PAGENO="0001" D.C. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIO~, bEP~OSITORY HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLU1\'IBiA APRIL 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, AND 16, 1973 PART 2 RUTGERS LAW SCHOOL L!BRAR~ ~EN, N. J. 08102 GO~NMENT DOCUMENT Printed for the use of the Committee on the District of Columbia US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE /~7 74'A'/~6~ ~ 4 PAGENO="0002" DONALD M. FRASER, Minnesota W. S. (BILL) STUCKEY, Ja., Georgia RONALD V. DELLUMS, California THOMAS M. REES, California BROCK ADAMS, Washington WALTER E. FAUNTROY, District of Columbia JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina - ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky LES ASPIN, Wisconsin CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York JOHN BRECKINRIDGE, Kentucky FORTNEY H.. (PETE) STARK, California ANCHER NELSEN, Minnesota WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia GILBERT GUDE, Maryland HENRY P. SMITH III, New York EARL F. LANDGREBE, Indiana STEWART B. McKINNEY, Connecticut STEVEN D. -SYMMS, Idaho WILLIAM M. KETCHUM, California GENE TAYLOR, Missouri E. G. SHUSTER, Pennsylvania COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARLES C. DIGGS, Ja., Michigan, Chairman DOROTHY E. QUARKER, Chief of Staff ROBERT B. WASHINGTON, Jr., Chief Counsei JOHN E. HOGAN, Minority Counsei SUBCoMMIrIER ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS BROOK ADAMS, Washington, Ghairma-n DONALD M. FRASER, Minnesota EARL F. LANDGREBE, Indiana WALTER E. FAUNTROY, JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia District of Columbia STEVEN D. SYMMS, Idaho JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey JOHN BRECKINRIDGE, Kentucky (II) PAGENO="0003" Iv Page Richardson, Warren, general counsel, Liberty Lobby 125, 126 Simons, William H., president, Washington Teachers' Union, accompanied by Barry Spiegel, legislative assistant 77, 78 -` Trask, Alfred S., past president and member of executive board, Amer- ican University Park Citizens Association 90 COMMUNICATIONS Church, United Presbyterian, Washington Office: memo to Chairman and Members of House D.C. Committee of the Subcommittee on Governnient Operations 240 Meyers, Tedson J., D.C. City Council: letter to Congressman Adams, dated May .4, 1973 68 RESOLUTIONS AFL-CIO, Resolution No. 42 134 Federation of. Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia 105 APPENDIX STATEMENTS America, UnIted Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Work- ers of (UAW) 285 Association, Capitol Full Southeast Citizens 281 Association, National Education 282 B'nai B'rith Women 280 Congress, American Jewish 280 Coalition, Officers of New Democratic 283 Cyrus, LOvell L., executive director, District of Columbia Council 20, Amen- can Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO 278 Furman, Greene Chaimdler, Montgomery County, Md 293 Housing, Citizens Against Substandard, Inc 288 Megel, Carl J., American Federation of Teachers, (AFL-CIO) Self-Deter- m~nation for the District of Columbia 279 Morris, Edward B., Washington, D.C 290 Rarick, Hon. John R., a U.S. Representative in Congress from. the State of Louisiana 271 Rights. Leadership Conference on Civil 281 Ross, Mrs. Sherman 275 Seigel, Charles M., ninth-grade student 292 Strauss, Robert S., chairman, Democratic National Committee 280 Webber, Clyde M., national president, American Federation of Govern- ment Employees 277 COMMUNICATIONS Alexander, Sally J., Washington, D.C.: letter to chairman, Government Operations Subcommittee, dated April 10, 1973 288 Church, United Presbyterian Washington Office, The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.: memo to chairman and members of the Subcom- mittee on Government Operations, dated April 12, 1973 287 Corbett J. Elliott, Washington, D.C.: letter to Chairman Diggs, dated April 11, 1973 286 Kinimel, Mrs. Walter G., Chicago, Ill.: letter to Congressman Adams, dated April 20, 1973 285 Nevius, John A., Chairman, City Council: letter to Congressman Adams, dated March 26, 1973 283 Rarick, Hon. John R., a U.S. Representative from the State of Louisiana: letter to Congressman Adams, dated April 5, 1973 271 Se'den Lauren, Seattle, Wash.: letter to Congressman Adams, dated March 27, 1973 276 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION "Black Muslims Plan to Expand Activities"; article fro.m the Washing- ton Post, dated January 24, 1972 274 Excerpts from Proceedings of 39th Annual Convention, The Newspaper Guild (AFL-CIO, CLO) 284 PAGENO="0004" CONTENTS STATEMENTS Apperson, George, president, Greater Washington Central Labor Council, accompanied by Raymond F. Brown, president, Communications Work- ers of America, Local 2336; and Martin J. Bond, first vice president, Page Greater Washington Central Labor Council 131 Association, American University Park Citizens, statement of 89 Associations, Federation of Citizens, District of Columbia 94 Association, National Education, Home Rule Legislation 238 Bartholomew, Harland, past chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission: letter to Mr. Brady 104 Brady, George W., past president of the Federation of Citizens Associa- tions of the District of Columbia 97 Cassell, Charles 1., Statehood Party, accompanied by Larry Williams; Walter Mylecraine; and Edward Drinkard 35, 37,43 Clark, Richard, special assistant to the president, "Common Cause" 234, 229,239 Fletcher, Hon. Thomas, president, National Training and Development Services, and former Deputy Mayor of the District of Columbia 111, 112 Fortune, Connie, chairman, Washington Home Rule Committee, accom- panied by Craig S. Bamberger, legislative chairman 257 Genne, Mrs. William H., president, National Board of the YWCA of the U.S.A.: letter to Congressman Adams, dated April 12, 1973 241. Griffiths, Artuto, director, Washington Ghetto Industrial Development & Investment Corp., Inc 107 Guild, American Newspaper (AFL-CIO, CLC) 242 Hahn, Gilbert, Jr., former Chairman, D.C. City Council 264, 266 Hechinger, John W., Democratic National Committeeman for the District of Columbia and former Chairman of the City Council 24 Hobson, Julius, Sr.; D.C. Statehood Party, accompanied by Dick Brown; Josephine Butler; Julius Hobson, Jr.; Michael Lewis; and John Root__ 20 Jordan, Absalom, Black United Front 69 Josephson, Diana, chairman, Study Group on D.C. Government, Metropoli- tan Washington Planning and Housing Association, accompanied by Ralph Fertig, executive director, Metropolitan Washington Planning and Housing Association 149, 151 Karlow, Elizabeth R., director, League of Women Voters of the United States on Self-Government for the District of Columbia 232, 239 Lewis, Delano; Craig Bamberger; Jim Devall; Jason Newman; Sturgis Warner; and Kenneth Kennedy-resumed 1 Lucy, William, chairman, D.C. Democratic Central Committee, accom- panied by Kenneth Kennedy, vice chairman; Barbara Morgan, treas- urer; and Fred Wegner~ secretary ~_ i~i, i~ Martin, Wilma, president, The League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia 141 McArdle, Walter F., president, Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade; accompanied by Clarence Arata, executive vice president 168, 169 Nevius, Hon. John, Chairman, D.C. City Council, accompanied by Dr. Henry Robinson, Jr., Member; Tedson Myers, Member; Rev. Jerry A. Moore, Jr., Member; and Rockwood Foster, Member 50 Operations, Subcommittee on Government, U.S. House of Representatives District of Columbia Committee 216 Pendleton, Edmund E., Jr., chairman, Republican Central Committee, accompanied by Melvin Burton, cochairman, Self-Government Commit- tee, Republican Central Committee: and Richard Clark, cochairman, * Self-Government Committee, Republican Central COmmittee 207, 208 Pennino, Martha V., chairman of the board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 181. * (III) PAGENO="0005" SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUM- BIA, AND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DIS- TRICT OF COLUMBIA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS OF THE COMMIrPEE ON THE DI5TEICT OF COLUMBIA, Wa8hington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Brock Adams presiding. Present: Representatives Adams (presiding), Diggs (chairman of the full committee), Fraser, Fauntroy, Landgrebe. Also preseht: Jacques DePuy, counsel to the subcommittee; John Hogan, minority counsel to full committee; James T. Clark, legal consultant, and Anne Darneille, subcommittee staff. Mr. ADAMS. The subcommittee will come to order. We are con- tinuing hearings on reorganization and self-government for the Dis- trict of Columbia. And we are continuing this morning with the panel,. and thereafter we have scheduled as witnesses Mr. John Hechinger, and then representatives of the Statehood Party. STATEMENTS 01? DELANO LEWIS, CRAIG BAMBERGER, ~1IM DEVALL,. ThSON NEWMAN, STURGIS WARNER, KENNETH KENNEDY- Resumed Mr. LEWIS. I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. We are ready to proceed. Mr. ADAMS. OK, fine, Mr. Lewis. Mr. Fraser, do you have any questions of the panel this morning? Mr. FRASER. Could I hold, and maybe come back later? Mr. ADAMS. All right. Mr. Landgrebe, do you have any further questions this morning ?~ Mr. LANDGREBE. I have none, thank you. Mi': ADAMS. Mr. Hogan, do you have any further questions this: morning? Mr. HOGAN. I have no further questions. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. DePuy, do you have any further questions this morning? Mr. DEPUY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Lewis, I have a couple of questions on the legislative arena that you addressed yourself to. You mentioned yesterday that the coalition. recommends a 13-member assembly. (1) PAGENO="0006" 9 Could you state for the record the reason why you arrived at a 13- member body, and perhaps also indicate whether or not you considered a committee structure of the assembly? Would most business be done in the committees, would it be done in the committees as a whole, so we can get some idea as to if this is the proper size of the legislative body? Mr. LEWIs. The numbers are not that far removed from the City Council, as you know, the present City Council is made up of nine members, and we have chosen 13. Now, the thinking was that we would combine at-large representa- tion along with more representation, so it happened to sort of balance out at 13. As you know, with the present ward structure, there are eight wards in the city, and we thought there would be one representa- tive in the assembly from each ward, and then have five at-large members. So, we came out with 13, the size 13. The basic thinking, I should say the philosophical thinking was that we wanted to incorporate in this assembly the kinds of functions that we felt were necessary, and those really embodied not only city functions and local functions, but kind of a State function as well; so therefore, the assembly was larger than the nine, because it was going to be necessary to take in much more business than the present City Council. The thinking on the committee structure of Sturgis Warner-I want to add to this, or some other members of the panel. We did not get into detail on the structure of the assembly, but I am certain that we had in mind committee structures working with the assembly, and it would be done in committee as well as the committee as a whole. But I don't know, Sturgis might want to add a point on that at this time. Mr. WARNER. No, I don't think that we got down to the fine strokes of the pen, exactly how we were going to organize. But clearly, it has got to be a committee structure. These 13 would serve as members of subcommittees, and they would develop their own expertise in the fiscal area, or land use, or various functions that you would expect the legislature to have. Mr. BAMBERGER. I would like to add to that. We address specifically the underlying philosophy for having at- large versus ward representatives, and considered the balance of the two in light of the way we saw those philosophies coming together. The purpose of having a representative from each ward or one of the purposes was because ward representatives are generally regarded as being more responsive to the wishes of their particular constituencies, more prone to serve their constituencies, and the needs of the people in their ward. On the other hand, the at-large system is regarded by political sci- entists as tending to produce more independent representatives, who take a broader view of the interest of the entire community, and at the same time, by being elected at-large, they have the opportunity to be- come leaders within the community, to become widely known. So that there is an advantage of having some at-large, but then to come back to the other side of the coin, the at-large is more expensive, PAGENO="0007" 3 particularly-that's important-particularly in an area like the Dis- trict of Columbia. So that we didn't want the number of at-large to be too great. After considering the different numbers, we finally came to the conclusion that this was the appropriate mix given the way we saw the two phi- losophies fitting together. Mr DEPuY On the question of elections, this might go to Mr Warner, or perhaps Mr. Lewis as well. Did you consider whether the elections should be in an on-Presidential year or an off-Presidential year making recommendations along those lines? Mr. WARNER. Yes, we came to the conclusion that the elections, that we're talking about, City Council or assembly and Mayor, should take place in odd-number years; so it never gets mixed up with the Presidential or congressional election. That is partly to spread the election load so that you have stimulating important elections every year, but not have too many of them. We would like to have them take place on the odd-numbered years. I think that the primary elections for delegates-I think consideration should be given to moving the date for the primary election of the dele- gate to the House from the present May date up to possibly just. after Labor Day which would be election eve, so as to shorten the period between the primary and the general election. This is one of the changes that needs to be made in our present elec- tion structure. I'm talking as an individual. The group has not dis- cussed that, but I think from the viewpoint, of having been involved with. the election process for some years, I think that that would be a useful change. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Warner, hasn't experience shown around the coun- try that in elections of local officials, if they are held in the off year from the time when other elections are taking place, that the turnout is usually rather low, and that you have a very difficult time getting either publicity for those campaigns, or a significant campaign going. Whereas, if everyone is with knowledge that there is to be an elec- tion, that the excitement, the political atmosphere tends to generate a more widespread turnout. Mr. WARNER. I don't know about the figures, Mr. Chairman, cer- tainly that could be argued. It is also true, of course, that local elec- tions do produce fewer voters than national elections; probably Mayor and City Council or Mayor and assembly elections would have a lower turnout than the turnout for delegate. Last year, when we had our Presidential election, the participation of voting for the delegate was substantially the same as it was for the President. They were on the same ballot. There were some people who obviously voted for one, not both. The order of magnitude was about the same. Mr. ADAMS. Well, in the structure you have recommended; basically you are having your executive figure-whatever name is going to be put on him-and acting the equivalent of the chief executive officer in a State as well as the chief executive officer in the county and the city sort of rolled into one, and the legislative body rolled into one. Don't these elections normally throughout the Ilrnted States all take place in even-numbered years in November with ~a primary date all set at the same time, so many months beforehand? . PAGENO="0008" 4 Mr. WARNER. Mr. Adams, I will have to confess ignorance and take a look at some of the literature on it. And if I could, I would like to report back sort of a summary as to what I have found. Mr AD ~rs I would appreciate that, and also your recommend't tion as ~to whether if you're going to have an elected schoolboard, it should be placed on the same ballot, or placed in a different time. I don't know what the nationwide practice on that is. I know that in some of the States in the West, they deliberately put it at a different time, but again you have very low turnouts generally, and a great deal of difficulty getting anybody to go to those elections. And so, we would like both the statistics, and any recommendation that the panel would like to make on whether those dates should all be at the same time or scattered. [The information referred to was not received in time to be incorpo- rated in the record and will be retained in the committee's files.] Mr. WARNER. I think we must bear in mind, Mr. Adams, that at the time the 1968 amendment to the election law took place, which created the elected Board of Education, that there were very strong sentiments in the House, that they didn't want to have those non- partisan Board of Education elections mixed up with partisan elections, very, very strong- Mr. ADAMS. I remember that, yes. Mr. WARNER. So therefore, all we're doing is following the legisla- tive history which ended up by getting an election. So if we just say, well, let's take another look and see how it is done today, we might do that and send up the material. But we have the overhanging fact, we have pretty strong legislative history for putting it in odd-numbered years. There are now-the Board of Education- Mr. A1~3is. But that was for nonpartisan school board elections. Mr. WARNER. That's right. That was for school board. Mr. BAMBERGER. May I add to that? Professor John Baker of southern Illinois, the author of Urban Politics in America., 1971, cites some figures which he derives from an- other book by J. C. Lee, Fiscal Yearbook, 1963. He says that as of 1963, two-thirds of a city of over 25,000 conducted their elections independ- ently of `dl other elections, while 20 peicent conducted them with other local elections, and only 14 percent conducted them with StatC and national elections. The reason for that apparently is that urban reformers have long stressed the separ'ition of fiscal elections fiom other elections p'trticu larly from nation'il elections so to facilitate the identification of local issues. That has, it is true, resulted in lower turnouts. Professor Baker says it is unusual for more than 50 percent of the eligible voters to cast their ballots in a local election, and all too fre- quently, the turnout falls to 25 percent or below But `~s Sturgis points out, we are not writing on a clean slate Mi WARI\ER I think we have to bear in mind, Mr Adams, that the mere fact that they are on the same ballot with the Presidentiql, or they're coming at the same time as a Presidential or a congressional election, doesn't mean that the ~ oters necessarily are any more m- formed about who the members of the school board, the candidates for school board, would be. PAGENO="0009" .5 You have to- Mr. ADAMS. No, Iwas thinking more-I just put that in as the sec- ond caveat. I was thinking about your executive and legislative group that you have defined in your recommendation as being-your sugges- tion is-partisan, and that they perform functions that as I say cover the whole spectrum of general governmental functions in this country from State through municipal, and that is the group that I really have the greater interest in knowing your position. Counsel? Mr. DEPUY. On another electoral question, you talk about, at least your preference Mr. Warner, on a later primary. Has the coalition considered the primary runOff system which is now used for the dele- gate race, as ~o whether or not you would recommend a runoff system for either primary, or the general, or both as we now have it? Mr. WARNER. The coalition as a group has not discussed it. We haven't got down to the very important details. However, speaking as an individual and purely as an individual, again simply because I've been mixed up with the election process ,for some time, I think that we could eliminate certainly the primary runoff that now exists. When you're voting for a delegate under the present law, you have a primary, partisan primary, a primary runoff and a general election and a general runoff. I believe that's the system in the United States. It was felt to be im- portant because the delegate's function, the delegate is the most im- portant presently elected official here. And we felt that the turnout might be such that you have three or four competent candidates, each of whom had run a pretty hard campaign. You might end up with your top man having only 21 percent of the total vote. You don't really have a solid record at