but during my years in the House I have never found a man who has dug more deeply into the problems of government in his attempt to be helpful than the man who has just testified before you.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I will present, very brifly, two propositions. One must be classed somewhat as local and the other as national in its scope.

The first will have to do with the jurisdiction of the Congress over the District of Columbia. The reason I address myself to that subject is because for more than 12 years I have been a member of the House District Committee.

For more than 6 years I have acted as its chairman. It is my considered opinion, after study and experience in that position, that we have reached the time when we should have one joint Senate-House Committee on the District of Columbia. I would propose that that committee be composed of 21 members and that each 2-year period the Senate have, as the head of the committee, a member of its body, and that each 2 years the House have that position. In other wrods, that there be an alternating of chairmen to take effect at each of the 2-year periods.

I would further suggest that with the chairman there be a cochairman, or an associate chairman, and that individual would, of course, be either a Senate or House Member, in accordance with the plan that I just outlined.

In that manner we would alleviate or obviate the duplication of testimony that comes largely from District of Columbia officials in connection with pending legislation.

Most of the measures that come before the District Committee are not of a controversial nature. I do not mean that they lack importance, because, as long as Congress is charged with the responsibility of legislating for this District of Columbia, we have a very definite responsibility.

But, by and large, the measures that come before us are of a type where it is unnecessary to repeat the testimony of the witnesses in both the House and the Senate. We would save valuable time of the witnesses and of the Members of Congress, and, of course, reduce the cost that now occurs with duplicate hearings.

I believe the number should be 21 members, with the Senate having, when its chairman would be in charge for a 2-year period, the working majority of 1, and vice versa.

I want to point out to this joint committee that it has been my experience that no partisanship has ever influenced the action of either the Senate or House District committees. I think, very largely, that those members who serve on these groups do it from a sense of duty. I like to believe that, and from my contact with the members I feel that it is a fair statement to make.

So there would not be the partisanship that might disrupt such a committee plan if it were dealing with other subject matters

Now, if there are questions I would rather answer them at this time. before I go into the next phase of my brief testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would like to ask whether or not you have given consideration to the possibility of a reduction, to some extent, in the volume and character of legislation which the Congress must consider in connection with the government of the District of Columbia?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Senator La Follette, our House District Committee has done just that, and during the Seventy-eighth Congress we passed legislation which places in the hands of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia additional powers. We hope that by doing so many bills which are now before the Congress, that have come before the Congress in the regular manner, could be handled by the three Commissioners appointed by the President.

Mr. Cox. What is your suggestion as to what Congress should do with respect to the demand that comes up to us to give the District a government of its own?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Judge Cox, I have

Mr. Cox. I will not press the question.

Mr. RANDOLPH. It is a good question and I think, if I start to discuss it, it will take a considerable time.

Mr. Cox. All right, I will dispense with it.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I will say this, if I might, that I am in favor of the pending legislation introduced by our distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Judge Sumners, of Texas. I know of no man in the House that, shall we say, is more a student of government and who thinks more clearly in matters of that type than Judge Sumners, and I am in favor of his resolution which would put the matter of an election of the President and Vice President and certain representation through the District in Congress directly to the States for a vote for a constitutional amendment. I believe that that is a fair way to handle the matter.

Mr. Cox. You would not offer that as a solution of this other problem, would you?

Mr. RANDOLPH. No, I would not. That is why I said as long as we are charged with the responsibility, and, frankly, I think we are going to be charged with it always.

Mr. MICHENER. Your testimony, given along this line, is based upon the assumption that the present law and conditions will continue to exist?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Michener, that is correct, because I see no other way in which we might proceed here to improve the legislative processes in connection with the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask, do you feel that the legislation that was passed granting more power and more jurisdiction to the District Commissioners went as far in that direction as you think we should go? Mr. RANDOLPH. No, I think it was only a beginning. We attempted to get to those functions that could be carried finally by the Commissioners with the least amount of opposition from groups who would want that retained in Congress. Yet in the middle of this week in the House, and presumably later in the week, you will have it before you in the Senate, it was necessary to bring a bill before the membership in connection with the height of a building.

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to bring that out.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Where only 8 feet were involved.

The CHAIRMAN. We had to throw into high gear the legislative machinery to pass on whether the Georgetown University Hospital should be 8 feet higher or not.

Mr. RANDOLPH. That is correct.

Mr. LANE. How often does the District Committee meet?

Mr. RANDOLPH. We met each week prior to the war, but during the time when the members are intensely interested in national legisla tion and the burden of their office duty is upon them, we have called our committee together only when it appeared we were ready to act on legislation.

Mr. LANE. How often would that be?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I would say twice a month, taking it over the period of the Seventy-eighth Congress.

Mr. LANE. How many members are on the committee now?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Twenty-one members.

Mr. LANE. Now on the committee?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir. I desire to say our subcommittees have functioned and have held extensive hearings. We have standing subcommittees that have carried on in the absence of full committee hearings.

Mr. LANE. This would make it a joint committee of 21 instead? Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes, sir. Someone might say it is revolutionary thinking, but I believe it is sound, I believe it would be economic, productive of better legislation, and would make for a finer working relationship between the District of Columbia and the Congress of the United States.

Mr. MICHENER. Those joint committees theoretically are undoubtedly correct, but as a practical matter I am just wondering, basing my thought on what has happened in the past, whether joint committees as a rule have not been unsuccessful.

Mr. LANE. As a rule, in joint committees a Senator is always the chairman; isn't he?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I believe that is the custom which is followed, although I am not attempting to say.

