dallas could spend to educate their children, or in deciding whether the consumers of Florence could be protected from unscrupulous retailers, or whether a narcotics treatment program could be established in Evanston. You would not abide by it. You would say that it was unfair and unjust, and I would agree with you. But these are the very decisions you must make for the people of our city.

We cannot truly proclaim the merits of our democracy to the world, until the people of this city, like the people in your home towns, are able to make local policy through an elected, responsive local government. That is all we are asking.

Beyond the basic justice of home rule, the present system of governing the District of Columbia is archaic and places an unreasonable burden on the Congress. It makes no sense to me to squander the time of 25 national legislators in the House who must serve as city councilmen for the District of Columbia. I assume that if you wanted to be a city councilman, there was ample opportunity in your own home town without spending thousands of dollars to run for Congress.

In the last session, this committee spent valuable time deciding whether D.C. police could establish a dog force that was already in operation. We decided whether a D.C. fireman could play in the Police Band. We sat as a Zoning Commission deciding zoning designations for properties on Massachusetts Avenue and Second Street, Southeast. We decided whether the District Government could charge dump truck fees.

I can say without fear of contradiction that these are all matters that could have been handled by an elected local government without

subverting the Federal interest in the District of Columbia. It is a waste of your time and waste of time of our colleagues when we bring such matters to the Floor of the House. There must be some better way for us to conduct our business I think there is.

Home rule can promote further government efficiency. During our recent consideration of the District's revenue bill, there was much discussion over inefficiency. There is some inefficiency in the District Government, as there is in all governments. But Congress has itself to blame for creating what is probably the most incredibly inefficient system of governing that I can find.

I am speaking, of course, of the way we go about governing the Nation's Capital. Let me give you just one illustration that I think tells the whole story-the process by which the District's budget is adopted. First, the Mayor formulates the budget and submits it to the City Council, as is provided for under law. The Council holds weeks of hearings, after which it modifies the Mayor's budget. From there, the budget is sent to the President and his Budget Öffice for review. At that point, it is forwarded to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Both committees hold extensive hearings, calling in District officials on all aspects of the budget.

During this time, no one really knows how much the District can spend because a revenue bill is being considered by the House and Senate District Committees who hold extensive hearings, calling in District officials on all aspects of the budget.

The Appropriations Committees cannot act because they do not know how much revenue is available, and the District Committees delay action because they cannot determine how much the District needs to spend. Meanwhile, the fiscal year ends and a new one begins without a budget. Months pass without action and no long-term planning is possible.

Finally, the logjam is broken as the bills are considered in the final whirlwind rush to adjourn at the close of the session. Such a system is senseless and must be changed.

This committee has home rule bills before it will inject sanity into our manner of governing the District of Columbia, and that will create a more efficient system of government for the District.

H.R. 9499 AND S. 2652

Let me now focus on the two bills that I believe deserve strong consideration by this committee. The first is H.R. 9499 which I have introduced. This and its companion measures, H.R. 10196, 10197, and 10198, have been co-sponsored by 40 Members of the House.

I regard H.R. 9499 as the strongest expression of what the people of this city desire.

Early in May of last year, I drafted a tentative home rule bill that I submitted to the people of this city in a series of eight public hearings that I held in every ward in the city. Hundreds of citizens attended the hearings and over a hundred testified. H.R. 9499 is the product of those hearings. Let me summarize the bill.

The City Council and Mayor:

The City Council would be composed of 11 members, three elected at large and eight elected from each of eight wards. Council members