provision in both bills presently before the committee to submit whatever charter is the end result of our work to the voters of the District for their approval or rejection.

Some may ask, "Why should the citizens of the District of Columbia not settle for two Senators and the requisite Members of Congress and forget all about having the city run by an elected Mayor and Council?" From my vantage point the disabilities of this proposal appear obvious. If Congress is to continue to be the major legislative body for the District, even if there are Senators elected by the people of the District, a majority of those determining policy for the District will not be responsible to the people of the District of Columbia. While there is clearly some Federal interest in the District because it is the seat of the National Government, it should not be completely under the control of those, such as myself, who owe their allegiance to another electorate. Some will say, "You can serve, but defer to the elected officials of the area." To this I can only answer that I did not become a Senator to have another person cast my vote for me and I doubt that any other Senator will differ from me on this subject.

What about statehood? We shall hear later this morning from a representative of the District of Columbia Statehood Party who, I am sure, will give many arguments for such a system for the District. Unfortunately, although it, in effect, combines both the home rule proposal I have been espousing and congressional representation, it raises certain questions which I hope can be answered during this hearing. If the District were to become a State, it would lose its special status and entitlement to Federal funds. The Federal payment for the District is made because of the lands which the Federal Government uses in the District and from which the District does not derive tax revenues. However, it should be pointed out that there are 12 States that have a greater percentage of nontaxable Federal land than does the District of Columbia. and they do not receive a special Federal payment. Five of these States, Alaska, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Oregon, have over half of their land areas owned by the Federal Government, yet none of these receive a Federal payment. Undoubtedly, as a State the District of Columbia would likewise not receive a Federal payment, which under both of the bills before us pays roughly one-third of the costs of the District.

A second problem is that as a State, the District would be required to maintain all of the governmental structure of a State as well as its present city government.

Third, this is still a Federal city and Congress, on behalf of all of the people of the United States, should have some power to protect the national interest.

Finally, there are the traditional arguments that it would require either a constitutional amendment or a recession of the District of Columbia back to Maryland and then action by the Maryland Legislature before the Congress could consider an act granting statehood to the District of Columbia.

Before introducing our first witness who is with us today, I wish to acknowledge that we have here with us today the ranking Democratic member, Senator Inouye.

Senator Tunney is unable to be with us today but has submitted a prepared statement which I now place in the record.

(Senator Tunney's prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN V. TUNNEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

DEMOCRACY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

I am pleased to have cosponsored S. 1603, legislation introduced by Tom Eagleton, chairman of the Senate District Committee, which would provide for an elected Mayor and City Council for the District of Columbia and to present this statement for the hearing today on this and similar legislation.

I would like to begin by giving to the 800,000 citizens of the District of Columbia my wholehearted commitment to home rule. To my mind there can be no more important priority in the 92nd Congress than to free 800,000 people from legal slavery.

Every other community in the Nation can elect its own officials-not the District of Columbia.

Every other community in the Nation can decide for itself whether or not to have freeways running through the community, but not the District of Columbia.

Every other community in the Nation can tax nonresidents who derive their income from the community-but not the District of Columbia.

It is of course true that the District of Columbia is a unique city. However, uniqueness is not a reason to deny democracy to a community.

In addition, the District of Columbia today is unique only in the degree of Federal presence. Numerous communities in my home state of California have a substantial number of Federal installations and receive substantial Federal assistance.

The time for study and for commissions is over. The time for action is long overdue.

In addition, I would like to assure the people of the District of Columbia of my wholehearted support for elected Congressional representation.

I have cosponsored S.J. Res. 6, introduced by Senators Kennedy, Bayh, and Mathias, which would amend the Constitution to give the District of Columbia full voting representation. As a member of both the District Committee and the Judiciary Committee, I will do all I can to assist in the enactment of this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. I welcome our first witness the newly elected Representative of the District of Columbia to the U.S. Congress. His presence here as the first witness is symbolic of the fact that progress toward elective government by the District of Columbia is possible. As the elected Representative of the people we shall listen to his words with great care. Since this is his first appearance before the committee I want to welcome him and wish him well. I am sure that he has a great future before him in Congress.

