has considered and voted on the matter. These actions are normally only taken after exhaustive committee or task force review and recommendations.

Under these circumstances we obviously are unable to comment fully respecting the President's message on the D.C. form of government which was transmitted to Congress on Monday, April 28th.

There are some portions of the program recommended by the President for which the board has formulated policy and upon which I will briefly comment.

For more than 50 years the board of trade has been in the forefront of organizations seeking "national representation" for the District of Columbia. We have carried on continuing activities aimed at securing for our residents the Presidential vote and voting representation in the Congress.

Some years ago the Board of Trade took the initiative in splitting the long time proposed, all inclusive national representation amendment to the Constitution into two parts and led the fight to secure enactment of the 23rd amendment which gave our citizens the right to vote for President and Vice President.

During the last Congress the Board continued to seek adoption of the remainder of the national representation proposal which would give to the District of Columbia voting representation in the Congress. We supported the resolution which reads as follows and which provides for the election of:

At least one Representative in Congress and, as may be provided by law, one or more additional Representatives or Senators, or both, up to the number to which the District would be entitled if it were a State.

We will continue to vigorously seek adoption of such an amendment to the Constitution.

The President has asked the Congress "to create a Commission on Self-Government for the District of Columbia, to be charged with transmitting to Congress and the President a proposal for establishing meaningful self-government in the District." Certainly this is a matter which merits thorough study and consideration and I can, I am sure, endorse the President's proposal to proceed with this analysis.

For many years we have sought to expand the powers of the District of Columbia government by transferring a number of functions from the Congress and the executive departments which, in our opinion, can best be pursued on a local level.

Specifically, we have sought to implement a policy adopted by the Board of Trade in 1959 which would transfer to the District of Columbia local planning functions currently being exercised by the National Capital Planning Commission. Let me comment briefly on other recommendations in the President's message not directly concerned with the District of Columbia form of government.

We support in principle, as we have for many years, the adoption of a suitable formula for determining the payment by the U.S. Government to the District of Columbia as its appropriate share in financing the Federal City. We have not yet had an opportunity to examine the 30-percent proposal made by the President, but we will do so promptly. We also seek the development of a balanced transportation system consisting of needed freeways and a new rail rapid transit system. We support in principle the Pennsylvania Avenue plan. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Weir. We appreciate very much your being with us this morning.

Mr. WEIR. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Theodore R. Hagans, Jr., president of the District of Columbia Chamber of Commerce. We are delighted to welcome you here.

STATEMENT OF THEODORE R. HAGANS, JR., PRESIDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. HAGANS. Mr. Chairman, do you wish me to read my statement? The CHAIRMAN. We can incorporate it in its entirety and ask you to comment on it, or comment on any of the points or testimony that are relevant that you have heard here this morning.

Mr. HAGANS. The chamber of commerce, the economic development. committee of the chamber of commerce, did go over the bills as proposed.

We haven't had the opportunity to evaluate the President's proposal. However, we think, as is incorporated in my statement, that the Council, as well as the Mayor, should be elected immediately, that there should not be delays with regard to this, and if possible, the Commission, the charter commission, can be formed after that time to determine the scope of the reorganization of the city.

We have no qualms about the election, in that we recognize that the Federal Government certainly has to protect its interests in the District of Columbia. Under these circumstances if we are asking that the Federal Government pay 35 percent of the taxes, that it ought to have at least that representation, or the wherewithal to select that representation on the Commission as it sees fit. We feel that the rest of the members of the Commission should be elected.

Further, we would prefer partisan elections. We think that partisan elections help to strengthen the growth of the democratic process. Since we have two major parties in this country, we recognize that the growth in the lopsided election with regard to the 1968 election, shows that perhaps the Republican Party needs growth in this city, and it may have an opportunity to grow with partisan elections.

Outside of that, we think that section 304 of your bill allows the city to expand the Council. We recognize that the type of government that we have now is subject to the errors that it has because of its appointment. That no President, in spite of all the advice he may seek, is going to be able to have the full advice of the total community when he is not necessarily a part of that community. That selection of the present Council may, in the eyes of some of the citizens of the District. of Columbia, have been a mistake. We recognize that until such time as we have the ability to elect the representative of our government there is going to be a continuation of these mistakes.