that point, that he has got community support. This is why the concept of the runoff is in the District of Columbia delegate legislation. Maybe we went overboard on that, by the way, two runoffs. Mr. DEPUY. Has the coalition considered the possibility of initia- tive on legislation or referendum or a recall, for a recall of public officials? Mr. WARNER. In my meeting with the coalition, there has been no discussion of it at this point. Other drafts, earlier drafts of home rule Tegislittion in prior years contained both recall and initiative referendum. I would like, if I might, to get into the record some information about our election structure on a very important basis. As of the Presi- dential election last November, we had a total registration of 305,072. Now, that number was arrived at after substantial statutory litiga- tion had taken place in 1972. I think it's a pretty fresh number. I know that over 10,000 people emerged last year. It's a semipermanent registration system, which requires that you vote at least once every 4 years. That 305,000 registration began in 1968. and of course the people coming off and dying and moving way- there's a great deal of movement in and out of the city as von know. But it's a good solid figure. It's very much up to date. The people who register to vote are 18-year-old U.S. citizens who claim no place or right to vote in any other State or territory. These people are people PAGENO="0010" 6 who are here in Washington. They are Washingtonians who are here in Washington. They are Washingtonians. They are not claiming the right to vote anywhere else. That 305~O30 is out of a total population of about 756,000 which, of course, includes aliens. We have approximately 12,000 aliens here, and people under 18, and a great many people who live here in Wash- ington and maintain their right to vote elsewhere in the United States. We have no solid figures as to how many people who otherwise could be registered voters here claim the right to vote in other States. I think it's probably certainly another 100~000. As far as participation in the elections, the kind of participation you get, of course, depends on the officers who are being elected. And in Presidential elections in the past, in 1964 and 1968 ;. and 1969 we had the country's highest turnout. We had 91 percent of registered voters vote in the Presidential election. It dropped to, I think, 86 or 84 percent in 1968. And last year, as is true throughout the United States, the participation was low. We had, I think, about 60 percent, 165,728 people out of the 305,000 voting in the Presidential. Mr. DEPUY. I have two process questions for anyone on the panel. First, many home rule bills in the past have provided for a referendum on the Charter Act, or whatever it is called in the community, the city. Is that an essential elemeiit? And second, what is the coalition's position on possible phase-in or staged transfer of either some elected officials or some transfers of legislative or fiscal powers over a period of 1 or 2, or 4, whatever num- ber of years? Mr. LEWIS. Let me address myself to the first question. On the sort of charter commission idea that you made reference to- Mr. DEPUY. This was not a charter commission, this was referendum in the city on the charter which the Congress would approve first. Mr. LEwIs. I see. We haven't as a group looked at that or come to a position on it. I think there may be some individual views in that regard. And on the second one, would you repeat your second question? Mr. DEPtn~. Yes. The opinion of the coalition on some sort of phase- in or staged transfer of either officials or legislative powers or both? Mr. LEWIS. Right. This is talked about in our task force. We didn't include it in the written testimony. We sort of look upon that as a compromise type proposal, and some measure short of what we consider adequate self- government for the District. So we haven't taken a position exactly on that, but I don't think that we would lean in that direction, It certainly would not be my view that we would want to even consider at this time a phase-in of legislative or executive functions. We feel that we should have those full powers that certainly relate to local issues, and that Federal Government certainly should have some say in Federal interest. But in terms of phasing-in certain powers over a period of time, we certainly don't think that is the way to go. However, we have not taken a position on that, and it's yet to be seen if. some piece of legislation comes forth on that reëommendation. Mr. DEPm~. Thank you, Mr. Chairthan. . . PAGENO="0011" Mr ADAMS I have one question Mr. Newman, I know you served on the Nelsen Commission. I re~ member reading your comments with regard to it. Is there anything inconsistent between the Nelsen Commission recommendation and the election of local officials? Mr. NEWMAN. No. The Nelsen Commission, as you know, was not set up as a home rule commission, so we really never looked at that. I will say that the Commission did recognize the fact that transfer of authority, and power, were necessary for an efficient, effective Gov-~ ernment, and that is why we did recommend legislative and taxing authorities be transferred. So there is no inconsistency with the Nelsen report as we were avoiding that issue. * Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Newman. Mr. Fauntroy, did you have some questions? *Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes. I should like first, Mr. Chairman, to again commend the coalition for the very careful and substantive job they have done in preparing for this new form of hearing on self-government, which is aimed at arriving at answer to substantive questions about how it should be implemented. I have read with great interest the position papers that have been developed by each of you, and am very grateful for the time and energy and attention you have given to the fashioning of a substantive self- government bill. I wonder if any panel member would care to respond to the ques- tion of whether or not you feel there is any support in the District of Columbia for the position which, apparently, Mr. Broyhill, Mr: Nel- sen, and Mr. Fraser may be supporting, for a charter commission. Mr. LEwIs. Jim, would you want to respond to that? Mr. DEVALL. No. Why don't you speak to it? Mr. LEWIS. OK. In light of our discussion, we listened intently to Congressman Fraser's testimony, and I think it related to your question, Mr. Con- gressman. And the coalition has not had a chance to go back and review this with our organization and our members as to their thinking onthis. But as individuals, I think we all have some feel for it. Personally, I do not think, based on my experience working for you as an admin- istrative assistant and knowing the community here, that there is much support for the charter commission idea. I have a strong feeling that the community is waiting for some measure of self-government now, and not looking for an opportunity to have this studied any further. I think the studies have been done, and I think we may have been studying maybe too long as far as some people are concerned, and that now is a time to look forward to some measure of government. It's my view, and I think it may be shared by many others in the community. * Would anyone else like to respond? Mr. KENNEDY. May I? Mr. Fauntroy, historically on the question of the charter commis- sion, there has been royal opposition in the community to it. I recall PAGENO="0012" 8 Mr. Sisk, Congressman Sisk, offered this bill. There was oniy one group in the city who supported that form. Otherwise, across the spectrum of organized citizens that were in the city, they were opposed to the charter commission, and they felt it was certainly a delay tactic, not suggesting that Mr. Fraser's suggestion was that. But I am suggesting that the broad bases of the community felt that home rule should be now or some kind of self-determination should be now, and should move from the congressional level into an opera- tion rather than to a study. Mr. LEwIs. Mr. Newman wanted to speak. Mr. NEWMAN. Yes; I would like to respond from a different point of view. The only rationale that I could see for a charter commission other than a politically delaying process would be to have the citi- zens in the District of Columbia in Congressman Fraser's bill through an election process play a significant role in developing a form of government. In response to that, I think that: No. 1, through the process taking place now, you can get a good feel for what the citizens want, and of course in terms of community, they want it now, and they don't want to have to have a commission that you have to wait another 9 or 10 months. Second of all, and what we have proposed, there is a process whereby the assembly, in addition to the referendum, would have the oppor- tunity to make changes in the structure that was reported and passed by Congress and signed by the President. So I think in all respects, the concerns, the legitimate concerns that could be raised in the charter commission, I think, will be answered and responded to in what is here now. Also, as a final point, there was some discussion about, the Nelsen Commission turning into a charter commission. And the White House had rejected that as a viable means of taking care of home rule. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Newman, what role would you think could be played by anybody who could get elected to a charter commission in shaping-helping to shape the form of government, that cannot be played by those persons through the process that we are now engaging~ in? Mr. NEWMAN. That's what I said, that I think that through this process of the hearings, you will have.thesignificant, community input that you need. Also as- Mr. FAUNTROY. Are you suggesting that it would be a wa ste of money to go about electing people to a charter commission? Mr. NEWMAN. A waste of money, a waste of time, and I would also say as someone who presently teaches at law school and is involved in the-discussing the legislative process, et cetera, that I personally am convinced that any charter commission that has any remote-doesn't have any remote chance when it is finally enacted of `being anything' worthwhile if there was anything worthwhile in the first place. Mr.. FAUNTROY. I think I saw Mr. Warner preparing there to make a statement. Mr. WARNER. My thought was not directed to your particular ques- tion, Mr. Fauntroy, but to an earlier question that I think needs to be discussed further. Mr. Adams asked, or one of the staff asked, about PAGENO="0013" 9' whether there should be a one- or two-step progressive vesting of legis~ lative authority in the City Council. Now, I would like to comment on that again as an individual, but this is a point I raised before this committee last year. It seems to me that a City Council or an assembly might very well be elected and then `~vhen it is elected and takes office for the first few months or maybe the first 18 months or a year, that their function would be the same function that the City Council has now; that is in the areas that have been already delegated, now down to the City Council and the existing form of' government. And then automatically in the' same statute, 18 months later or 2 years later, some set period, they have the full home rule delegation of authority. The reason for that is that to get staff to get these newly elected people operating, shaken down, and really moving, I think that you might find that if they have the full authority and try to exercise the full authority `immediately, they might get bogged down. There ought to be a phasing period, automatic phasing period. It shouldn't require a second act of Congress. It should be-I shouldn't say phase 1 or phase 2, but I use that phrase for the moment. I think it does make sense, but phase 1 and phase 2 should be set by statute in the same act, and I don't think that it would require more than 18 months or so before they would be in a position to begin to operate on the larger questions. After all, what this contemplates is a locally elected group taking over `the large part of the work, which Congress has been doing for~ 160-odd years. So that I do think that a phasing, if it isn't too long a period, might be an appropriate thing. 1-lowever, I just throw that out as something that I testified to last year. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Warner, I'd just like to throw out something fOr you to think about, too, for a while. I tend to think in terms of trini- ties. I don't know that is the case. But we have a new situation on Capitol Hill this year, and' it is operative in this committee because we have the opportunity to shape up the present machinery of Dis- trict government to be efficient on the one hand; secondly, provide hopefully by whatever formula we come out with, an adequate Fed- eral payment; and third, to shape the kind of elected government that would govern the money and the machinery. And I have sort of used the analogy of what the Nelsen Commission repOrt and recommendations are doing is to refine the motor of a car. We have got a MOdel-T Ford, 1919 vintage, in terms of the structure and machinery for delivering services in the District government. We hope to have a Rolls Royce when we get through, which will run very smoothly. So that we will have the machinery of government, hope- fully when this committee has done its work, finely tuned. Of course, you can have the finest machine or car that you can have, and if you don't have gasoline in it, it won't run; therefore, we are going to be very careful to see to it that the machinery has the re- sources to run in terms of-hopefully-an adequate Federal payment, and an equitable and fair means of paying for'government by both the people of'this city, and those who receive services from the machinery in the Federal' sector. ` PAGENO="0014" 10 And then, of course, third, the driver. You can have a very fine car and fine gasoline; if people can't drive, you will wreck it all. And the other thing which we want to do in this committee is to establish a fair and equitable means by which responsible persons can be elected to sit in the car that has the gas and the Rolls Royce engine. And I just wonder why you just want to tune the car up for new ~drivers in terms of the smooth running of the machinery, half-way for a. period of time, and then allow it to idle better after they have, as .uew drivers, been in office some time. it seems to me that what we ought to do is to give them as new drivers, the very best opportunity to prove themselves by proving them with the most effective machinery, giving them some high-test gas and telling them to go on, the way all Americans have in this great democracy of ours. And I would just like you to think about that. Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, on this- Mr. ADAMS. You have one more comment, Mr. Lewis, and then Mr. Fraser, who had deferred, has a question, and then Mr. Land- grebe, you have a question. All right. If you would make your statement, Mr. Lewis, and then we'll go to Mr. Fraser, and then Mr. Landgrebe. Mr. LEWIS. Very good. I just wanted to say that-just to give you some idea about the selT- determination group; I am sure you understand we are made up of several organizations, and that our testimony reflects a consensus of opinion. But outside our written testimony, and some of the questions have come outside our written testimony, we have not had a chance to get a written consensus of these organizations; therefore, we find some differences in terms of some of the answers to the. questioiis even among panel. And I think there are differences in terms of phasein, just as al- luded to by Mr. `Warner and responded to by the Congressman, 1~'1r. Fauntroy. I don't happen to agree that we should allow in the statute for any phase-in, and I think a couple of the members of the panels would like to speak to that. But if we want to move on, we certainly are free to do that. Mr. ADAMS. We understand that there are differences of opinion, and believe me, during the course of the number of hearings that we have, we anticipate receiving a number of them. And those of you that wish to communicate with the committee, as to your personal opinions, why, we assume that there will be an opportunity; you can do so. Mr. Fraser, you had some questions that you had deferred. Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to compliment the Coalition on the excellent state- ments. I wasn't here to hear them yesterday, but I have read them while we have been talking this morning, and I think they are first-rate. I want to ask some technical questions. Some of the bills that would carry forward what you recommend, in effect, would give the new City Council-that is the elected City Council-authority equivalent to that PAGENO="0015" 11 of the Congress, in effect, so far as the running of local affairs is concerned. Is that a reasonable statement? Mr. LEWIS. I am sure Jim would probably like to respond. I don't know if we say equivalent. I think we're really talking about delega- tion of certain functions. And we certainly feel the delegation of those local functions should rest with the assembly. Mr. FRASER. Well, let me read what I think is a phrase from the Eagleton bill. It might have gotten changed along the way, but it says that "legislation adopted by the City Council has the same force and effect of law as if adopted by the Congress." Is that a fair statement of what is intended? Mr. IDEVALL. I think that's a fair statement of what is intended. It doesn't go to the question of scope of the legislation that might be enacted. Mr. FRASER. Well, that's what I want to get to next. If we give the City Council authority to legislate with respect to local matters, and this is delegated authority from the Congress- which I think Congress clearly can do-my first question would be, could the City Council pass a bill which would amend our law estab- lishing your system of government? Let me pin that down so I don't leave it as open ended. Supposing the City Council decided to pass an ordinance or a law changing the size of the council from 13 to 15, would it have the authority to do so? Mr. BAMBERGER. Under the Senate passed bill last time, there was a provision that the number of members constituting the District Council and the qualifications for holding office, and the compensa- tion of such members, may be changed by an act passed by the Council subject to a referendum. Mr. FRAsnu. OK. Then let me move to an example, which will avoid a specific provi- sion. Supposing you decided you wanted a bicameral council, could you pass an ordinance establishing that? Mr. WARNER. I would suspect that if the delegation were as broad as the bill passed by the Senate last year, it could. And I think the Congress has the constitutional power to delegate that, but obviously their delegation must only relate to District of Columbia matters. You couldn't, I believe, delegate any other function to a locally elected city council. Mr. FRASER. No, I'm not trying to get into that idea that this City Council might vote to dissolve the Federal Reserve Board. [General laughter.] Mr. FRASER. But I am talking now about actions of the City Coun- cil that do relate to the local government. Mr. WARNER. To amend the statute? Mr. FRASER. Yes. What I'm really asking, and I should make it more generic, would you have authority to change the structure as outlined in the statute granting you home rule? Mr. WARNER. If that were what Congress delegated to us, yes. Mr. DEVALL. It would depend on the scope of the delegated authority. Mr. FRASER. Well, what are you asking for? PAGENO="0016" 12 Mr. DEVALL. In that respect, our request is for legislation that would authorize that. Mr. FRASER. That would authorize it. Mr. DEVALL. The exact confines of that, for instance, a question was asked with respect to referendum, and we have not crossed all the T's and dotted all the I's, but. clearly that was one safeguard typically available to other, jurisdictions in terms of changes. Mr. FRASER. For instance, you are proposing that we leave the court system intact, but that the method of selection be changed to use the bar association and the mayor, and as I understand it, the Missouri State plan yes or no vote. In your view, would the C'ity Council have the authority to change that system by a.n ordinance which they might pass under the author- ity as you would like it enacted by us? Mr. WARNER. I think if the job is to be done, that there ought to be leeway to make changes in the structure. After all, there is a `good deal of the District Code that needs to be-those are acts of Congress in the District Code. One .of the purposes of this is t.o make it possible to make some of' those statutory changes, which are essential. I remember a statute which was written in 1813. I think it's time to change it. And I think the City Council ought, whether it does it right away, and it should, have some power to make changes in' Federal' statutes