« AnteriorContinuar »
Hon. Walter Pauntroy
exists pursuant to the legislature's general powers. Thus, we are unable to suggest specific language that we think would be both useful and appropriate. However, if the Subcommittee is strongly of the view that there should be language in the proposed Constitution addressing the issue of private discrimination, perhaps a sentence along the following lines would serve the purpose:
The legislature shall by law provide appropriate protection against private discrimination and other forms of governmental discrimination, including discrimination based on age and poverty.
Mr. BARNES. We want to thank you for your testimony and your responses to the questions and for taking the time to come out and share that with us.
I believe Congressman Fauntroy would want to note the presence of Council Member Hilda Mason from the Statehood Party, certainly long-distance champions of this effort, and I am certain that Council Member Mason joins us in welcoming all of the groups that are now coming forward to endorse this. Certainly the ACLU and its efforts in connection with the D.C. voting rights amendment did not go unnoticed, and certainly played no small part.
As Council Member Mason will note along with us, many groups are now coming to the front on this effort, and it will continue.
The written testimony of both Professors Newman and Lawson will be made a part of the record, and with that, this hearing is adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)
HEARING ON ECONOMIC ISSUES RAISED BY STATEHOOD FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1986
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m.,
in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Walter E. Fauntroy (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representative Fauntroy.
Also present: Johnny Barnes, senior staff counsel, and Donn G. Davis, senior legislative associate.
Mr. FAUNTROY. The subcommittee will come to order.
During this and the last Congress, we have conducted a series of hearings in an effort to exhaustively address the issue of statehood for the District of Columbia.
We have heard from Members of the House and Senate, including Senators Kennedy, Specter, and Inouye, and Congressmen Rodino, Udall, Gray, and Don Edwards. I should note that Congressman Rodino is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, while Congressman Udall is chairman of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. These two committees are ordinarily the committees of jurisdiction on statehood measures and I consider the support of Chairman Rodino and Chairman Udall to be very important.
Together with oral and written comments we received from other Members of Congress, as well as from officials in the executive and judicial branches of the Federal and District governments, the testimony of the Senators and Congressmen formed the basis for work performed by an informal task force to perfect the proposed constitution for the State of New Columbia. The task force worked for a full year, and the results of their labor can be found in D.C. Committee Print S-2.
The work of the task force formed the basis for another hearing, at which we heard from the Mayor of the District, the council chairman, and the District's Statehood Party representative on the D.C. Council. We also heard from a panel of persons who have served on the task force, including Dr. Charles Cassell, the president of the D.C. Statehood Constitutional Convention, and Miss Josephine Butler, chairperson of the D.C. Statehood Commission, among others. The record of that hearing can be found in D.C. Committee Print 99-3.
In May of this year we heard from several distinguished practitioners and academicians from the legal profession. Lawyers and law professors were asked to respond to several key legal and constitutional issues that have emerged in connection with D.C. statehood. Testimony was also received on the proposed constitution.
Today we turn our attention to the question of what financial gains and/or losses will the District of Columbia experience if it be comes a State. Specifically, we have asked our distinguished panel of witnesses to respond to the following issues:
First, what effect, if any, will statehood have on the Federal payment. Second, how will the District's taxing authority be affected by statehood. Third, will the District, as a State, be treated any differently than the current government for purposes of Federal grants and loans. And finally, what are the expected transition costs of statehood.
There are those who have argued that we cannot afford to be a State. Still others have asserted that we can no longer afford not to be a State. I believe that while the price of freedom may be costly, it is far less costly than the price of bondage.
Today we expect to learn what the price of statehood for the people living in the residential parts of the District of Columbia might be. Today we take one more important step forward in our quest for full self-determination.
To begin us on this strive toward our freedom, I am very pleased to welcome our first witnesses, Dr. Andrew Brimmer. As you all know, Dr. Brimmer is a renowned economist and financial consultant who presently serves as president of Brimmer & Co., Inc. He was appointed a member of the Federal Reserve System's Board of Governors during former President Lyndon Baines Johnson's administration. Parenthetically, it has been my privilege for the last 6 years to chair the Subcommittee on Domestic and Monetary Policy of the Banking Committee and, thus, to oversee the operations of the Fed.
Dr. Brimmer's employment history spans across many_fields, from that of an economist, a professor, a director, to that of Deputy Assistant Secretary and Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Review for the Department of Commerce.
Dr. Brimmer is an economist's economist, whose company has produced for us an impeccable report entitled, “Fiscal Prospects for the State of New Columbia," a document which I predict will become a textbook for those studying this historic era in our development as a people in the District of Columbia. So, without objection, I want to include this landmark work as a part of the record.
[The report may be found in the appendix on p. 575.]
Mr. FAUNTROY. Dr. Brimmer, if I began to list your many accomplishments, we would be here all day. I will resist that urge and just ask you to assume the witness chair and tell us what we need to know.
[The prepared opening statement of Mr. Fauntroy follows:]