The committee extends a warm welcome to Walter E. Fauntroy. STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER E. FAUNTROY, DELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in many ways my testimony before you today is a landmark in this city's long struggle for self-determination. I believe it is the first step in securing for the people of this city the rights of elected self-government and full voting representation in the Congress that we have not enjoyed for so long. I have testified before this committee and others in the Congress many times about the pressing problems facing this city and this Nation. But today I come before you as the first elected congressional Representative from the District of Columbia in almost 100 years, presenting my first testimony before a congressional committee in my new capacity.

I take this opportunity first to thank you and your colleagues for introducing this legislation (S. 1603 and S. 1626). You have set in motion, I believe, a historic and productive process in freeing the city of the Nation's capital in this 92d Congress, that would give selfdetermination to the people of the District of Columbia. It is a forceful stride in the right direction, and we deeply value the commitment and support to this city that your efforts represent. I believe that your dedication, combined with that of the citizens of the District and fairminded Americans everywhere, will give us the victory for home rule we have sought for so long.

By introducing your legislation you have shown that you agree with my fellow citizens and I who do not look upon elected self-government for the District of Columbia as a gift. It is an absolute right in a free, democratic society such as ours. The people of the world have recognized colonialism as immoral and repulsive to decent men as I am sure it is to you. But the citizens of the seat of Government of the world's oldest and in many ways the greatest democracy remain powerless before their colonial masters. It is shameful that, as we approach the bicentennial anniversary of the founding of this Nation, the rights declared to be self-evident in the 1770's are not at all evident to the people of the District in the 1970's. The gap between the Nation's ideals of justice and liberty and their practice in the District of Columbia is enormous and must be closed.

Some would deny us self-determination by seeking refuge in the argument that the enslavement of the District is mandated by the Constitution. But the historical evidence seems clear that the founders of democracy in this country did not wish to make an exception of District citizens in the establishment of free government. Rather, the Founding Fathers intended in article I, section 8 of the Constitution to insure the Federal District's separate identity from any one State. One of the major authors of the Constitution, James Madison, whom you have already quoted, stated in the Federalist Papers: "a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed" . . . District citizens.

The courts have time after time upheld broad delegations of legislative power to the District Government, and almost every legal scholar who has seriously considered the matter has come to the conclusion that self-determination for the District is entirely consistent with the Constitution.

Another reason for denying home rule, though it is not now spoken of as openly as in the past, is of course race. It is no coincidence that those who opposed equal justice for Blacks in this Nation are the very same people who would deny us self-government. Perhaps those lingering forces of reaction and racism would deny us what is ours, but I will not believe that the vast majority of the American people or their representatives in the Congress will continue to hold to this discredited colonial course.

I believe that we must have self-government. I believe that this is not a question of Black versus White, it is a question of right versus wrong. And it is wrong to deny nearly 800,000 American citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed right of local self-determination. It makes no sense to have this very busy Congress intimately involved in

the day-to-day affairs of the District government. As Senator Eagleton has so forcefully recognized, you have neither the time nor the inclination to serve as a city council for the people of this city; and this is as it should be. On the other side, the pressing housing, health, crime, and social justice issues this city faces can only be justly solved by those who have a real stake in the outcome, by those who are accountable to the people they serve.

In short, there are no reasonable arguments against self-government, nothing that should prevent immediate action by this Congress. It has the authority to act and must act.

With respect to the specifics of your bills, I am not prepared to comment in detail because I wish to consult with the people of this city as to how the principles of home rule should be implemented in detail because it is a matter of great interest to the many disenfranchised citizens that we have in the District of Columbia.