including something on its own reorganization, or its own organiza- tion. Now, whether it should be done automatically, or can only do it for a 3-year period or something like that, OK, fine. What we're trying to do is to come up with a structure which will end up with a responsible form of government that is doing the maxi- mum possible job, and reducing the workload of the Congress, which is a very real one. Mr. FRASER. Mr. Warner, we're not arguing with the objectives. I fully share your objectives. I now want to talk about the technical issues. Mr. WARNER. Right. - Mr. FRASER. Now, for example, as I understand your view, the City Council would have the right to abolish the elected School Board. Mr. WARNER. Yes, I would think ultimately, whether it's right away or not. Mr. FRASER. Well, you see, the reason I'm asking .these questions' is that under almost every form of government, municipal government that I am -familiar with, you have several sort of levels of priorities of law. In other words, in most States, you either have a statutory scheme of government-it sets up your basic structure, your Council, your Mayor and so on-or you have a charter, which is adopted by the voters, but that becomes in a. sense the constitution for the city. It has a higher standing than ordinances passed by the City Council or by the School Board. As you've stated, here though, that distinction disappears. The basic grant of authority, the basic structural scheme all stands at the same level as an ordinance regulating the speed of automobiles, so far as the power of the City Council is concerned. PAGENO="0017" 13 And I an-i drawing your attention to that question to elicit your ideas as to whether that is the way it should be, or whether we should try to create a kind of a two-tier scheme. Should we in other words say well, here is the structure, let's say rn accordance with your request, but your authority to ch.ange this is circumscribed in some fashion-maybe you've got to go to the voters if they want, a str~ictural change or you could have an extraord1nary vote of the council or something of that kind That's the question I'm trying to. get at. I apologize for doing it' so slowly here, but I'm trying to illustrate the point. Mr. NEWMAN. Congressman Fraser, there is a two-tiered scheme in our testimony. When you are dealing with altering the city structure, on page 5, part 2 of' the testimony that we have, we would provide this assembly with the power to alter its size through referendum. In other words, when you are dealing, in fact, with the changing of' the governmental structure, the city council by itself couldn't do that. It would require a vote of the general populace as opposed to a normal City Council regulation, which would iiot require that. So in fact, we do have what I believe you are suggesting. Mr. FRASER. Could you read that statement in your testimony rather than my trying to find it? Mr Nirw~'.i ~N Yes, it w'~s in Del Lewis' st'ttement We will provide `this assembly, by the way, with the power to alter its size through referendum, and I say "size," maybe through limit- ing, in fact changing' of a governmental' structure as you suggested, would require a referendum. Mr. FRASER. Well, in other words, you suggested that in this case of changing the size, it would require a referendum. But you would have to concede that on the face of it any other change that involved structure wouldn't require a referendum. Mr. NEWMAN. Well, I think we really just lOoked at it from `this" point of view, but if I could say for the coalition, I think the concept is broader than is expressed `in the testimony. That when you are deal- ing with a governmental change, it would require a referendum, al- though we really didn't look at it' in that broad a context. Mr. FRASER. Well,, I'm trying to anticipate son-ic of the kinds of questions that we may get asked if we take a bill to the floor. If we give you a general grant of authority to legislate, in effect equiva- lent to the pokver of Congress with respect to matters affecting the District, presumably by a simple. ordinance, you cah' practically do away with the act itself. You know, you have almost complete license to restructure, reshape, ref orm, the whole system. And that may be `a good idea, but it would not be in anybody's ex- perience who serves in Congress, because I'doubt that there is a single city in the United States that operates with that vast grant of author- ity without, you know, having some kind' of a system which is some- what less susceptible to change. ii\'lr. LEwIs. Yes. I think we made it fairly explicit in our testimony that we thought the District of Columbia was unique, `and that you do~ have to look at us in a very unique fashion. And' that to compare us with other cities is probably not a point in many. cases. 97-527-----73-pt. 2----2 PAGENO="0018" 14 That we made very clear that we wanted that delegation of author- ity to really encompass not only local functions, but what some might consider State functions. So you do have it in one office. You do have the Chief Executive, the Mayor, doing things are that purely local, but he also enters into regional contract with Montgomery County, Prince Georges County, just as he does now. He also enters into Federal agreements to take care of Federal grant in aid, so he acts as a governor in that instance. So, I think, the point we are making here-I can understand the tier kind of premise, but we are talking about putting that into one office into two areas, and that is the District assembly and the Chief Executive, `be- cause we are a unique situation. Mr. FRASER. And what you would like in the grant of authority is to be able to rewrite the inheritance laws, divorce, marriage, the whole range of things that State legislatures now wrestle with. This clearly would require some additonal stafling for the City Council. I would think, because you would have to have people who became knowledgeable in a wide range of areas if you're going to do a kind of workmanlike job, that we all want the Council to be doing. Mr. WARNER. It would be a quantum increase in the responsibilities, of the assembly. Mr. FRASER. Right. Mr. BAMBERGER. I' would like to elaborate on what has been said a little bit. The bill passed by the Senate in the last Congress delegated legislative power to the District Council extending all rights subject to legislation within the District consistent with the Constitution and the provisions of this act. Now, in going through the bill, rather quickly and not at all ex- haustively, I find nothing that would, under that bill, have permitted' the District to revise the form of Government insofar as the bill it- self established certain structures, and did not by its terms provide expressly for changes therein. What we are saying is, I suppose, that we think we ought to have that' power subject, for example, to referendum. There are, to be sure, certain kinds of things that are embedded in State constitutions and are `difficult to change. The constitutions themselves are subject to change. An in terms of the powers of localities, I think as Del has said, it is very difficult to analogize the District of Columbia with a city' operating under grant from a State. If you back away from the question of constitutional change, and assume that we are talking about some lesser level of requirement for action in order to effectuate change, and I'm not sure that we are, there are a number of powers in the State legislatures over such institutions as the courts without having to go the constitutional route in order to make changes in those courts. So that, it doesn't follow, I think, that it is necessary to fix in con- crete all the structures, basic structures, including the courts, and fix those in rigidity comparable to that of a state construction; even if one assumes that an analogy with States would be applicable because the States don't do that. PAGENO="0019" 15 It's no secret,, of course, that the administration is concerned in the last Congress about changes in the 1970 Court reorganization, and we have indicated that we don't think it is necessary to make any changes at this time certainly, the District ought to have the au1~hority at some `point in the future to act as would a State in regard to its own court system, and to make appropriate changes at some point in the future when it deems necessary. Mr. FRASER. Well, let me just pursue this a step further. Let's say that the bill we pass details a structure of local government. In your view-so that presumably you can't change that by local action, would you want to leave it that in order to change it, you have to go back to Congress, or would you find it useful to have some mechanism whereby you could make changes yourself, but perhaps with some further-I don't know how you describe it, but either it takes a larger vote or they're a more elaborate machinery or a vote of the people or some- thing. `So that you wouldn't necessarily have to come to the Congress to seek a change. Mr. BAMBERGER. That would certainly seem to be desirable. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Landgrebe? Mr. LANDGREBE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1 regret that I had to leave the hearings yesterday before we started the questions and answers, but I will try to catch up a little here today, and lo'okin~ at the testimqny, just a sweeping look at it, I am trying to find out exactly what you people are addressing yourselves to. Now, you talk about salaries~ for school board members, and for delegates. What~bill are you supporting before this committee? This Coalition is supported by a number of very illustrious organi- zations. You've come here, a very fine group of dedicated people, and you talk about a lot of things. But what is the `vehicle that you really are addressing yourselves to? S Do you have a bill? Do you have the framework of a bill that we're going to try to develop into something. Does someone wish to answer the question? Mr. LEWIS. Yes. I think we're here to talk about the full range of issues regarding self-determination for the District of Columbia. We did not propose a particular bill, nor are we supporting at this time a particular bill. We would hope that we would give you a structure and a framework in which this committee would come up with a bill which would ad- dress itself to the full range of issues in regards to self-government, which would not only mean an organizational structure, but it would mean the range of issues regarding selfdetermination for the city. Mr~ LANDGREBE. Well, why would an illustrious organization such as, yours not be able to come in here with a bill that has the complete plan that you are promoting, and that you would like to lay before us, and then let us work our will on your legislation? Mr. LEwis. We certainly have that capability, Mr. Congressman, and I think we could do that, but thatwas not the purpose of this par- ticular presentation yesterday and today. We have the capability, and we will be happy to assist you in that regard. Mr. LANDGREBE. OK. PAGENO="0020" 16 Then, I would like to ask a couple of questions specifically of Mr. Warner, if I may. He has-I tried to follow along through his testi- mony, we talk about electing a, in the second paragraph, tall~ about electing a public prosecutor, and this prosecutor, this man, would for instance be in a position to prosecute the Mayor or a member of the assembly if that became necessary. Now, please inform me, Mr. Warner, who would prosecute the prose- cutor, should something like that be necessary, should he happen to be, you know, in need for prosecution? Mr. WARNER. Well, that's a nice question. We have not directed our attention to that problem. Mr. LANDGREBE. OK. Mr. WARNER. Obviously you have to be able-somebody's got to be able to prosecute anybody, and I would hope that the public prose- cutor would not be spending his time, as a matter of habit, prosecut-. ing other people who have been elected. The point is that, I think, it does provide independence by being elected rather than being beholden to the man who appointed you. It is simply directed at that problem, and it is handled by election in a. number of States. I haven't got a list of them all. I would be glad to supply those. I know in Massachusetts, for instance, he is an elected official, and iii a. number of States, he's an elected official. Mr. LANDGRE~E. Well, we have the State's attorney in Indiana, and-: I think most State's do have a prosecutor of some kind. Mr. WARNER. I suspect, sir, that that problem of who prosecutes the prosecutor is one that arises anywhere in the United States. Mr. LANDGREBE. I don't know-just in the way of conversation, I understand that in Indiana, at least at the county level, the coroiier- has the highest authority. And this is kind of hard to understand. Mr. WARNER. Well, the coroner is a very, very ancient office. It goes~ right back to the 14th century. There are probably all kinds of residual powers in something like that, but again, it will vary from State to State. Mr. LA~ThGREBE. Well, perhaps my first question wasn't as impor- tant. I hope I'll come to something a little bit more important. Further along here, you talked about school board members and you believe the salaries should-the Board of Education members should be raised $15,000 to $20,000. The jump will be based on full time. Now, again, in Indiana, the board of education is a policy making- group, and I'm sure that they don't get any wages like this. Now, are you thinking about a School Board for the District of Co- lumbia that would be in a policymaking and administrative capacity? Mr. WARNER. Well, we have a lot of problems with the whole mat- ter of public education in this city, and this is true of any large city- today. Mr. LANDGREBE. I think from my observation, you have more prob- lems than most cities in this regard. Mr. WARNER. Well, whether that's true or not-New York City's-' got problems, Philadelphia's got problems; Chicago's got problems. PAGENO="0021" 17 I think we want to make this point, that the Board of Education is ii pretty hard working group, and I think they are paid totally inade- quately at the present time. The trouble with it is, Mr. Landgrebe, if you don't pay them, then you are restricting the group of people who can run for office. In the old days here until 1968, our Board of Education wasn't paid a cent. They were all volunteers. When you get into that situation where they have to devote substantial amounts of time every week, it knocks out the number of other jobs that they can hold. And what it does is mean that if you say, well, they're not going to be paid, or they're simply to be paid a pittance, it means that basically the people that you-that are able. to spend that kind of time and not be paid for it are retired people or wealthy people, who have means of their own. It does mean that you're pretty much automatically restricted. The younger men and women who are of childbearing age, who care a great deal about public education because of their kids. This is the basic problem about compensating people who are spending a great deal of time on these very important areas. Now, whether they should be solely policy or whether they should be administrative this involves a whole other series of questions. There are people working on the problem here in the city. But the fact is that our compensation base for members of the board is much too low, and they are spending a great deal of time and they are moonlighting in addition in order to make a go of it. And so something has got to be done about thisarea. Mr. LANDGREBE. In Indiana, school board members are normally reasonably successful people. We have housewives. We have business people. We have farmers, and these people are policymakers. And to professionalize this and make it a $15,000 or $20,000 a year job would really rule out this type of people. And going back in time, these people serve partly because of the honor of it, and they make policy and then we pay our administrators a salary that attracts com- petent administrators. And so we-I just beg to disagree with you, Mr. Warner, that pay- ing school board members $15,000 or $20,000 a year-that you are going to get a higher quality of policymakers. It will make a tremen- dons scramble for the office at election time if you're going to make this as a really worthwhile office, and that doesn't necessarily mean that the qualified ones will be elected. Some of the others who are not qualified may work a little harder at getting elected. So, we'll move on to a couple of other points: The judicial selection committee and so forth. Why do you people come in here and insist on electing your city councilmen, but feel that the people of the community are not qualified to elect their judges? Do you wish to have a committee suggest a committee of men of lawyers, who will suggest to the mayor and the mayor appoint it? If he doesn't want to appoint them, then he turns them down and takes who he wants anyway. But I am from Indiana, again, I am not a lawyer. But it rankles me every time I hear people say that the people are too stupid to elect PAGENO="0022" 18 their judges. They can elect the President of the United States, but we are not qualified to elect our judiciary. Now, I am rankled. Now, you get rankled, and we'll get an exciting discussion. [General laughter.] Mr. WARNER. Fine. This is an interesting interchange. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you. In the first place, I think by and large the country splits pretty strongly_-they both feel this way, one way or the ot~her. There are lots of States-_there are some States that elect the judges, and some States that appoint the judges. And having made that decision as~ a statutory matter in the State, yoti may say you are stuck with it; but both groups are stuck with it. *That is, you try to set up a system of selecting the judges, which will produce a group of competent. potential judges, who will be un- swayed by popular fashions o,f the day. It's a great thing that ydu have to have as a judge, you've got to have stability under all kind~ of ad- verse circumstances. We have seen the kind of stability that you need in a court. We've got a difficult criminal situation, and we need to provide stability,and that stability- Mr. LANDGREBE. My friend, we need stability in legislative laws, too. We really need stability in our legislative laws. Mr. WARNER. Well, I think we're in complete agreement that we both want stability. But in the judges, it's a little bit different, the judge's function is a little bit different. And the group, we discussed this, and my own-of course, I think where you came from, how you work, makes a great deal of difference how you feel about it. I came from a place where they had appointed judges. The Federal system-I worked with the Federal system. The Federal system was appointed, and they have long terms. The Supreme Court, they're appointed for life. The Federal judges are apnointed for life and good behavior with retirement age severance. Our own legal structure here, as a result of the court reorganization and the format of 1970, provides 15-year terms. They are long terms. We need to have a man who is going to stay in, and one doesn't be- come a judge, a good judge, overnight. It's a very, very long process, and of course. ~he's got to be able to take-have enormous patience to have a long trial with squabbling lawyers going on day after day. This requires a very low pitched type guy. He doesn't have to be ~ popular leader. In fact. I suspect that some of the best judges, the best appointed judges. found he couldn't win an election because no- body knows him And they might not be the kind of person that would make a good judge. This is why you get these two opposed schools of thought, and they are two opposed schools of thought, either you get appointed, or you get elected, butyou don't dO both. This particular pattern, which we recommend to the committee c'ime down, in pirt in the appointment It's the only ~ av other Sthtes do it. If ~~ou're going to do it through the appointment mechanism, then you ought to have a method of coming to a small group, includ- PAGENO="0023" 19 ing a small group of people who ought to be considered as candidates for a particular judicial vacancy. In this system, this system as we proposed it, and it works very well in Missouri. And when the 1970 Court Reform Act was proposed here, the District of Columbia Bar Association proposed the Missouri sys- tem as a way of transferring the.appointing authority from the Presi- dent of the TJrnted States to a group under the Missouri system as pro- posed by the bar in 1970. The President is going to make some appointments, and Congress is going to make some appointments, and a member of the court would make appointments, too. This is a perfectly respectable way of han- dling this, Mr. Landgrebe. It isn't the way that all States do it. This is the way we need it done. As I say, you can find people split. There's a respectful reason for disagreement, but you've got to do it one way or the other. Mr. LANDGREBE. You see, I'm a strong advocate of the two party sys- tem, and I can't understand why-and in fact, it worked beautifully in our part of the country during the years I was growing up, and my own father was in county politics. That the political parties, in their wisdom-the party leaders would offer qualified people for judge on the two tickets in Indiana. And of course- Mr. MAzzoLI. