severe criticism for its purported delay in completing the hearings; but, notwithstanding that, we do think that you and others are entitled to be heard on your request. So we are glad to have you this morning and the committee is glad also to have you present your views this morning and receive your suggestions, you coming before this committee as a witness and as a proponent of this legislation.

Mr. DEANE. Mr. Chairman and my friends of the committee and colleagues, I am very grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind words. I do not come this morning posing as an expert, but I do come sincerely interested in joining with you, I trust, in developing now and in the future, I hope, some sound approach to home rule for the District of Columbia.

Mr. HARRIS. We are glad to have a statement by you.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES B. DEANE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. DEANE. At the outset, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire to express my appreciation for this opportunity to appear before your committee.

I do not come contending that I know all the answers to this exceedingly important subject of home rule, but I do come with the belief that I am conversant with the subject of home rule for the District.

During the Eightieth Congress it was my pleasure to serve on the House District Committee. I gave up my assignment on this committee with a great deal of reluctance, and did so only in order to accommodate the leadership of the House incident to the Democratic majority in this Eighty-first Congress.

If the opportunity should come, I would again welcome an opportunity to serve the people of Washington, representing as they do a great cross section of this Nation of ours.

You gentlemen of the committee recall that I was a member of the Home Rule Subcommittee during the Eightieth Congress that reported out H. R. 6227, introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Auchincloss. I hesitate to burden the committee with the details about those bearings. I hope that I will not appear presumptious in pointing out that there were 28 days of hearings on H. R. 6227 introduced by Mr. Auchincloss. I was present on 21 of those days. Our subcommittee heard 178 witnesses, received 51 statements and resolutions, and developed 1,178 pages of testimony. In making reference to those lengthy hearings and recalling the outstanding service rendered to the committee by an expert and sincere staff, it is my opinion that no other committee gave a more complete, full, and thorough study of the problem of local self-government for the District of Columbia than did this subcommittee of the Eightieth Congress.

My participation in those days and days of hearings convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt that the citizens of the District of Columbia should have restored to them the right to participate in their own local government. I repeat, the citizens of the District of Columbia should have restored to them the right to participate in their own local government. I can be rightly stated that the proposed legislation is an effort to promulgate to some degree, at least, what

the founding fathers contemplated for the Nation's Capital. Surely Madison had this in mind when he stated that a "municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrage" would be extended to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Local self-government was promised the people of Washington by James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution. This District Committee, therefore, will not be setting up any precedent in adopting the principle of home rule because when the Federal Government moved into Washington, the people of this city enjoyed selfgovernment from 1802 until 1874, a practical construction of the Constitution.

Far be it from me to pose as any constitutional authority, but I am constrained to point out, in view of statements that have been made before this committee, that the home-rule bill of the Eightieth Congress and the bill now pending before you have been upheld by the Attorney General of the United States, by House and Senate legislative counsel, and by several eminent constitutional lawyers with whom this distinguished committee is most familiar. For my part, these eminent authorities immediately dispel the constitutional doubts that may be expressed by others.

A study of S. 1527, frequently referred to as the Kefauver bill, will show that in many respects it is largely patterned after H. R. 6227 that I have mentioned before. I shall not take up the time of the committee to compare the two bills or argue their special merits so far as construction is concerned.

To me both bills represent an intelligent and sincere effort to make democracy real and make it work in the Nation's Capital. A denial of the right of some form of self-government to the disfranchised citizens of this great city violates every principle of democracy.

My colleagues of the committee, I have often wondered what the many thousands of young people reaching voting age here in the Nation's Capital, who have had the advantage of the very best educational opportunities, think of members of committees who stand on the floor of the House and demand that free elections be granted to certain downtrodden people of Europe and Asia, and then deny any form of local self-government to the people of this great city, the only capital in the world where the voices of the citizens are completely silent. I regret, gentlemen, that I had to make that statement, because this is the best fuel that Moscow needs to show that democracy and freedom are denied in the very Capital of the Nation that champions the four freedoms.