The CHAIRMAN. That certainly is not true of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation. That chairmanship alternates with each Congress.

Mr. RANDOLPH. That is right, Mr. Doughton was the chairman. The CHAIRMAN. That alternates between the House and the Senate. Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.

The VICE CHAIRMAN. Undoubtedly your proposal would tend in some way to simplify our work. I am just wondering, with the increasing burden that is being placed upon Congress, both nationally and internationally, and the economic and social problems, how long we can afford the luxury and expense of using the Congress for a purely city council job. My interest is in that direction. I do not think Congress is tailored to fit that kind of work, and sooner or later we must take some action to divorce ourselves from all possible detail which is purely local and purely administrative.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Monroney, you are correct; you are 100 per cent correct. My suggestion here, and I would call it a recommendation, would tend toward that desired goal.

The CHAIRMAN. With all due respect to all of the time and attention which I know certain members of both the House and Senate District Committees have given to the problem of the District, and with all due respect to the consideration which both Houses have given to it, it has always seemed to me that to the extent that Congress could be relieved of the function of a common council, as Representa

tive Monroney has put it, of the District, and that power given to the District, both the Congress and the District would benefit therefrom. Mr. RANDOLPH. I think so, Senator LaFollette. You are quite correct.

Mr. Cox. Even under the present system it is pretty well governed, considering the town is comparatively small.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I think the District of Columbia has been well governed.

Mr. Cox. I did not mean to intimate that I am at all opposed to giving the District of Columbia a government of its own.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I want to pay tribute to the splendid work of both Senate and House Members, who have given of their time to a problem that is not easy when those men think in terms of the reaction in their home districts and States.

The VICE CHAIRMAN. I know of no greater personal sacrifice that is made by any group of men in the House and Senate than is made by the members of those two committees. It is absolutely nonproductive as far as their own districts are concerned.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank you for that statement, because I am sure that the members who have given of their time deserve what you have said.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with that.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Now, if it is agreeable, I would like to proceed, and it will only take me a moment.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I am in agreement with the position taken by Representative Cochran, and perhaps many others, that there should be an elimination of many of the committees. In other words, a combination of committee duties as now constituted into smaller units; in other words, two committees combining themselves into one. I feel, however, that it is proper for your group to think very carefully about the need for one new committee and I hesitate to advance that thought and that is a standing committee on aviation.

I think one of the most tragic results that can come to America will be the failure of the Congress to properly plan and legislate for commercial and civilian aviation in this country.

Mr. MICHENER. Haven't we a very good committee on that subject now?

Mr. Cox. The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Mr. RANDOLPH. Judge Cox, without any disparagement of the membership of that committee, and certainly my words cannot be so construed, that group has approximately 40 subjects before it for consideration, and only recently in that committee has been appointed a subcommittee on aviation.

Aviation has come of age in this country and we cannot adequately provide the incentive for its growth through the hearings that may or may not take place within a large committee.

Mr. Cox. Would not the setting up of a committee on transportation, taking in all forms of service, be better than just a committee on aviation?

Mr. RANDOLPH. If I may pursue my thought just a bit further, I would say there was an attempt in 1942, in the House, to amend the rules to provide for a standing committee on aviation. The leadership of the Republican Party, through Mr. Martin, supported that

proposal, and we had a roll call on it, after adequate debate, and it was defeated by approximately 125 votes.

Now, I feel that the reason is more acute now than it was then for a standing committee on aviation, and I am glad to see the activity of Senator McCarran in your body, in attempting to bring that about on this side of the Capitol. He has vigorously spoken out in that connection.

Now, I believe that it is necessary, and when we think of what aviation will do to our economy and what it can mean in connection with our relationship as a country to the other parts of the world, that we have a standing committee on aviation.

I feel, as to a committee on transportation, that the problems of varying types of transportation, rail, water, highway, and air, are of a magnitude that one committee could not possibly handle the subject matter and do justice to the Nation.

We have had our highway system built through the years, and that was largely done because Congress, in its foresight, through the Federal-aid program for highways, through the Committee on Roadsand the same has been true with our merchant marine-has done a good deal to stimulate that.

Now we come to a time when I think it is necessary, and I hope you will not take this lightly, that you will think very carefully and get perhaps expert opinion from others who have studied the matter, who are in the business, because I feel it is advisable, if we are to reap the fullest benefit of what I believe to be the greatest instrumentality that has ever been given to our people for a better nation, for a closer welding of our business interests, and for the purposes of peace.

I have given much study to that subject and I hope you will not allow it to just pass by without the most careful thought.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Randolph, what committee is handling aviation legislation now?

Mr. RANDOLPH. That is in the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and that committee, as I said, has approximately 40 other subjects before it for consideration. It now is working day after day on the subject of Federal communications, the radio problem, and there will be another problem tomorrow wholly divorced from the purposes and possibilities of aviation in this country.

We are going to have, when this war is completed, several million young men who are going to return to America and who are going to want to continue to fly, and they are not going to want to travel 50 or 60 miles to get into a private plane to do that flying, they are going to want to do it from their own community, within 15 or 20 minutes' drive of their own front door.

I hope we will make no mistake about the tremendous number of pilots and crews that, coming back to us, will develop aviation in this country commercially.

The CHAIRMAN. I might say at the moment we have a conflict of jurisdiction in the Senate on this.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Between your Senate Committee on Commerce and your Interstate Commerce Committee?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. RANDOLPH. That is true. I know decisions which should be made now are being delayed weeks and perhaps months in the Senate