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield? I may be in the wrong hearings. I thought these were on home rule for the District of Columbia. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, you stick around, you'll find out. You'll find out- Mr. MAZZOLI. I may have come to the wrong room. Mr. LANDGREBE. We're talking, dear friend, about a proposal that was made by this distinguished group of people here as part of home rule legislation. And since they do not have a bill, and they do have a framework, we are discussing some of their suggested views here. Mr. MAzzoLI. If the gentleman would yield further, he knows I had the good sense to go to school in his home State, so I have the highest regard for Hoosier. Mr. LANDOREBE. I wish that my colleague. from just south of the border would be tolerant for just one more second, and let me make a pitch for his party and my party. Responsibility in the political parties, and the leaders of both par- ties in this city would propose the names and put on the ballots quali- fied people for judgeship, and then let th~ voters work their will. It worked beautifully out there in Indiana for a century or more. We are starting to kind of chop it up in Indiana now by different rules and changes, but we used to have-we had a lot more law and order in this country a few years ago than we've got today. and I'm concerned about it. Since my colleague from Kentucky is getting impatient, I will yield back the balance of my time, and he may proceed. . Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Landgrebe. . Gentlemen of the panel, we appreciate very much your being here. Counsel may have some more questions, both Mr. Hogan and Mr. DePuy, but they will submit them to you in writing. PAGENO="0024" 20 And if later in these proceedings, it becomes necessary for us to consult with you further, we will do so. We appreciate- Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to pick up a suggestion that Mr. Landgrebe made. I would think it would be useful if the coalition or some of their people might work on drafts. Mr. ADAMS. We would hope that the coalition wOuld do that. We understood their reason for coming in now, and making a presenta- tion rather than specifics of a bill. But the committee, and as I have indicated to other witnesses, at least this member would be willing to put in by request any bills that you may wish to present; so that they will be before the committee in actual final or drafted form. Thank you very much. We appreciated the cooperation of the panel. The next witness this morning is Mr. John Hechinger, and thereafter, ire will have representatives of the Statehood Party. Mr. HECHINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I request to yield to the dis- tinguished friend of mine, Julius Hobson; with the request that I ~might follow after his testimony. Mr. ADAMS. That will be fine Mr. Hechinger. We appreciate that. I know that they are here and waiting. And with your request in mind, we~will dothat. We have two representatives who have listed an indication of de- siring to testify for the statehood party, who have yielded to Mr. Julius Hobson. We also have Mr. Charles Cassell. And I understand, Mr. Hobson will be accompanied by a group of individuals, and will be testifying on behalf of the statehood, the District of Columbia Statehood Party. Mr. Hobson, do you wish to have a panel with:you? Do you wish to :address the group and make the presentation yourself? The committee will hear it in whichever fashion you may request. STATEMENT OP JULIUS HOBSON, SR., D.C. STATEHOOD PARTY, AC. COMPANIED BY DICK BROWN, JOSEPHINE BUTLER, JULIUS HOBSON, JR., MICHAEL LEWIS, AND JOHN ROOT Mr. HOBS0N, Senior. I have a number of people here. First, I want to thank you for the opportunity for coming, which I am not really happy to do, because I really get incensed at the idea of having to come before Mr. Adams and Mr. Landgrebe and-Mr. Maz- zoli to testify about self determiwLtlon in the country in which I was born 50 years ago, and never had a right to exercise my citizenship. I didn't vote for a single one of you, and if I lived in your district, I might not have voted for you. And to have to come before you and go through this really folderol `each year-and I have done it for 20 years-dealing with the question ~of self-government, when everybody here knows what we are talking about-I think it is dishonest, and I think it throws a curve to this -community to sit down and to go into details of how much is it going to cost to run the Police Department, if you had statehood? And I thrnk that there isn't a single Representative a sep'~rate Representa tive from the District of Columbia that has-I don't know-enough of PAGENO="0025" 21 something to advise his constituency to settle for less than their con- stitutional rights. I am 50 years old, and I lived in a State in which I could not vote half my life, because I am black. And now I sit before, each year, a committee of distinguished, well-paid rich men who don't know a. damn thing about the difficulties that are going on in the District of Columbia and voice my sentiment about home rule. Now, I came here to support a bill for statehood, which is the 10th time that I have done it. There is no intelligent argument against statehood. I have heard political arguments, and I have heard selfish arguments based on the personal aggrandizement or advancement of individuals, but I have seen no data, and I have heard no intelligent argument put forward by anybody as to why we shouldn't have state- hood for the District of Columbia. I suspect that there are some members of this committee and of this. Congress who don't. want us to have it, because this is a black city. I suspect that there are others who don't want us to have it because it would mean some economic difficulty fOr them, in terms of contracts or school boards and so forth. And I personally am very angry, not at Mr. Adams as an individual-I am not attacking the integrity of any- body on the platform, because I don't know anything about your in- tegrity-but I am attacking the idea of having to come before you with. this. And now, I understand, we've got a man named Diggs, who is now chairman of the committee, and he looks like me and he is black, and I am supposed to be happy because he is chairman of the committee, but he doesn't want home rule either. Now, I don't see any more advantage in having Diggs represent~ me-whom I did not elect-than to have McMillan from down in my home State represent me, whom I did not elect. I want self-government, and I think that the people of the District. of Columbia have just as much damn intelligence as anybody else on Capitol Hill, any of your lawyers or anybody else who has the com- petency or the tenacity to deal with the question of home rule. I have here the whole question of statehood, a memorandum which I wrote for Mr. McGovern, until he was frightened off by some of the Demo- ciats, and Mrs. Coretta King, about introducing a bill dealing with statehood. I came to support Dellurn's bill. Now, are we going to have home rule or are we going through this. kind of stuff every year? Are we going to have Mr. Kennedy, on the Senate side, show what a great white liberal he is and have us all march up and say, yes, and Mr. Kennedy introduces a bill which isn't. worth a damn that doesn't get out of committee? Or are we going to be forced to come before this committee with this kind of stuff again? This is the 15th time, and we have presented and the people of this city are capable as anybody up on that platform of determining whether we want to elect a school board, or whether we want to elect a chief of police, or whether we want to have this kind of tax or that kind of tax, or whether we want to spend the tax in this fashion or in that fashion. And. it is an insult to 800,000 people in this District of Columbia to have to sit here and beg a committee. each year for its right to self-determination, which every other American is born with.. PAGENO="0026" 22 Now, that is what I came before this committee to say. I have no * prepared testimony. I've got a few editorials here, where the chair- man of this whole thing is arguing with WTOP. I've got another piece of paper where some man named Mr. Fraser came up with a, brilliant idea of some kind of charter. Well, we don't want a damn charter in the District of Columbia. We have been through that. That is stupid. And we say it is stupid with all of the authority and ego that we can muster, and we will be glad to match intellectual or technical or any other kind of wits with any man who wants to have a charter in the District of Columbia. We want home rule, and we think that if you are Americans who believe in the question of self-government and believe that all Ameri- cans have the right to what do you call it-life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-and self-determination, then we will quit playing games up here with this committee, get a damn bill on the floor to the House of Representatives, and get out there and fight for. it and. vote for it. And if I were Mr. Fauntroy, I would not let the floor of the House c~f Representatives function until they deal with the question of giving my people the right to self-government. Thank you very much. Anybody else want to say anything? [General applause.] Mr. HoBsoN, Junior. My name is Julius Hobson, Jr. I argue with my father a great deal about the history. For those people who talk about the history of the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia did have home rule, as such, for 51 years, from 1820 to 1871, bicameral legislature, including a delegate and mayor elected for 2 years, a 2-year term of office. Under the in~famous Grant administration, this was changed, and everybody was appointed; and they worked through the Public Works Commission. And in 3 years, the city went bankrupt. And from then on we were saddled with a three-man commission, one of them from the Army Corps of Engineers. All right. In 1967, we were saddled with this crap we've got now, where they call him a Mayor and he's not a Mayor. They call it a city council and it's not. Everybody is appointed. All we are saying is that everybody is coming up here, talking about the kinds of home rule bills they would like to have. And Mr. Lewis will sit right here at this table, started talking about things that an elected mayor would do, if it was a State. Now, everybody around here is ruunmg around the issue of a State. Nobody here has said that it won't work. We will cut out that portion that belongs to the District of Columbia. The Constitution says that Congress will set the boundaries of the District. All right. The boundaries can be closed in to include the Federal buildings, and the rest of it can be made a State. Mr. HOBSON, Sehior. May I interrupt? I hate to be rude. Mr.Hobson, Junior, but we did promise Mr. Hech- inger that we would be quick about it. We have insulted the committee, and we may be in contempt, but that is the way I feel about it. And we will be glad-because we have a. research team. We work on home rule and all the other social prob- lems crying for solution in this city. We would be glad to support you. PAGENO="0027" * 23 * If you would like to ask us any questions, we would be gind to answer them. If not, we'll get out of your way and let you hear from the nice gentleman, Mr. Hechinger, on home rule. Mr. ADAMS. Does any member of the committee have any questions? Mr. Fraser? Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in Mr. Hobson's remark, I am a great admirer of him. I accepted the first part of your statement as true. That is why I came up with the idea that I did. It occurred to me that it was somewhat strange that we should be sitting here, not representing the District, trying to write some kind of gov- ernment. So that is why I thought, well, maybe it's better for the citizens of the District to write their own form of government, which is the way we do it in our State. But I am not, as I have tried to make clear, I am not wedded to that approach. Mr. HousoN, Senior. I don't disagree with that. I thinkthat is a good idea. But what I mean is, let's get on with writing it. Let's do it, start- ing right now. Mr. LEwIs~ There is another part of it-if you'll excuse me, Jiihus. It seems to me that there is an established way of having the people in this country represent themselves, and that is through being a State. I think, once again, we are playing these games. My family has been in the District of Columbia for 100 years. I am now 30 years old. I am not as old as Julius, I have not been up as many times. But I can remember being up here last year, doing exactly the same things, saving the same things, to some of the same people. Now. some of the people have changed up there. Some of the people here have changed. Our desire for statehood. our desire to be able to govern our own s ifairs has not changed and will not change. Mr. FRASER. Well, if I may- *Mr. ROOT. Another part of this answer is, when we become a State, we will have a constitutional convention in the District to determine the form of government that our State would have, the State of Co- lumbia. That is the point at which the citizens would have a chance to decide their form of government. Mr. DEPU-r. Would you identify yourself for the record, for the stenographer, please, both of those two speakers? Mr. LEWIS. I'm sorry. My name is Michael Lewis. Mr. RooT. My name is John Root. Mr FRASER. Let me make the point that it may be, of the two choices before us, that statehood may be much more difficult to pass through Congress. Now, maybe not. But I make the point because, if the peo- pie of the District are granted the right to elect their own officials and are given as much authority as we can fashion from legislation, it doesn't seem to me that ends the question of statehood. In other words, it seems to me that it may be a proposal that should be kept alive and, perhaps, enacted. I myself think there is a con- siderable amount of logic to statehood, but it isn't going to do the District~ any good if we can't pass it through Congress. What we have a chance to pass, I think, is some kind of initial grant of the right to elect officials Mr H0BS0N Junior I c'in understand that Mr HOBSON, Senior Wait a minute PAGENO="0028" 24 As an American I resent-and I am sure you do, too-the whole idea of settling' for less than our freedom. You are telling me to' settle for less. Let's go with what we can get. `We can get self-government~ if 800,000 people of the District of Columbia say they want it. And ~1 am sure you know, Mr. Fraser, if you produced something like this-and I read it and it's pretty good-if you produced this, I am sure you know that producing a statehood bill out of the `Con- gress of the `United States is twice as easy as any home rule bill that you can think of. You do not have to have a constitutional amend- ment. All you need is a majority of one in each House, of one vote~ And you do not need-the States do not need to ratify statehood. And once you have got statehood, it could not be taken away from, you, because you would be protected by those amendments which pro- tect the States in the Constitution of the `United States. It would settle immediately and automatically the whole question of self-government,. because we could have a constitutional convention and elect our own form of government. I just feel that we should now have th'it opportunity to do that, and nobody has said-I am called the master of the invective-the name- calling and screaming, none of that matters a damn., The very fact `is that we have some information which we have been working on' and which we have been dealing with, that deals with statehood, that we are willing to present. `We would like to come and show-we'll work; instead of going through the farce of the cameras, and Hobson was up today. I can see the headline in the morning; he called somebody a bad name and this kind of folderol. And this has been going on for years up here, and we have been wasting some time of this committee. I have to go, because I can't stay up for long. I want to thank you, but let's have some statehood and let's get on with voting on'it. Thank you very much. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Hobson, and the others who have testi- fied. The committee appreciates your testimony. ` - `We have also this morning Mr. Clěarles Cassell, and we have Mr. Hechinger, who yielded to Mr. Hobson. Mr. Hechinger, if you want to come forward now to complete your testimony, and then we will proceed with Mr. Cassell. STATEMENT OF HON. jOHN W. HECHINGER, DEMOCRATIC NA- TIONAL COMMITTEEMAN FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mr HECHINGER Th'rnk you, Mr Chairman I am pleased to appear before the Government Operations Subcom- mittee in support of home rule for the District of Columbia. As one who has served as Chairman of the City Council and has long worked for self-government forthe District of Columbia, I believe I can speak with some special insight into the matter of home rule. When I was appointed as Chairman, President Johnson instructed all of my fellow councilmen to act as if they were elected, and this we tried mightily to do-but there is no such thing as "ersatz" elected officials. Authority with the accountability to one's constituency is not the American democratic way. The plain fact of the matter' is PAGENO="0029" 25 that 800,000 Americans-more people than in 10 States of the Union- are second-class citizens. How can the Congress continue this in- justice-the absurdity that the capital of the leading Nation of the free world is itself not free. Achievement of self-government involves careful attention to cer- tain practical matters, and it is these which I know you wish to consider this morning. With respect to the general questions~ of the form of government, its powers, and the way in which elections are to be carried out, I endorse wholeheirtedly the proposals made by Vice Ch'urman of City Council, Sterling Tucker, yesterday morning on behalf of the Committee for Self-Determination for the District of Columbia. I participated in the committee discussions and was greatly im- pressed with the thorough manner in which issues and alternative pro- posals were researched. The proposals for an elected mayor-assembly government, for full legislative and fiscal authority, and for the au- tomatic Federal payment mechanism I believe truly represents the consensus among those who are most knowledgeable about the Dis- trict government and who have worked diligently for home rule. Leaving my prepared text, I, too, am as shocked as Julius 1-lobson about the proposal of Congressman Fraser about the charter commis- sion. We definitely feel that this issue has been chartered, discussed, brought forward, actually taken to the people, and only last year, at Congressman Fauntroy's individual ward hearings. It has. been done over and~ over again. Thjs is not an elitist point of view. The idea is to get us off the ground, allow us sufficient authority within that government that you decide, and they will do the additional duties of the charter commission. It is a terrible delaying action. It is a terri- ble bombshell and a hoax, because I know how much `Congressman Fraser has been a friend of us iii the District. The practical proposals for self-government are also completely consistent with the experience I had as the first Chairman of the Dis- trict of Columbia City Council when the present form of govern- ment was established in 1967. Based on this experience, there are several points which I would like to emphasize. First, the fact of the matter is that a city as complex as Washington needs strong executive leadership balanced by a representative legis- lative body, both of which are in close contact with the government and the people of the city. The District of Columbia has made great strides in management improvement under the leadership of Waiter Washington since 1967. There is much to be done, as the landmark Nelsen Commission report indicates. I agree with the thrust of the Nelsen Commission and applaud the devoted effort that Congressman Ancher Nelsen has given to our people over many, many years, cui- minating in the Nelsen Commission report, which will serve as a guide- line for improving the efficiency of our municipality. Who would consider going back to the Board of Commissioners- an antiquated system of divided authority. But the gains have been made under great handicaps. Responsibility for local functions is still fragmented into a plethora of commissions not under the