(The prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THEODORE R. HAGANS, JR., PRESIDENT, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, Members of The United States Senate-Committee On The District of Columbia, and, Friends: My name is Theodore R. Hagans, Jr., a native Washingtonian. Having spent the greater portion of my adult life, to date, working for the betterment of my own birth city, I am, at the present time, Desident of The District of Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Vice President of

Uptown Progress Committee, Inc., Second Vice President of the Model Inner City Community Organization, and The Washington Board of Trade. My other community work includes membership on the following boards and council: United Planning Organization, Junior Citizens Corps, and the Health and Welfare Council.

I am here, today, in behalf of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, which has enjoyed a distinguished existence over the past thirty-one years and has, during that span of time, labored long and hard, not only for the advancement of minority business persons in our city but for the citizenry as a whole, in all things economic, political, and, social. It is because of these efforts that I am appearing before the Committee on the District of Columbia, right now, to advise you as United States Senators, concerned with the welfare of the District of Columbia, as to the desires and requests of the D.C. Chamber regarding home rule for our city.

The unequivocal position of the D.C. Chamber is and shall continue to be that the residents of Washington, D.C. must be given full citizenship through the orderly process of self government locally controlled and administered. While I realize that the expression of "no taxation without representation" is a well-worn cliche, the truth of this statement is not diminished, one iota, by the passage of time. Indeed, a truly responsible local government is not, in fact, representative of those being governed, if, indeed, it is not responsive to the wishes of the people it attempts to serve.

Coupled with the foregoing statement of truths, it is The Chamber's feeling that it is unreasonable to expect the citizens of Washington, D.C. to pay taxes for a government which they, in no way, have any control over and which is not a part of their free choosing. In short, then, the D.C. Chamber feels that the responsibilities of full citizenship in the District of Columbia should be accompanied by the full rights of citizenship.

From time to time, the D.C. Chamber of Commerce has spoken out in favor of home rule for the District of Columbia with its elected officials being held accountable to the people. And, by the same token, these elected officials should and must be given the necessary powers to carry out their responsibilities.

It is the sincere, considered judgment of those of us in the D.C. Chamber of Commerce, that good government must be equated with local government. It is only through this vehicle that a city is enabled to take control of its future through the reforming of its institutions, from time to time, and thereby making its government truly representative of its citizens. The further extension of this principle makes it possible for this same representative government to act upon the needs of the entire community of citizens.

The D.C. Chamber of Commerce does not, at this time, wish to offer an assessment of our existing form of government, brief as its life has been, but The Chamber does believe that an orderly election process, among other changes, would have the net beneficial effect of increasing the responsibility and efficiency of our new government.

In line with these thoughts, The D.C. Chamber of Commerce wishes to list for your consideration and action the following priorities, as we see them, in this regard, which we feel will improve our fair city.

1. Immediate provision for an elected self government for the District of Columbia.

2. Full Congressional representation in both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

3. A realistic formula to be worked out in regard to the Federal Payment pegged to local tax and other general fund revenues. Said formula to consist of a minimum of 30 to 35 percent contribution.

4. Increase, immediately, the number of top management positions in the District of Columbia Government to effectively carry out the duties and responsibilities of the local government's reorganization.

5. Transfer a major portion of the legislative and administrative functions from the Congress to the local City Council and the D.C. Mayor. The District of Columbia Chamber of Commerce is of the opinion that if these five (5) points, as enunciated above, are carried out, within a reasonable time, through the instrument of self local government, viz., viz., home rule, there would be nothing but plus marks for all concerned, including the Federal Government, the newly organized Local Government, the Administrative Agency Setup, and, last, but by no means least, the citizens of Washington, D.C. We strongly urge you to recommend such action, Mr. Chairman!

May I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the members of your Committee For The District of Columbia, for inviting me to appear before you, to testify, in this regard, for the minority business community of the District of Columbia.

Thank you! Thank you!

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hagans, for your statement and your contributions to this hearing.