The urgent plea I make, gentlemen, in behalf of a teenie-weenie voice in local government for this great city, I make not so much in behalf of the adults of our Capital City, but for the many thousands of choice young people now present in the District of Columbia, and who will be joined by countless thousands in the immediate years ahead.

Frequently since I became a Member of Congress, in contemplating the plight of voteless Washingtonians, I have pictured myself as a disfranchised father in Washington, the father of a son of voting age. This son has fought through the battles of Africa, Normandy, and the isles of the Pacific. He did so in order to preserve and make free the ballot and to have a voice in his Government. This son wants to know why he is denied some participation in the operation of his

Government. He recalls the sacrifices he made to preserve democracy and the right to vote. I am forced to admit that he is entitled to this participation as an American citizen; yet an intelligent Congress continues to deny him one of the most cherished rights given to an American citizen.

Gentlemen of the committee, that illustration is multiplied many, many times in this Capital City. In my opinion our continued failure to extend some form of home rule to the District of Columbia is going to warp and stint scores of youthful minds in this great city. I am convinced that the continued denial of some voice in their government is going to lead them into organizations that will not be healthy. On the other hand, it is my candid belief that if we extend home rule and thereby invite the two great major political parties to come in and compete for the loyalties of the people, young and old, of this District, you are going to set up a healthy city government that the Congress and the Nation will be proud to recognize.

The recent passage of a sales tax is going to greatly emphasize among the people of the District that they are denied the right to have a part in their government, and they are not going to feel good about it. Yet, on the other hand, if they are given some form of self-government, they are not going to voice much objection to this sales tax. And furthermore, I am convinced that the intelligent people of this District will seek out and elect the outstanding citizens of this community to run the affairs of this beautiful metropolis.

Time will not permit me to go into the type of opposition made against home rule. It generally falls into two categories. One group contends that it will be dangerous to grant home rule. As indicated previously, I contend it is going to be dangerous if Congress does not grant home rule. The others who oppose home rule are not sincere when they say, "We don't want home rule as contained in the bill because it represents only half a loaf." These "half a loaf" individuals who contend that they are opposed to home rule because it does not give the District representation in Congress are shadowboxing. It indicates a lack of courage to oppose outright home rule. You distinguished lawyers on this committee know that these "half a loaf" individuals who talk so much about national representation for the District know full well that we will never have national representation until there is some type of home rule. National representation will come only through a constitutional amendment passed by two-thirds of the House and Senate and approved by threefourths of the States. Such a resolution likewise must emanate from the Judiciary Committees and not from the Committees on the District.

The second division of my statement, that I appreciate the opportunity of expressing to the committee, concerns the cumbersome city government.

The Congress is highly commendable in its praise of the work of the Hoover Commission. The Congress saw fit to appropriate a large sum of money for the careful study of the many bureaus and commissions of the Federal Government in an effort to streamline and make more efficient and more economical the operations of the Government agencies. It may be interesting to the members of the committee to know that early in the deliberations of the Hoover Commission, Prof. James K. Pollock of the University of Michigan, a member of the

Hoover Commission, conferred with Dr. George B. Galloway, staff director of the Subcommittee on Home Rule and Reorganization of the House District Committee in the Eightieth Congress, and raised the question of whether or not the Commission should make a study of the organization of the government of the District of Columbia. Dr. Galloway advised Professor Pollack of the extensive investigations of the District government during the Eightieth Congress by the House District Committee. The lengthy hearings, including the extensive investigations carried on by the members of the staff of the District Committee during the Eightieth Congress, and the House District Subcommittee recommendations were made available to the Hoover Commission. The upshot of the matter was that the Hoover Commission decided not to make a study of the District government. I am led to believe, therefore, that the Hoover Commission recognized as being worthy of consideration the findings and recommendations of the House District Committee in the Eightieth Congress concerning the complex structure and interrelationships of the District government.