Mayor's authority and several committees of both Houses of Congress. I am sure each of you has had the experience of trying to track the responsibility for a particular policy in the District of Columbia, only PAGENO="0030" 26 to find a maze of overlapping jurisdictions. I know I have, as the Chairman of the City Council, as businessman, and as a citizen. This system does not serve your interests. Nor does it serve the interests of the District residents or of citizens from all over the United States and the world who come here on business or as tourists, and your constitu- ents who expect you to be attending to their business and the Nation's business. Second, I would like to give very strong support to an assembly of 13 members, eight of whom would represent wards and five of whom would be elected at large. I believe this is both the proper size and the right mix of at-large and ward members for an area with the geo- graphical compactness of Washington. In a relatively small assembly each member is known to the public and can be held accountable. The difficult matters which this delibera- tive body must consider generally involve matters of priority and of familiarity with the financial implications of alternate decisions. A 13- member body can have considerable diversity. But at the same time each member will no doubt chair at least one committee, will serve on several others, and will be intimately involved in all budget and tax matters. Thus the members, of necessity, will have to continually be able to come to grips with priority and budget questions. Staff support can be provided to a small assembly without great expense to the public. In its early days, the present District of Columbia City Council tried to assign its councilmen to the weight wards, although serving at-large, to give more visible representation to the various sections of the city. Electing the major portion of the assembly from wards is, of course, the way to do it. The small size and the presence of the five at-large rep- resentatives from whose ranks the chairman will be selected will assure that matters affecting the whole city will be properly considered. Compensation for members of the assembly must also be adequate. One of the greatest frustrations I felt as Chairman of the Council was the fact that some members could not afford to take large amounts of time away from earning a living. On the other hand, however, I am in favor of not labeling the assemblyman's position as full-time so that persons from all walks of life can serve-doctors, dentists, busi- nessmen, Government employees, and so forth. Finally, the experience of the present Mayor-Council form of gov- ernment gives solid support for the idea that local government with self-determination will be both responsible and responsive. On the ex- ecutive side, the Mayor of the District of Columbia has used his limited reorganization powers wisely. There is no doubt that the District of Columbia government can administer effective public safety, welfare, sanitation, and other services. There is demonstrated capacity to operate the government on sound budgeting procedures. By its procedure and its action the existing City Council has laid the groundwork for an effective assembly when its members are elected and its powers expanded. Through extensive public hearings and public deliberations on the budget, the City Coun- cil has established the principle of responsible consideration of tax and expenditure policy. PAGENO="0031" 27 To leave my testimony-its very deliberation on the highwa~ mat- ter, the Three Sisters Bridge, is responsive and, certainly, in tune with other city councils across this, country. The Council has consistently followed the principle of not pro- posing expenditure unless off-setting revenue sources can be identified. During my tenure as Chairman, the Council approved recornmenda- tions for increases in a variety of taxes-income, sales, property, auto licenses, et cetera. There has been no wild permissiveness, no breakdown of law and order, no reduction of tourists, no violation of the national monu- ments, `and none of the insulting racial things that were whispered about that have stopped home rule in the last century. I am confident we can and will elect equal or better quality officials than those that now serve in every village and hamlet from sea to shining sea. I stand ready to consult on the details of the bill as you move along. Please move along. Thank ybu. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Hechinger. Mr. Fraser, do you have any questions? Mr. FRASER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make one observation, Mr. Hechinger, and ask your comment on it. Over recent years, at least for myself and, I think, per- haps for some of my colleagues on the committee, our involvement in the details ,of writing the charter or statute for home rule has been limited by our recognition of the difficulty of securing a recommenda- tion for any bill out of this committee, or even of getting it passed on the floor. In other words, it is difficult to invest a large amount of time in what appears at the outset to be a fruitless endeavor. I think the environ- ment this year is considerably different, and as a result, many of us~ at least for myself, and I should, perhaps, only speak for myself- want to get as deeply into these questions as we can, in the hope that. by doing this we can maximize our ability to do the best job, both in terms of the substantive provisions,' as well as in our ability to defend whatever we may recommend. I think we can get a bill out of this committee. ` " ` , I make this point, though, to suggest that I am not,, myself, prepared to `be locked into considering only what the coalition proposes. I hap- pen to have been the author of a constitutional amendment in my State which was designed to emancipate communities from legislative con- trol. It was known as home rule amendment No. 1. It was passed in 1957 or sometime `later; so I became very deeply involved in the whole process whereby you emancipate mumcipahties from legislative control. ` And to a certain extent, we have got the same problem here. Because no matter how we slice it, Congress is `going to retain, obviously, con- stitutionally retain some legislative responsibilities. But even more serious is the question of whether the Congress will continue to keep intervening in local matters, no matter what we do. This is one of the reasons, it is one of the options I wanted to pursue: the possibility of using the home rule charter approach. both because it would draw in people in the District in writing the charter, if we PAGENO="0032" 28 wrote a good bill. The whole procedure then would be, in a sense, out of the hands of Congress. If elected officials-and I mean elected-can sit down and write a charter and then it goes on a regular sequence to a vote of the people, it becomes effective. Then there is an election of the public officials which are authorized under it. From my point of view, there is much to be said for it, rather than our sitting here trying to write a charter for a city that many of us don't kiiow that much about. Now, as I have indicated to you, I am not wedded to that approach, but I am not, myself, prepared to foreclose looking at that approach, because those who have worked so hard on home rule over the years have one track that they have identified as the preferable track. I ac- cept their right to do that and accept the possibility, or even the prob- ability, that may be the best way. But, for myself, I am not going to say that that is the only option that I am prepared to look at, now that I feel both the opportunity aiid the responsibility to look at these questions much more carefully and in more detail, I think, than has happened in the past. I don't know what your viewpoint is on that, but I wanted you to know of some of the reasons why I have deliberately opened up some choices that I think the committee is going to have to look at here. Mr. HECHINGER. Well, Congressman Fi~aser, I believe that my re- sponse to the earlier question of Mr. Landgrebe in regard to the bill, as presented by the coalition, would be as follows: that, in fact, what' the coalition presented to you and what I support is a body of very concentrated thinking on each one of the points and asking you, in your wisdom, to choose among those to present to the whole Congress, so that it may pass. For example, the discussion that was going on re- garding the judiciary-if you felt that this would pass Congress, to have the judges elected, that, it would help the bill, or it would be the proper way to do it to get it through Congress, then select that. In fact, these are things of choice which you must select from. And it seems that, rather than have the coalition present the bill, because you must pick and choose-but the idea is, when you go further than that and suggest a step which, in my opinion and in the opinion of everyone across the spectrum will be nothing but a tactic to stall'home rule for years to come-that is, an elected charter commission. The fact is, you would never dare to propose that in your home State. I can't imagine that. A town in your State today might well choose a strong mayor, a council form of government. They may go ahead and select a city manager type of government. I don't believe that there is a necessity for that step, because if you have-as proposed by the coalition, proposed last year-in terms of the Eagleton-Fauntroy bill, the ability to retain the constitutional powers in the Congress on a veto basis only, on the basis somewhat the same as the Reorganization bill- but then allow this form of government to get going and have some power of increasing the assembly, decreasing the assembly, adding wards, dividing wards, and so forth. Then they will act as a charter commission, as elected. But if you have a charter commission, there is no doubt about it-it will-we will never make 1976 with home rule for the District of Columbia. PAGENO="0033" 29 Mr. FRASER. Let me lay out a scenario for you on this. Let's suppose that we enacted a bill that gave a broad grant of au- thority to the District, as broad as we could write, to adopt their own charter, and that we said that the election for charter commission members must take place this year, that they must present a draft to the voters in November of 1974, a general election, that if approved, that the election ofmunicipal officials would occur in the fall of 1975. Now, supposing that that is all laid in a bill. Where do you get out of that scenario a 10-year or 5-year delay? What is your theory. here? This is the way it works in our State. Why do you come and tell me that it won't work? On what basis? What experience do you have that would justify that conclusion? Mr. HEOHINGER. I have a hundred years of experience-not relating to may age, however. But I would say that that means that when that is-with the residual powers still remaining in Congress, which many o~f us think-and I think you do, too-there will have to be some re- tention in terms of the constitutional hold on the thing. When that charter commission comes up with a scintilla of difference that does not fit the pattern of what a transferral of powers has indicated, that kind of blanket thing will be brought back to Congress, snapped right back and rehashed all over again. We'll be right back here. So that my experience, of course, is the same as yours. But why the difference in our State is that you have the oversight power-not you and all of our friends, but there are enemies lurking by the dozens against the whole issue, that will get this thing back in Congress. You've got to face it now. Mr. FRASER. Well, I don't accept that conclusion, that Congress will automatically reintervene. The State legislature has the same author- ity to reintervene. The city councils, city governments are the children of State legislatures, as the city government of the District will be, presumably- Mr. HECHINGER. But the State legislatures, Congressman Fraser, are also the children of their own constituency. You are not, and those who are against it are not members of our city, I mean, are not citizens of this city, in terms of voting citizens, and they are in the State as- sembly. There is also back-scratching between one district and an- other, all people who are at the same level. We are not dealing with our peers when we speak before Congress- men from other States. Mr. FRASER. Well, let's pose a hypothetical here-and I am not sure it's a real one. Supposing that the charter approach won wider acceptance and was more easily passed here in the House than a description of the kind we had in bills of last year. You would still prefer the latter? Mr. HECHINGER. My honest opinion is that it-that I would pray you to withdraw your support, because I think, with your distiguished record, with your chairmanship of the Democratic study group, of great influence on this Congress, that the only way it is going to win wide acceptance over a straight home rule bill is by such distinguished report. I believe that nobody understands what we are talking about this morning; 435 Congressmen don't even know what-I mean-not all of 97-527-73-pt. 2-3 PAGENO="0034" 30 them, but just as was reported by Congressman Adams, traveling on a plane. Nobody, even a Congressman, understands that we really don't have the vote. Someone says to Sterling Tucker-well, he didn't know that he wasn't elected. Nobody even understands that. The fact is, that it takes this body of concentrated-that is the House District Committee and especially the Government Subcommittee-it takes this body that is generously spending its time on our affairs-and don't think we don't appreciate It, every moment that you take away from other things-- these are the people that are going to have to present to the rest of the Congressmen what they think is wise, and then let's go to the politics of the thing and try to get the vote. They doft't know the difference between a charter commission or otherwise. Mr. FRASER. Well, let me make also the other point, though. This, I think, is so: no matter what we come out with on the floor, we'll be in a stronger position if the Members feel that we have looked at all of the choices as carefully as possible. I really think that one of the things that will help here-and I am very much committed to getting home rule in the District-is that we come, having searched out all of the possibilities, explored all of the avenues, and arrived at what we think will be the most workable approach. As I say, I am not wedded to the charter approach. I think it is a serious enough possibility that it deserves to be examined, along with all the other choices we have. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Hechinger, there. is a quorum. call and, with your permission, we will go answer, and then we will return so we can finish with your testimony, and I would ask if Representative Faunt- roy would take the chair. Counsel may have some specific questions on the technical aspects. I will return as quickly as I can answer and be back. Mr. HECHINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAUNTROY. Counsel? Mr. DEPtTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one question, Mr. Hechinger. On page 3, you mentioned the plethora of commissions and the maze of overlapping jurisdictions. Do you have specific recommendations to make to the subcommittee as to which boards, commissions, agencies, and so forth that we might take some action on, either Federal or quasi-Federal boards or even local boards, for that matter, that require some streamlining or overhaul of some sort? Could you supply those recommendations for the record? Mr. HEOHINGER. I can mention a few. I would not say that it is exhaustive, without having a list in front of me, but I do believe that full authority within the city should be given on over to the Redevelop- ment Land Authority, the RLA. There has been some transfer of au- thority, and I don't know whether it is complete, with regard to the National Capital Housing Authority, the National Capital Planning Commission, and its powers relative to planning for the city, as against for the Federal establishment. I would say, offhand, that that is the list that comes to mind, and I would submit a more extensive list, if I may, Mr. DePuy. Mr. DEPUY. Thank you. PAGENO="0035" 31 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAIJNTROY. Mr. Hechinger, I certainly apologize for not being here to hear your testimony. As I have indicated in the previous hear- ing, our Banking and Currency Committee is now in the markup proc- ess on the wage-price stabilization renewal. As you may know, I have introduced, both for local and national legislation, a bill to control rents and prices, interest rates, dividends, and profits. Those decisions are being made this morning in the form of votes on those matters, and I have had to be in and out today, as I was yesterday, so that I have missed the meat of the testimony. But on the basis of what I have been privileged to hear, on your discussion of the charter commission, I assure you I am pleased at the position you have taken. I am sure that the vast majority of people in the District of Columbia would view a charter commission route both as a delay and a waste of time and money; that, in the last analysis, the decision as to what form of government the District of Columbia will have is going to have to be made by this Congress. We certainly appreciate the vigor with which our new chairman of the committee and chairman of the subcommittee has pursued a course designed to give this Congress an opportunity to do that. You have addressed in your testimony the critical question of a Federal formula for having the Federal Government assist in the pay- ment for many services that any local government would have to de- liver to the Federal Government. We had a discussion yesterday in this connection, as to whether or not the Federal responsibilities for finance could be sharply identified and separated from the local respon- sibilities, and I don't know if you would have had an opportunity to respond to the queries of Mr. Adams on that theory or not. But if you haven't, I would appreciate your commenting on that at this time. Mr. HECITINGER. Mr. Chairman, I have really spent considerable time on this matter, not recently, but at the time that we were serving on the city council together, attempting to define what the Federal payment should be and relating it to services rendered. The. fact is that I have consulted with Ken Back and other members of the accounting and fiscal affairs division of the District of Colum- bia government, and it is very elusive. It appears that that would be, probably, not advisable. These are the reasons why. There is such an overlap of functions. You take, for example, in the policing action, what does that policing action mean? Take for example, the matter of health inspectors. Now, that is a policing action. Congressmen, visitors, tourists are going to restaurants and their safety, in terms of eating there, is based upon the District of Columbia furnishing health inspectors to look at restau- rants. This is indicative-and I can cite other examples-but the fact is, there is an overall p.resence and a broad presence of the District gov- ernment which is serving the Federal and national monument status of the city. Therefore, there has to be a presumption of amounts to be spent. I think it must best be served without saying, look, 10 percent of the police force is surrounding Capitol Hill, and that should be charged. The highway or street-cleaning around the Federal Triangle can be defined as such and such. PAGENO="0036" 32 There is an overall presence that has to be accounted for by a blanket payment, without precise measurement. Mr. FAUNTROY. Second, Mr. Hechinger, with respect to the pros- pect for the election of a mayor and members of the city council. Many people have indicated the need for an adjustment of the Hatch Act provisions to allow citizens of the city who work for the Federal Government to participate freely in the political process. What is your view on that? How extensive, in your judgment, should an adjustment of the Hatch Act be to accompany our needs in the District of Columbia? Mr. HEGHINGER. I think that the Hatch Act certainly ought to be amended to permit the activity of District and Federal employees at the city government level, that is the municipal level, the very govern- ment we are talking of here. Whether or not they should be eliminated on Federal elections, elections to the Congress, delegate positions such as you are holding, may be a question beyond the thing we are address- ing this morning. There was a consideration within the coalition as they discussed this to, perhaps, avoid burdening the home rule bill with an amend- ment to the Hatch Act, as being deleterious to its passage. The fact is that, maybe-it was even thought that this was handled by the Postal Committee, the Postal Civil Service Committee, rather than the House District Committee. The fact is that I think it is very necessary. I think that, in terms of some two-thirds of the employees of Washing- ton, I believe, connected with either the District or the Federal Gov- ernment, that we should do this. I am not sure this is the moment. Mr. FAUNTROY. I see. Counsel? Mr. DEPUY. No further questions. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hechinger, turning to the question by Mr. DePuy, you~ indicate that you feel that there should be some realignment of the authority of the RLA, presumably directly brought into the District government, and the National Capital Housing Authority brought under the Dis- trict government, which, is one of the recommendations of the Nelsen Commission. Do you agree with that? Mr. HEOHINGER. That's right. I do. Mr. HOGAN. Now, the National Capital Planning Commission, you suggest that there should be some realignment there. What is your view of the realignment of authority there? Mr. HEOHINGER. There should be a sort of-that the National Capital Planning Commission, really, the planning function should be removed entirely from that organization, from that Commission and moved to the executive body of the city, leaving with the National Capital Planning Commission the oversight regarding the Federal interest. The question now is that the present procedure requires the National Capital Planning Commission to rule, recommend, on any- thing within the bounds, I believe, of what is known as the original city of Washington. It makes another bureau, with people appointed from across the country, so that my thought would be that they would PAGENO="0037" 33 be-we would be left with a recommending position, which may re- quire some-I think it has been indicated within the testimony of the coalition-some eventual arbitration of the matter For eximple, as someone foolishly said, suppose there was an indication of widening Massachusetts Avenue or closing Massachi~setts Avenue-not closing, but narrowing it-there would have to be con- sortion of interests there worked out. Mr. HOGAN. Turning now, for the moment-the chairman men- tioned, Congressman Adams mentioned yesterday the possibility of, perhaps, winnowing out on a functional basis, again-or maybe a geographical basis, also-those functions which are principally Fed- eral or totally Federal and those which are principally local, and then narrowing down those which are a combination of Federal and local as far as planning is concerned. We heard Mr. Hobson this morning and Congressman Dellums yesterday, indicating the support of their home rule bill, that they would carve out, geographically, the Federal enclave, which I think Mr. Dellums referred to. You indicate that you oppose that? Or you don't oppose it, rather, but you feel there would be great difficulty with that, as I understand your testimony. Mr. HECHINGER. Mr. Hogan, I think, certainly, on the basis of reality, the ability to have passage of this is far less than the estab- lishment, first, of the Mayor-assembly and then move toward state- hood, should it be a practical thing later. I do feel some difficulty, actually, in the Federal Triangle being the remainder of the District of Columbia. There certainly are constitu- tional problems like-that they would have, as I understand it, three electoral votes left within that 5- or 6-square mile enclave. I think, furthermore, like you said a moment ago, the question of what the Federal payment should be. `We would cut the heart out of the ration- ale for a large Federal payment, even though it may still exist, namely, that, as I said, Congressman Adams, when you were out of the room, that the fact' is that the health inspectors for restaurants are serving the-a number of immeasurable things like this. We have to have a Federal payment not based upon detailed quanti- fication of the services, but the fact of everything. I think that with a statehood proposal that there would be this enclave, the Federal pay- ment, based somewhat on the concept that the Federal Government is taking 100-percent location of our real estate. In other words, down- town Washington is nontaxable does in fact cause difficulty in under- standing why the Federal payment would be as high as. necessary to support all the services that were provided. Mr. HOGAN. WTell, if I understand Mr. Dellums'~ bill correctly, I think what he is carving out is not any taxable area, any private prop- erty~ I think what he carves out in the Federal enclave, is nothing but a federally owned area. I could be wrong in that. But if that is correct, then there would be no residual of any residents, nor would there be any residual of any electoral votes, because there would be no resi- dents, as I understand it, within the area that he would leave. But w hat I was trying to do was determine whether you have any feel for whether or not there is any way of narrowing, either on a PAGENO="0038" 34 geographic or a combination of geographic and functional basis, what the Federal interest is in legislation that this committee might report out. Because if you have, whatever local government you have, acting on measures which could affect the Federal interest, then, because of the legislative oversight that Congress would continue to have in all of the bills that are before the Congress, wouldn't you always have some point-at least potentially-have some point of controversy com- ing up continually? Whereas, if before you passed a bill like this, you could narrow that controversial area as much as possible, both geographically and functionally, so that you are, in effect-by doing this, you are limit- ing somewhat those controversies which could come up some time in the future that might result in a confrontation or an overriding by way of oversight by the Congress of something that the local govern- ment has done. Do you follow me? Mr. HECHINGER. Mr. Hogan, are you sort of academically proposing that narrowing that interest to the circumscribed area that Congress- man Dellums' bill-would be a narrowing. Did I understand you? I didn't mean that you were opposing it, but-in directing your ques- tion at me- Mr. HoGAN. I was wondering what position you would take. I am trying to determine, either geographically or on .a combination of geographic and functional bases, whether the Federal interest and the local interest could be defined. If, for instance, the core area here, the monumental area, is federally owned and the buildings on it are federally owned-and I think you would agree that, probably, the National Capital Planning Commission would have, under any defini- tion of what their authority would be under reorganization, they would probably have definitive authority on the monumental area. There are other areas in a city where, both geographically and functionally, the District and the local interests would be predominant. There are those other areas, both geographic, where the embassies and chanceries are and some Federal property is located and, perhaps, some avenues in the L'Enfant plan, where there might be, practically and esthetically, a Federal interest in maintaining those, There is also a local interest in gettiug back and forth through the city. There is also a Federal interest in utilizing those transportation routes to get Fed- eral employees into the city and to the Congress, and it is in those controversial areas that it is always going to be difficult to define the Federal or local interest. The interests are inextricably intertwined. I was wondering if, in coming up with some legislation here, if those geographic areas, monumental areas, could be clearly defined. If, per- haps. some of the local areas could be clearly defined, either geo- granhically or functionally, some guidance could be given so that we could avoid what might well result in confrontations each time the local government, if it were to pass 1e~islation which might cause some collision or controversy over what the Federal interest or the local interest is. Mr. HECHINGER. Wel1~ I think that the main thing is that all those difficulties must not prevent the ultimate purpose of your hearings, which is to enfranchise 800,000 people. The fact that there are other PAGENO="0039" 35 cities that are capitals of major countries who are Federal districts similar to ours and have been able to work that out. I believe that it can be worked out here. I do not believe, in other words, that carving out the monumental area would be the only, nor would it be the easiest, solution in terms of our solutions for running the city. Because, in fact, I do `~dmit that when you get one block beyond that line that you previously defined and you build a 36 story building, because it is local, you are infringing, perhaps, upon that monumental area. There has to be a mechanism which can be worked out, in which there is a common bond between working with citizens' needs for sani- tation services and their need to have the right to elect their own officials. And this rather mechanical problem, which we have lived with, we can work on it again. But to narrowly define that will, I do not belies e, i eally serve to either get the bill through Congress or `ictuadly be a practical solution, if it were `tctu'illy undertaken 1\Ir. HOGAN. Well, I do see some problems, I must confess. I imagine a. principal concern to Members of Congress, is going to be the ques- tion of-you indicated policing `iction I would think that probably might be of some considerable concern to the Congressmen if the mat ter is brought up on the floor, as soon as the bill is reported out of this committee. It seems to me that this is going to be one of the questions that members of the committee are going to have to respond to. You know, how is the Federal interest going to be protected in that partic ul.ar respect? To say that it has worked well currently with a substan- tially enlarged police force, for instance, and, of course, cooperation betweeli the Federal officials and the locally appointed offiéials cur- rently leaves open the question of what happens with an elective gov- ernment. All of the problems that have confronted the community and Congress and everyone living in the District of Columbia within the Fist, let's say, 5 or 6 ~ ears have largely been adequately met But marches on Washington, D.C. have been of recent enough vintage that, certainly, it is going to be of concern to the Members. If there could be some-if the question could be addressed in the cOmmittee, before it gets out on the floor, I think it would enhance the chances of the legislation passing. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Hogan. Thank you, Mr. Hechinger, very much, for appearing this morning. \`\Te appieciate your statement, and thank you for also yielding time so that we were able to makO our ~itnës~ list mOve mOre smoothly this morning. Thank you. Mr. HECHINGER. Thank you very much. PEEPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES I. CA55ELL, CHAIRMAN OF THE D.C. STATEHOOD PARTY My name is Charles I. Cassell, Chairman Of the D.C. Statehood Party and member of the elected District of Columbia Board of Education. I have with me Mr. Larry Williams, 1st Vice Chairman of the party and Mr. Edward Drinkard, Treasurer of the party. Ms. Margo Weaver, our 2nd Vice Ch~irman~ is a mother, working on a degree program at the Washington Technical Institute in the eve- nings and a full-time Social Service representative at the Area C Mental Health Center during the day, and therefore cannot be here on this occasion. I was horn, raised and have lived all of my life in Washington, D.C.~ except for those periods spent in the service and in college. And since I reached matu- rity I have been testifying before various public bodies on everything from un- PAGENO="0040" 36 warranted freeways to the shameful colonial status of this city, the Nation.'s Capitol. My colleague, Mr. Williams, is a former student of mine, a former law student and now holds a responsible position in the educational life of this city. My other colleague, Mr. Drinkard is currently a student pursuing a degree in journalism and holds a responsible position at the YMCA. Each of our officers is active in this community on a day to day basis struggling against the conse- quences of this unrepresentative government. Now of all the issues on which we have addressed public officials the question of local disenfranchisement is the most aggravating. For it is the root of all other evils visited upon this beleagered community. It is all, the more frustrating because we never appear before officials who have been elt~cted by us arid who have authority to respond to our demands. It is probably safe to say that none of you have ever been in that position . . . with the exception of your one col- league from Washington, D.C. who, because of his status as a colonial subject, cannot vote with you on the floor of the House of Representatives. I am sure that you can understand, therefore, that we do not come to you with thanks for the opportunity, once more, to make verbal expressions with no more influence than that of good will and the force of logical argument. We come to place the. issue in perspective and to demand that you cease and desist from this charade of debating demeaning and deceptive half measures that purport to respect the basic rights of Ameriëan citizens and the principle of no taxation without representation. None of the proposals for limited or partial self government are worthy nor are they acceptable to the citizens of Washington, D.C. Each of them is sadly reminiscent of the intense resistance to self government offered by colonial and despotic governments down through history. And there are sufficient examples in recent world history to indicate that such continued resistance certainly does not lead to stability of government. There is only one known form of valid and acceptable self government in the United States . . . and that is the subdivision into political entities with full powers of representation. From the smallest to the largest of such subdivisions we have villages, towns, cities, counties and finally the states. Nowhere in this nation are taxpaying citizens excluded from such representative units but in Washington, D.C. This country began with 13 states and expanded to 48 within the continental USA. Now what was the rationale for each territory's desire to free itself from colonial status and join in the Union of States? Was it not that citizens having common interests and problems within established boundaries recognized that authority to deal with their needs must rest in their own hands? And did they not realize that they could never receive equitable benefits from their taxes without equitable representation in the U.S. Congress? And were they not also demanding equity for the sake of equity and for the sake of fidelity to the na- tion's proclaimed principle of full and equitable representation for all citizens? And has not the purpose of non-voting delegate service been to prepare each ter- ritory for acceptance into the Union of States? Our answer to each of these ques- tions is a resounding yes! Then do these questions not apply .with equal validity to the last colony here in Washington, D.C.? Of course they do. Then why are you not concentrating, as was done with the two most recently admitted states, Hawaii and Alaska, on means of converting D.C. to a state? To be sure, there are the nay sayers who would assign unique and inferior status to D.C. citizens and insist that we are simply not ready or that our. re- sources are inadequate for full citizenship. They would also demand that those of us in servitude prove that it is feasible for us to not be in servitude as a condi- tion for the elimination of servitude in the nation's capital. Which is like de- manding of a slave who has been denied access to the rights, privileges and opportunities of freedom the design of an irrefutable program for his economic prosperity as a condition for removing the chains that have bound him physically, emotionally and sometimes mentally all his life. No, Gentlemen, that is hardly a `worthy approach and it certainly is not the "American Way." If you recall this nation has traditionally determined whether a goal is worthy, desired, productive, fair, reasonable. On occasion we have even been known to give serious consideration to a goal based on its moral merits. Therefore, in the same way that this nation set a goal some two hundred years ago to be free from England, with all the difficulties and hardships that entailed, PAGENO="0041" 37 including war; in the same way that only ten years ago we determined to reach that strange, distant, mysterious planet called the moon, we should now set about designing a process for bringing D.O.'s colonial subjects into full citizenship through the only means ever tried in this country... statehood. The process is eminently simpler than that of freeing the nation from colonial- ism. No war will be needed. Only appropriate legislation. The process is substantially easier than getting to the moon. No scientific re- search, glamorous hardwood or specially trained supermen are needed. There are no mysteries involved in statehood. It's been accomplished successfully fifty times. The pattern and process is before us. I dare say that if the opponents of statehood could receive a typical consult- ancy to develop a process for moving toward statehood for Washington, D.C., you'd have a very persuasive program in a very short time. I seriously recom- mend that to you. I must remind you that none of the various special, hybrid, partial, deceptive proposals for half rule would ever be accepted by your constituents in your home districts. We in Washington, D.C. are no different than they. May I conclude by saying that this is not an entreaty. This is a clear statement of your responsibility, and a proclamation that there are no acceptable alterna- tives to honest, equitable and traditional political representation for Washing- tonians. Mr. ADAMS. The next witness before the committee is Mr. Charles Cassell, who is the chairman of the Statehood Party. Mr. Cassell, do you want to introduce for the record and for the com- mittee those who have joined you at the table? STATEMENT OP CHARLES CASSELL, D.C. STATEHOOD PARTY, ACCOMPANIED BY LARRY WILLIAMS, WALTER MYLECRAINE, AND EDWARD DRINKARD Mr. CASSELL. Yes. Before I do that I would simply like to say that I think you can understand Mr. Hobson, the first chairman and the in- spirational force behind the District of Columbia statehood move- ment-you can understand his frustration and his disgust at the idea of having to appear before you each year and make a defensive argu- ment in behalf of the only kind of self-government that we know in this country. My name is Charles Cassell. I'm Chairman of the District of Co- lumbia Statehood Party and a member of the elected Board of Edu- cation in Washington, D.C. I have with me on my left Mr. Larry Wil- hams, who is the first vice chairman of the District of Columbia State- hood Party. On my right is Mr. Edward Drinkard, who is the treas- urer o,f the party. Ms. Margo Weaver, our second vice chairman, is a mother working on a degree program at Washington Technical Insti- tute in the evenings; and she is a full-time social service representative in the Area C Mental Health Center during the day. Therefore, she cannot be here on this occasion. I would like to say that I was born and raised in Washington, D.C., and I've lived here all my life, except for those periods spent in the service and in college. And since I reached maturity, I have been testi- fying before all of these various committees on everything from un- warranted freeways to the shameful colonial status of the city which is the Nation's Capital. My colleague, Mr. Williams, to my left is a former student of mine, a former law student, and now holds a responsible position in the edu- cational life of the city. My other colleague, Mr. Drinkard, is currently PAGENO="0042" 38 a student pursuing a degree in journalism and holds a responsible posi- tion with the YMCA. Each of our officers is active in this community on a day-to-day basis, struggling against the consequences of this unrepresentative government. And these people know at firsthand the feelings and the attitudes of the people in this city regarding the various hybrid pro- posals that are before you. Now, of all the issues that I have testified on through the years, the question of local disenfranchisement is the most aggravating. And it is that because we never appear before officials who have been elected by us and who have an obligation to respond to our demands. It is probably safe to say that none of you have ever been in that position, with the exception of your one colleague from Washhington, D.C., who, because of his status as a colonial subject, cannot `vote with you on the floor of the House of Representatives. And I felt rather badly when you had your quorum call just now, and he remained in office sitting in the chair there because of that status. And I'm sure that