The hearing will stand recessed until 2 o'clock this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

The committee reconvened at 2 p.m., Senator Joseph D. Tydings (chairman of the committee), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. We will reconvene the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia.

Our first witness is Mr. Marion Barry.

STATEMENT OF MARION BARRY, JR., DIRECTOR, PRIDE, INC.

Mr. BARRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a written statement, which, really, is sort of a guide and outline to what my views are.

The CHAIRMAN. We will incorporate the statement in its entirety, and you may proceed, using it as a guide.

Mr. BARRY. Because of my intense feelings about the matter, I think it is really easier for me to talk about it.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I would like to commend you for holding these hearings on such a vital and basic subject such as home rule.

I would also like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear here and testify.

Before I proceed, I brought four or five guys down with me to listen to these proceedings, because these are the kind of guys who very seldom come to hearings like this.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to have them sit up with you, Mr. Barry? You can introduce them for the committee record.

Mr. BARRY. To my left is Mr. Donald Cunningham with Pride, Mr. Clifton Armstrong, Mr. Charles Thomas, and Mr. Pittman, who are out trying to get this statement put together in its proper form.

First of all, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I am not just a talker about the right of self-determination. I am a doer.

I have been living in the District of Columbia only 4 years, and during that period, particularly two of them, I have been working very diligently trying to get the right to vote for the District of Columbia.

In 1966 I launched the "Free District of Columbia" movement, which was controversial, but which revived a dying home rule movement. At that time we almost succeeded in getting self-determination.

Now, as to the basic position at hand, I think it is unfortunate that in 1969 we even have to take the time to discuss or debate whether 900,000 citizens should have the right to vote. I think that issue had been settled back in 1776, when the early settlers went to war against the British because of lack of self-determination and taxation without

representation. But it seems to me that issue was settled only so far as white people were concerned.

The question I raise is, are you, the Congress, the President, going to force us to have to go to war to try to get our freedom in Washington?

There should be no question that the politically enslaved citizens of Washington should have a right to elect a Mayor and City Council now. There should be no question that we should have our proportional share of representation in the House and two Senators.

As you know, the population of Washington is larger than 11 States. It seems to me that the President and some Members of the Congress are opposed to self-determination and blacks, that is, niggers they can't control, in Washington.

I have examined various aspects of the legislation, and I don't think we need to get into the details, except I would like for it to give us those things in terms of the Mayor and the City Council elected at this point.

I am unalterably opposed to the President's method of getting us home rule. I think the charter route is divisive, a trick, a fraud and a delaying tactic.

I think to look at the processes that have been raised before, the Charter Commission's only admission would be the right to a home rule bill. There is no guarantee that once that Commission goes to work and works on such a process that the Congress or the President will accept that Charter Commission's final report, or there is no guarantee that they won't alter the Commission's report so much as to make it unworkable and unfeasible.

Therefore, I think all that work will have gone for nothing. Again, it raises the hopes and aspirations and feelings of the people, and it creates animosity, which I don't think we need more of in 1969.

In addition, I think the Charter Commission route divides the forces of us fighting for the right to vote. This is evident by the views you have heard here and, I am sure, will hear later on. I think that is a good tactic to use, divide us so you can conquer us.

I think if that is such a good plan, the President should propose it for Vietnam, for many Washingtonians are fighting there and dying there to get the vote in that country.

As to the constitutional amendment and I have talked with a large number of people in the last 2 days-I, along with the large majority of people, feel this is of no value to us. I think blacks have been invisible for too long.

It seems to me the Presidents method is perpetuating this. It is like the slave master saying to the slave, “Come to the table and watch me eat, but you can't eat."

I think if some people are willing to play that game of slave master, some of us in the District are not willing to act as hungry slaves.

The constitutional amendment is doomed to failure. It would take 2 or 3 years to enact it, but I think it is unlikely that some Southern States and some conservative Western States would give us the vote here. Washington is 70 percent black.

Finally, my feeling is, Mr. Chairman, that because this is such a bad plan, and not home rule now, I will use my influence, and I will work to urge Washingtonians to boycott the selection of the Charter