In my role as the first District Representative to the Congress in almost a hundred vears, I have pledged to directly involve my constituents, the people of the District, as fully as possible in any proposals that vitally affect their interests. And there is little that could affect them more than home rule. Within the next 30 days I will introduce a home rule proposal in the House of Representatives, but only after it has been submitted to the people. Within the next 2 weeks, I shall circulate a draft bill to the people, holding neighborhood meetings throughout the city in open forums to elicit their views on the best form of self-determination for the District. The people will have the ultimate say in what proposal I present to the Congress. I hope to announce the details of this procedure sometime later this week. In the meantime, I hope you will continue your needed efforts in the Senate. But I did not wish to miss this opportunity to give you my thanks for your efforts and to convey my comments on some of the major features of your proposals. After the process of community review, I hope to submit to you more detailed comments on this important legislation.

I have reviewed both Senator Eagleton's bill (S. 1603) and Senator Mathias' bill (S. 1626). In my judgment, as I indicated, both are a powerful step toward home rule. Both embody the central themes that must govern my evaluation of home rule legislation, by providing for elected government with broad legislative powers, by granting fiscal autonomy, and by making some provision for an automatic Federal pavment. All these are necessary ingredients in a meaningful approach to home rule, and I commend you for this.

I also commend you for your honor and your courage in submitting these bills.

In reviewing your bills and considering the legislation that I shall introduce in the House, several thoughts occur to me.

First of all, it seems to me that the 11-member City Council that you provide for should probably be significantly enlarged to reflect the major legislative chores given it under the bill. I am former Vice Chairman of the District of Columbia City Council, and I believe I know both the strengths and weakness of a council with limited membership. You must remember that you are creating a legislative body with responsibilities in many ways similar to those of a State legislature. The Council would have authority to enact legislation dealing

with such matters as court organization, estates, welfare, insurance— matters that are normally considered by States legislatures. An 11member Council could not provide either the broad representation nor the time and expertise that we have come to expect of legislatures considering such important questions. I would strongly suggest that the legislative body of the municipal corporation be expanded significantly. This view will be reflected in the proposal that I will submit to the people.

Second, in examining the bills I can find no provision that expressly gives the District Council the power to raise revenues through a local tax system. Though such power might be inferred from the general legislative power given to the Council, I would think that it would be sensible to spell out such important authority. In this connection, I note that Senator Mathias' bill would expressly deny the District government the power to impose a commuter tax. With all respect to my friend Senator Mathias, whom I have known over the years and whom as a Congressional Representative in the House was of great assistance in forming the significant legislation of the 1960's with respect to civil rights, on this question I strongly oppose this limitation. Without discussing the merits of the question, I will only observe that almost every major urban jurisdiction has found it fair and equitable to tax those who earn their livings in the city but reside elsewhere. I believe that the District government should possess such authority to tax income where it is earned. I might say that this should be the case even in the absence of home rule. Again, these comments will be reflected in the legislation that I am preparing and will introduce.

Third, I would strongly urge the committee to reconsider the provision of the bills that wou'd give the President veto power over locally passed legislation where he determines that the Federal interest is adversely affected. This broad language would allow the President to nullify local legislation at his will. In my opinion, such a provision is not needed to protect the Federal interest. The bills make it perfectly clear that the Congress retains ultimate legislative authority over the District. If this local government acts in such a way as to seriously harm the Federal interest, Congress will have the right to override the local action. It seems to me that this is an ample safeguard. My proposal will eliminate this provision.

Finally, while both S. 1603 and S. 1626 contain provision for an automatic Federal payment, I am not sure that either approach adequately deals with the problem of financing the District gov

ernment.

According to rough estimates that my staff has done, Senator Eagleton's approach would generate far less revenue than is now provided the District government through the Federal payment. At the very least, any payment formula that is developed should not result in a reduction in the amount received and should take into account the urgent fiscal needs of this city.

Senator Mathias' approach would appear to preserve the existing Federal payment level. I do not mean to suggest that I have a final answer to this question for you today. I am still considering some of these matters and will recommend an approach when my home rule bill is submitted for review by the people.