you can understand that we do not come to you with thanks for the opportunity once more to make verbal expressions with no more influence than that of the good will and the force of logical argument. We have done that many times before. We come to place the issue in perspective and to demand that you cease and desist from this charade of debating, demeaning, and decep- tive half measures that purport to respect the basic rights of American citizens and the principle of no taxation without full representation. None of the proposals for limited or partial self-government were nor are they acceptable to the citizens of Washington, D.C. We know that. Each of them is sadly reminiscent of the intense resistance to self- government offered by colonial and despotic governments down through history; and there are sufficient examples of recent world history to indicate that such continued resistance certainly does not lead to stable governments. There is only one known form of valid and acceptable self-govern- men~ in the United States, and that is the subdivision into political entities with full powers of representation. Each of you certainly. knows that, because you come from such jurisdictions, and you sit there as a result of respect for that process. From the smallest to the largest subdivisions-we have villages, we have towns, cities, counties, and finally, the States. Nowhere in this Nation are taxpaying citizens excluded from such full representation exeent in Washington, D.C. This country began with 13 States and expanded to 48 within the continental United States. Now, what was the rationale for each terri- tory's desire to free itself from colonial status and join in the Union of States? And T might point out here that historically, the purpose of non- voting Delegates in the United States was to prepare the territory for eventual inception into the Union of States. No nonvoting Delegate has sat in the Congress and accepted that status or designed a method PAGENO="0043" 39 to perpetuate anything less than full statehood. We feel that is the role that our Delegate should be playing now. Now, was it not that citizens having common interests and prob- lems within established boundaries recognized that authority to deal with their needs must rest in their own hands? We are talking about the reasons that any territory wanted to be a State. And did they not realize that they could never receive equitable benefits from their taxes without equitable representation in the U.S. Congress? And were they not also demanding equity for the sake of equity, and for the sake of fidelity to the Nation's proclaimed principle of full and equitable representation for all citizens? And has not the purpose of nonvoting Delegates' service been, as I said before, to prepare each territory for acceptance into the Union of States? Our answer to each of these questions is a resounding yes. We have never had any argument to that. In fact, we can't get people to even deal with that question. Then do these questions not apply with equal validity to the last colony here in Washington, D.C.? Of course they do. Then why are you not concentrating, as was done with the two most recently ad- mitted States, Hawaii and Alaska, on means for converting the Dis- trict of Columbia into a State? To be sure, there are the nay-sayers who would assign unique and nefarious status to District of Columbia citizens and insist that we are simply not ready, or that our resources are inaedquate for full citizen- ship. They would also demand that those of us in servitude prove that it is feasible for us not to be in servitude as a condition for the elimina- tion of servitude in the Nation's Capital which is like demanding of a slave who has been denied access to the rights, privileges, and oppor- tunities of freedom, the design of an irrefutable program for his eco- nomic prosperity as a condition for removing the chains that have bound him physically, emotionally, and sometimes mentally all his life. This is a ridiculous proposal, gentlemen, it is hardly a worthy approach, and is certainly not, to quote, "the American way." You recall this Nation has traditionally determined whether a goal is worthy, desired, productive, fair and reasonable. On occasion we have even been known to give serious consideration to a goal based on its moral merits. Therefore, in the same way that this Nation had set a goal some 200 years ago to be free from England, with all the difficulties and hardships that that entails, including war; in the same way that only 10 years ago we determined to reach that strange distant, mysterious planet called the Moon, we should now set about designing a process for bringing the District of Columbia's colonial subjects into full citizenship through the only means ever tried in this country- statehood. The process is eminently simpler than that of freeing the Nation from colonialism. No war will be needed, only appropriate legislation, and that legislation is before you now in the form of Congressman Dellum's bill for statehood. PAGENO="0044" 40 The process is substantially easier than getting to the Moon. No scientific research, glamorous hardware, or specially trained supermen are needed. There are no mysteries involved in statehood. It has been accomplished successfully 50 times. The pattern and process is before us. I dare say that if the opponents of statehood could receive a typical consultancy to develop a process for moving toward statehood for Washington, D.C., you would have a very persuasive program before you in a very short time. I seriously recommend that to you. I must remind you that none of the very special, hybrid, partial, deceptive proposals for half rule would ever be accepted by your constituents in your home districts. We in Washington, D.C., are no different than they. May I conclude by saying that this is not an entreaty. This is a clear statement of your responsibility, and a proclamation that there are no acceptable alternatives to honest, equitable, and traditional poli- tical representation for Washingtonians. I listened to Mr. Hechinger attempting to respond to a variety of questions to you regarding the charter, regarding the protection of the Federal interest; and the reason that Mr. Hechinger and anybody else has difficulty responding to that is because of the fact that they are proposing to you something very unique, something very special. V\Tho knows what home rule is? Where do you find the pattern for that? What you are trying to do is to design something which purports to give partial representation to citizens, but denying them the ultimate control over their government. The fraudulent nature of home rule as a prospect is simply that it allows citizens to do no more than go through the exercise of electing a Mayor and a City Council. Recognizing the sharp divergence between home rule and statehood, there is now an additional proposal, and that proposal purports to give us congressional representation. But that in itself, we all admit, would take years. It would take a two-thirds vote as a constitutional amendment in both Houses and three-quarters of the States. But suppose that were successful, and the President signed such a bill. Suppose that we had home rule. Suppose that we had congres- sional representation. What would you really have? We would have two Senators; you would have two Representatives; and whom do they represent? They would not ~represent a State with the power of a Governor and a State legislature, as all of the other States. They would be representing unrepresented people, and there would be no vehicle, there would be no local government with power that responds to the people for those two Representatives and two Senators to represent. It is clearly a hybrid. It is clearly an excuse to deny to this city the kind of self-government that is needed. And I say to you that it is im- possible for this Congress to devise any measure that will be satisfying to the citizens of Washington, D.C., which denies them the same in- fluence in the Congress and within their jurisdiction that the other States do. PAGENO="0045" 41 Now, one of the advantages of the statehood bill is that it eliminates all of the arguments that I have been hearing about the Federal inter- est. It eliminates it by design. It does, indeed, separate out the Federal endave where the majority of Federal activities go on and where the majority of the federally owned property is, so that that becomes the District Of Columbia; and there is no conflict there with the U.S. Con- stitution which simply says that there shall be a Federal district. It does not indicate how large or how sm'dl it should be It does indicate that it should be no more than 100 square miles. All right. The Federal Government then would have complete jurisdiction over that. But one of the things that would make the State perhaps economically feasible is the Government would then have to pay for the services that it cannot provide for itself-for sewer service, for water service-arid that is substantial-for fire service, indeed for the Metropolitan Police, whose services they use extensively now and do not pay for. But then you would have the question, as the gentleman here raised, about the rest of the Federal property. We've got the parks, which are under the Interior Department, and we have other federally owned properties within the new State of Columbia, or the new State of Frederick Douglas or Martin Luther King, whatever the name will be. Thereby would be the rationale for the continuation of a Federal payment, and the purpose of a Federal payment is to compensate for the inability of this city as a new State to tax its land. And in the United States it seems to be a philosophy that substan- tial taxes come from the ability of the group to levy taxes for its own support on property. If that property is not owned by the people, then the Federal Government, of course, has an obligation to provide some kind of compensation. But as a State with two Senators and two Representatives now, rather than sitting before you and begging, we would be able then to prevail in the U.S. Congress for a reasonable Federal payment, hope- fully to be reduced throughout the years as the State became more and more economically feasible. And the reason it would become eco- nomically feasible is because now, under home rule and under Mr. Kennedy's bill you'd probably still have 7th Street, 14th Street, and H Street underdeveloped. It has been that way now for 4 years with a strong, clear commitment from the President of the United States. They allowed the people to do the planning, but the money was not forthcoming; and of course, there was no way to wrest that from them, as a State would from our own taxes, and also from the Federal Government. There are various programs which are always defaulted on, because we would have two voting Senators and two Representatives who would have an opportunity to do what you do all the time, and that is to negotiate with others of your colleagues who have bills of im- portance to them. . Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Cassell, I'm sorry to interrupt you. We have a vote now; and this is one of the problems that we face. And I would like to discuss with you the alternative of whether you would like to return tomorrow morning at 10 where we can continue PAGENO="0046" 42 with your statement and your questions, because we will have more members here. We're having the problem that they are voting. Can you do that? If you can, I would like to continue this over so that the members can vote, but that your statement would be com- pleted then. Mr. CASSELL. Yes. I think we can all return tomorrow at 10. Mr. ADAMS. Then with that we will recess until 10 tomorrow morn- ing, and it will be in room 1302 tomorrow; and we willstart with you, Mr. Cassell, and those who wish to join you. And then we will move to the other witnesses, and I'm sorry that the floor schedule-I wanted to just continue through this, but I can't control that. Thank you. We'll see you tomorrow morning. [Whereupon, the hearing in the above-entitled matter was recessed at 12:45 p.m., to be reconvened the following day at 10 a.m.J PAGENO="0047" SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUM- BIA, AND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DIS- TRICT OF COLUMBIA THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1973 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBOOMMITrEE ON Go EnNME~ O~ERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRIOT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 08 `t m, in room 1302 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Brook Adams presiding. Present: Representatives Adams [presiding], Fauntroy, Landgrebe. Also present: Robert Washington, chief counsel; Jacques DePuy, counsel to the subcommittee; John Hogan, minority counsel to full committee, and Anne Darneille, subcommittee staff Mr. ADAMS. The subcommittee will come to order. This is a con- tinuation of the hearings on the reorganization of the government of the District of Columbia and ~ e were finishing yesterday with the testimony of Mr Chailes Cassell of the ID C Statehood Party and then we will move to the witnesseS from the District of Columbia City Council. is Mr. Cassell heref? Mr. CASSELL. Yes. Mr. ADAMs. Do you want to come foreward, please, and you indi- cated you wanted to be accompanied by Larry Williams and Edward Drinkard. Do you have any further statement you want to make here this morn- ing, Mr. Cassell ? We heard your opening remarks yesterday and I did not inquire of you at that time whether you h~id completed your remarks. STATEMENT OP CHARLES CASSELL, ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD DRINKARD-Resumed Mr. CASSELL. Yes, we have a few other things we would like to say now, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I would like to introduce again the people here. Mr. Larry Williams should be here very shortly. One of the distinctive things about the Statehood Party is that our members have a credibility and credentials that we don't believe that the other people who have testified before you have. You have had dis- tinguished people here who are members of the Coalition for Self De- termination and the former chairman of the City Council and others. Each of these persons has his own highly esteemed credentials in this (43) PAGENO="0048" 44 field but the difference in the Statehood Party is that we live in the city, work in the city and our jobs keep us in daily contact with the people in the various organizations in the communities day by day. When people who hold political positions, people who must respond to business interests and other economic entities and so forth testify before you, it is necessary for them, I think, to balance their views considering all of those various interests. None of us holds public office. We are not politicians. None of us has important responsibili- ties in business interests. We have no bankers. We have no merchants. We have none of those interests. Dr. Drinkard, as I mentioned here before, who is our treasurer, is a student. of journalism at Federal City College. He holds an important position with the YMCA where he does writing for them, where he does organizing; where he does public relations work and he is constantly in touch with the people in this city and their problems, day by day. That is his total experience. And, of course, he is receiving enlightenment every day as he moves toward the field of journalism. You heard Mr. Hobson yesterda.y and I would simply like to say that we all know that Mr. Hobson is an a.ngry man and I think you understand why. Mr. Hobson perhaps is one of the most brilliant men in the city. If, indeed, Mr. Hobson, were to apply his talents toward his own affluence, he would be a very wealthy man. He is probably one of the best statisticians that this city has known and this is the reason that he always prevails when he goes before the courts. He has provided for this city not only some direction and some inspiration, but he has shown us how to amass facts and to place those facts into relevant perspective so as to make them more successful. And when Mr. Hobson speaks to you, I think we must recognize that if anybody in this city Irnows and understands the economics as well as the desires of the people, that he does. And that is the reason for his impatience with this process that we go through once a year in which we are making appeals to people over whom we have no con- trol whatsoever. I am an architect and I have practiced in the city all my life. I was born and raised here and I've only been away for the times I was in the service and in college. I am a professor at Federal City College now and I deal with scores of students every day. Those students are Federal employees. They have views and attitudes and problems. I know those. Mr. Larry Williams is a coordinator between the Adams Com- munity School and the District of Columbia Board of Education and there he is dealing with the problems of education every day in that community and others. He has a relationship between that school and all the other schools with similar problems. So that the officers of the Statehood Party are people who are not only relevant but well-informed and they are free from some of the other pressures that people holding political office are faced with daily. But we say to you that in the city of Washington, D.C., of course, is disenchantment over the fact that we are disenfranchised. In addi- tion to that, the majority of people in the city have serious problems PAGENO="0049" 45 with all of the proposals for self-determination other than statehood. The reason `for that isthat each one of those provides for something less than what the other States have and we believe that this city, which should become a State, can never vie for the Federal funds, vie for the equitable treatment until such time as we have not two Sen- ators and two Representatives, as Senator Kennedy's bill would pro- vide, who respond to what? They respond to a city which is unrepre- sented. There is not that by-play. A State has a Governor and a State legislature who are responsible to those people; that gives them some kind of stability and some kind of pressure possibility. There's a rela- tionship between them and the representatives. Senator Kennedy's bill is simply not satisfactory because we have a very strange animal: Congressional representation for people who themselves have no representation. I am very much concerned about the home rule bill and I hate to review these things, but I think we do have to get these things on the record for purposes of perspective. The home rule bill is recognized by everybody as entirely inadequate sim- ply because the Congress has a veto. We think we can put argument before the Congress of not having to have that veto and to compen- sate `for that, there has been an additional measure. The delegate from Washington, D.C., supports Mr. Kennedy's bill which gives us con- gressional representation. We know that that bill is practically impossible. It means a two- thirds vote in both Houses, the President's signature, and then the long tortuous route of getting the approval of three-quarters of the States. Even if that were to come to fruition in 5 or 6 years, how long would the citizens of Washington have to endure the corridor, 7th Street, 14th Street, and H Street undeveloped simply because the peo- ple here cannot mandate it. So none of these bills are really successful. Now, we are getting a lit- tle exhausted from having to prove that statehood would be practical and feasible for Washington, D.C. We just think that the citizens here have the same views, attitudes, philosophies, and certainly the same spending.habits that cities do anywhere. Many people in Washington, D.C., don't live here or have not lived here all their lives and they know the values. They know the experi- ence of statehood and it is rather difficult to explain to those people the minute they step across the border, that they have a new status. We are saying to those people who keep saying how are you going to finance a state that we are a country of doers. If there is anything we know how to do and have done in the United States is to solve the problems of the mechanics of doing something that we determined to do. I said yesterday that we had no serious problem in getting to the Moon. Well, we've heard that before but let's just look at that now. At some point, with all of the difficulties that that strange mysterious event provided, it was decided anyway that we would. The problem of moving an earthbeing from the surface of this massive planet which we are familiar with, some 25,000 miles in circumference through the atmosphere, the stratosphere, the ionosphere, through space to an- other planet and then to place an earthbeing, who can survive on that other planet, that required scientific development, it required develop- 97-527---73-pt. 2-4 PAGENO="0050" 46 ment of hardware, it required tremendous amounts of money, develop- ment of people who were capable of doing that. But we set our mir~ds to it and then we developed the strategy and we developed the mechanics. Now, there is no mystery about statehood. As I said yesterday. that we have already got 50 of them. All we need to do is to decide' that that kind' of political equity should reside here in Washington, D.C., and then we. assign the responsibility to someone to design the mechanics for doing that.