I do not wish to burden the committee with too many details, but I have heard members of the present House District Committee who oppose home rule say without reservation that there is urgent need for the complete reorganization of the District government.

Our subcommittee in the Eightieth Congress made an exhaustive study of Washington's government. We found that it was incredibly complicated and cumbersome. From a mere handful of agencies in 1878, it has grown haphazardly until today there are about 125 major units of government rendering services in the District of Columbia, of which 48 are Federal and 77 are District agencies. And there are as many more subunits.

Washington's government baffles description. It is unique among American cities. Federal, State, county, and municipal functions are scattered among a host of governmental agencies without any apparent rhyme or reason. Authority over District affairs is divided among many independent boards and commissions. A dozen agencies share the ordinance-making power and executive authority is likewise splintered. At the top of this set-up is a Board of three Commissioners who exercise split supervision of local affairs. None of the local officials is elected. Members of the Board and other key posts in the District government are appointed by the President. Vacancies in local posts are often left unfilled for long periods by a busy President preoccupied with larger affairs and outsiders are frequently selected for these places, to the neglect and disappointment of local talent.

At the present time, five governmental agencies in the city of Washington are charged with police protection, three with recreation, two with water supply, two with road building, and two with the care of trees. Nor is there any unified personnel system for the employees of the local government.

Intertwined with this tangled network of local agencies are more than twoscore Federal agencies which operate in the District of Columbia and render services to it, such as the National Capital Housing Authority and the United States Employment Service. At the hearings held by the subcommittee last July, it took Federal officials 4 days and 120 printed pages to explain the intricate relation

ships of their agencies and services to the government and people of the District.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, a challenging opportunity equal to the commendable work of the Hoover Commission rests on this committee's doorstep in coming to grips with the cumbersome government of this city.

Washington is today a great city with almost 1,000,000 inhabitants, yet it is still trying to function through bureaus, boards, and agencies that are not only hoary with age but antiquated to the nth degree. In outward appearance it is the fitting Capital of a Nation now at the pinnacle of its power and prestige; yet, it is still governed by a charter adopted almost three-quarters of a century in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for this opportunity to express these views.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much.

May I say to my colleague that we are very glad to have your statement and the forthright way in which you have presented your

views.

Mr. Auchincloss, have you any questions?

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. I have no questions to ask, but I just want to express my gratitude to Mr. Deane for his coming before us today, and to say that he was a valuable member of the Home Rule Committee of the Eightieth Congress and rendered a big service to the committee and the community.

Mr. DEANE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. Mr. ALLEN of California. Mr. Chairman, one of the great pleasures I have had and which I will remember with appreciation is my recollection of the experience during the Eightieth Congress in having worked with Mr. Deane on the Auchincloss subcommittee of the District Committee. It seemed to be the understanding that the people should have some appropriate voice in their own affairs. A very fine contribution was made by Mr. Deane.

My attention was called this morning to an editorial in the TimesHerald that this proposal would not give home rule. As I remember our discussions during the meetings of the Auchincloss committee, we endeavored to set up a system within the Constitution as it now exists, a system which would entirely preserve the rights of the people of the Nation to have a Federal City, and within those limitations still give the vote to the people of the District and permit them to have an active participation in their own affairs and permit them an opportunity to express their views.

Now with that thought in mind, would you express your views a little more fully, if you care to, as to the approach which we made in the writing of this bill, particularly as to whether or not it was an attempt to set up home rule with the consent of the governed, and as to whether we disregarded the rights of the people to have a Federal City?

Mr. DEANE. I haven't seen the editorial to which you refer, but in our study that we carried on during those many days of hearings, as you recall, we communicated with many States-and, in fact, I think there were some 40 or more States replied to questionnaires submitted by the committee and its staff in an effort to give to the people of the District some form of home rule and at the same time not to take away from Congress its rights under the Constitution.