~ Where we run into a problem of the Federal Government occupying substantial amounts of our land, we don't throw up our hands and assume that just because we have statehood, that the' Congress will be pumtive and deny us the kind of support that they give us now to compensate for their existence here. As a matter of fact, as a State with two Representatives, and two Senators, we would be in a much better position to negotiate for an equitable Federal payment, based on the fact that we cannot do what every other citizen in every other State does and that is to derive funds from taxes on' its land. * Therefore, that's not a' problem. And as I said yesterday, also, it seems to me rather ridiculous that we ask people who now exist in a form of slavery, a form of servitude, to' design the process for them- selves which will prove that they can be economically successful once they are no longer in a condition of `servitude~ It is ridiculous' to ask a slave or anybody in servitude without the opportunities and the priv- ileges to plan to explore, to be creative, to develop resources that he may not even know of as a person in servitude, this simply doesn't make sense. I said yesterday also that there is another thing that we know how to do very well in this country and that is to write proposals. I main- tain that the most rapid opposition to self-determination through state- hood for Washington, D.C., could be overcome if you gave those very opponents a lucrative contract to design a process for bringing Wash- ington, D~C., into statehood. Then we would find out how easy it is for them to solve that problem as we solved all other problems for which there is a fee and for which there is perhaps some status for having accomplished a different process. ` The.refore, our suggestion is that we stop dealing with these half- measures, that we stop being nay-sayers, that we stop pretending that there is something inferior about the people in the District of Colum- bia and that we stop assuming that the Congress is so very racist, so very punitive, so very hateful, that just a `few years after having brought distant lands like Hawaii and Alaska into statehood, that that very Congress which provided millions of dollars, which pro- vided millions* of acres, which provided all sorts of resources and as- sistaiice to all of the States as they came into being, that that Congress would then be punitive of Washington, D.C. * * I recognize that Washington. D.C.. is 75 to 80 `percent black. It is true. I recognize as the Kerner Commission says, we live in a country which is essentially racist. But I think I heard Sena.tor Kennedy say that he thinks that there is a movement away from that. It is our job to accelerate it. PAGENO="0051" 47 Now, I think that there is enough demoiistration that black people, once they have authority and opportunities do not act perhaps as punitively as white people have in the past, having suffered the dis- advantages of prejudice and hate and discrimination, we recognize the fruitlessness of that. We are human beings and we can hate also but I think we are looking perhaps down the road. If people in Washing- ton, D.C., had the authority to be a State, I think we would treasure the fact that we are here in the Nation's Capital where we have a tre- mendous amount of revenue from the Federal Government that we would want to run that government just as efficiently. I point out to you, where blacks have had an opportunity to partici- pate, even though they have difficulties with the overall philosophy of the Nation, that they have used that rather wisely. We see that-our first opportunities were in sports and music and entertainment. Now, we can say that we have people in the professions. Of all the architects that I know, the best architecture that has been provided for Washington, D.C., schools has come from those black architects who now have an opportunity to design new schools. One of my projects as a member of the Board of Education was to stop the process of denying contracts for new designs of schools to black architects and one of the most excellent designs for here in Washington, D.C., is the Dunbar High School which is done by Charlie Bryant, a former colleague of mine. This school is going to receive national awards and it is because of the fact that Mr. Bryant has the native talent. He has had the opportunity and he has defi- nitely determined to make a name for himself. So I don't think that the argument that we have a racist Congress is simply not going to respond to that. I think also one of the difficulties with home rule has been that it is something that you can't define, that there is no pattern for it. There is no justification for it and those peo- pie who push that are constantly responding, as I heard people do yesterday, to the logical questions about how this unique form of gov- ernment will fit in to the activities of the Federal Government as well as the rest of the country. With statehood, there are no mysteries. Finally, I would simply like to say that we heard much discussion yesterday about a charter commission. As Mr. Hobson said, "I think this is very inadvisable." What is the purpose of a charter commission? To write some kind of program for giving the franchise to people. You already have that. You have it in Congressman Dellum's bill. That is the most logical bill that has come before the Congress. It simply says that first, you have a referendum to determine whether the people in Washington, D.C., indeed want to be like all other citi- zens, to be in a State. That's the point to ~tart with, not with a hybrid, not with some half measure, to start with what we expect-a self-government in the United States: If that referendum indicates that the majority of the people want statehood, then the next part of that bill is a constitu- tional convention. That's the-American way. That's the way most of the States came into being. There you have your charter commission but that charter commis- sion is not free to decide for itself what is best for Washington, D.C., or what kind of government. It has its mandate already to bring this PAGENO="0052" 48 group into the Union of States. And it is democratically elected, it comes from the people themselves with representatives from the City Council and the Mayor and the President's Office, and so forth, but there are people who are affected on it and they will write a constitution. That's been done at least 50 times. We know of that so there are no mysteries. There's nothing to argue about that. That constitutional~ recommendation comes back to the people for another referendum where it is either accepted or modified. And then it goes back to the Congress again for it to apply its wisdom to. When that is accepted, the President signs it. You've got auto- matically statehood. Now, that's just as simple and logical. There is nothing negative about what I said. Nor are we assuming that you are going to put roadblocks. If this committee and other committees of the U.S. Congress would see this in the light of equity, and perhaps listen to not pleas and entreaties, but at this point demands for some kind of respect at last for the citizens of this city, who have not created any problems for the Federal Government with whom we are in such close contact, if they would have respect for the fact that if you can write a charter by people who are appointed, then a charter can be written in the con- ventional way of a constitutional convention. So our position is, that you have no choice but now to examine and to provide for this city what has worked in the rest of the country, especially in light of the fact that nothing else has even been tried, which has been successful. I would like Mr. Ed Drinkard, who is our treasurer, to make what- ever remarks that he would like to make, if you are ready to hear him. Mr. ADAMS. Go ahead, Mr. Drinkard. Mr. DRINKARD. Mr. Adams, members of the committee, as Mr. Cas- sell has so avidly stated, with my job I come in contact with a variety of people in the District and the statement I would like to make now is strictly for the record and I think this reflects the feeling that people now have in the District of Columbia about the) lack of any type of self-government and self-determination. Gentlemen, as Mr. Hobson very bluntly stated at the hearings here yesterday, for another consecutive year we meet to discuss statehood versus home rule versus colonialism. The same contingents are made each year and now as in past forums, the same contingents are being argued to the point of impasse. Gentlemen, this needless rate must stop. Eight hundred thousand District residents are fed up with the arbitrary decisionmaking on the part of Federal bureaucrats of policies concerning the affairs in the District. These are policies which affect the lives, homes, and income of District residents. However, District residents have no control over the decisions which a.re made here. It is my personal contention that our Federal magis- trates are reluctant to see a predominantly black populace acquire self- government and self-determination. It has been the expressed desire of our present administration to see the city of Washington become the model city for the entire Nation. This endeavor has been quite successful. PAGENO="0053" 49 We are the model for no-knock entry into private homes of citizens. We are the model for preventive detention of suspected felony citizens. *We have a model of unconstitutional search and seizure practice by local law enforcement personnel. We are the model for unwarranted social service budget cuts. We are the model for inactivity in comple- tion of previously planned public housing. We are the model for high retail food prices. If I may be allowed to digress for a moment on a subject of major personal importance and concern, I must state that we are the model for apathy toward the Vietnam veterans. Out of 49 benefits which are available to veterans throughout the United States, the District of Columbia extends only six of these benefits to its 37,000 Vietnam veterans. According to the President, the District of Columbia is to be the model of the 197~6 Bicentennial, yet we are still the model for unrepresentative government. In short, the District of Columbia has become the model for our present administration's lack of interest and concern for the problems, the needs and achievements of black Americans, Spanish-speaking Americans and other oppressed minorities. In a land founded upon the principle and process of democracy, the District of Columbia is the model of facism at its most advanced level. We, the citizens of the District of Columbia, cannot and will not tolerate this blatant indifference toward us. We are all equal citizens of these United States and we intend to be treated as such. Let us make the District of Columbia a real model for the entire country by extending to its citizens the opportunity for real self-gov- ernment. That self-government can only be achieved through state- hood for the District of Columbia. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. CASSELL. Sir, I would like to make one remark about the Nelsen Commission. I have heard that mentioned several times. May I? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, if you want to make a comment on it. Mr. CASSELL. Thank you. I will be very brief. Our concern with the Nelsen Commission is that as we see it, al- though it talks about respect for self-government, it is essentially a design to make this system efficient as it is. It respects the position of the Mayor that we have now. It tries to consolidate some of his au- thority. It takes much too much of the authority away from the elected Board of Education which now can only make policy but it can't implement it because the Mayor controls the budget which is sent to the Congress. We feel that the Nelsen Commission report is inade- quate in that it does not address the problems of changing the form of government and it is that very form, as Mr. Drinkard has been saying, which is responsible for many of our problems. It accepts the status quo and tries to make it efficient as it is and for that reason we don't think that it addresses itself to our own Droblems. And our plea to you, though I said we weren't going to make en- treaties~ I sense that we're getting some response and we are being heard. Our plea to you now is to ignore those people among you who will say how you are going to do it, decide that you are going to make a State out of Washington, D.C., and then using all of the expertise PAGENO="0054" 50 and all of the experience, assign the~ responsibility to develop a State for Washington, D.C. Let us not waste any more time listening to those who say we can't, that you don't have the resources. The resources that we don't have are available in the Federal Government. We believe in a union of States. That is the philosophy of the United States. If you believe in that, then it has to be provided for these people in the continental United States halfway between the northern and southern border and the expertise does exist. Assign the responsibility to eliminate the problems using the same Federal assist- ance and positive approach and that has to start with the committee and other committees of the House Distri.ct Committee. Make that the objective and then you will find that the mechanics are relatively simple. No more nay-saying, please. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Cassell. I have no questions. Do other members of the committee have a question of Mr. Cassell? Mr. LANDGREBE. I don't believe so, Mr. Chairman. I made notes of some of his phrases and words and I will yield back my time. Mr. FAUNTROY. I yield my time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Cassell. Thank you, Mr. Drinkard. We appreciate your presentation. It was very eloquent. Mr. CASSELL. Thank you. Mr. ADAMS. The next witnesses before us are the representatives of the District of Columbia City Council with John Nevius as chairman. We understand that you are accompanied by Councilman Henry Robinson, Jr., Tedson Myers, Jerry A. Moore, Jr., and Roekwood Foster. Is that correct or is there a correction for the record that you would like to make, Mr. Nevius, as to the members of your panel? Mr. NEVIUS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Nevius, I assume that as chairman you will make the original presentation and if you want to proceed, the committee is ready to hear your testimony. STATEMENT OP HON. JOHN NEVIUS, CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA CITY COUNCIL, ACCOMPAINED BY DR. HENRY ROBINSON, JR., MEMBER; TEDSON MYERS, MEMBER; REV. JERRY A. MOORE, JR., MEMBER; AND ROCKWOOD POSTER, MEMBER Mr. NEVIUS. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. Parenthetically, before I make my very brief opening statement, I can't resist the temptation in response to the previous witnesses' observations about a majority of the residents of the District of Columbia favoring state- hood, to say that I am not sure that is the case. I certainly have no objection to the statehood concept and if that is the approach that the Congress chooses, I would be indeed happy with it. But I can't resist the opportunity to point that on the basis of a popular vote, I got four times the number of votes that the statehood candidates did the time I ran against Delegate Fauntroy. Congressman Fauntroy and I did not oppose statehood. I was just speaking in terms of home rule in the abstract. PAGENO="0055" 51 Mr. Chairman, as a more than 20-year veteran of the struggle for District of Columbia local suffrage, I appreciate the opportunity to state briefly my views to this committee and I thank you for once again undertaking this important effort on behalf of my fellow citizens. My preference has always been for the maximum delegation of au- thority to the District of Columbia government, including revenue authority which is possible, consistent with full protection of the Federal interest in this city with which Congress is charged both in la.w and in fact. Recent House and Senate proposals have been de- signed to meet those purposes by means of a congressional veto ar- rangement. I supported those proposals, because to, separate the Fed- eral from the local in advance is difficult, indeed. To my mind, how- ever, the pure Mayor-City Council forniat is not the only formula, and something different might even be better. I might point out, I am not trying to rule out Congressman Fauntroy's formula, and I support it. Nor am I saying that it is necessarily the best formula. For example, it might he desirable to combine it with an office of an elected comp- troller. There are a lot of other things that could be done, or a com- pletely different approach. In any event, if the House is not prepared in this Congress to dele- gate full authority over local matters, I, for one, say let's get as much as we possibly can and not hold out for all or nothing. Now, this is a controversial issue. It has `been for years. But in my personal opinion, if we had followed that course in 1965, and I so counseled as legisla- tive chairman of theY District of Columbia Home Rule Committee at that time-if we had followed that course in 1965 after the Sisk bill passed the House, it is my personal opinion that we would have been much further along the road `to local self-governrfient than we are today. Finally, Mr. Chairman, while I am no political scientist, I do have one suggestion for your consideration which derives from my own ex- perlence in government and in the struggle for suffrage here. In large cities, the communication gap between the government and the citizen is very wide, breeding a lack of confidence on the part of the governed. Also, the administration of municipal services needs de- centralization in any large city. For example, Mayor Lindsay recog- nized this principle in his efforts to revise the system in New York City. It hasn't succeeded but he has tried. I feel that somehow these two ideas of the communication gap between the governors and the governed and the decentralization of administrative functions-I feel that these two ideas could be wedded in a new system here that in- volved the election of minicity councils in each of our eight election wards and the establishment in each ward of a minicity hall to de- liver certain municipal services at the. neighborhood level, such as administering and supervising the cleaning of streets. This would improve the quality and the accessibility of sonic very difficult munici- pal services, while at the same time it would furnish a kind of "prov- ing ground" for the seasoning of potential new political leadership to run for office in city hall and for our delegate to the Congress. Well, that is my own personal or concrete suggestion, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0056" 52 At this point, I would like to address very briefly the specific areas of concern which this subcommittee has highlighted as the purpose of these hearings. Let me add that most of these, in most of these cases, the views expressed represent a consensus of the Council, rather than any one specific view. I will run through them very quickly, and we will submit ourselves to questions from the members. With respect to the legislative function, we feel that Congress should retain its legislative powers for the District of Columbia to the same extent that it does for other cities where Federal operations and functions are located only in lesser amounts. All other legislative powers, including appropriations, should be transferred or delegated to the local government. For the purposes of identifying these Federal functions, we are speaking basically of three things: First, the func- tion regarding Federal buildings and properties; second, the con- duct of Federal business-and there you get into the whole complicated matter of Federal functions versus local functions or Federal in- terests versus local interests, admittedly not easy to distinguish-and third, the function of international relations and matters concerning the diplomatic corps. With respect to the executive function and the local government, we think that the chief executive and the Council members, if that is the formula, should be elected. The chief executive should have a combination of powers, which encompass normally those of a mayor, a city manager, a county executive, and a Governor. This combination of powers would point to a strong mayor in the day-to-day operations of the city and the Council exercising its powers through the legisla- tive format, just as the Congress does at the Federal level, including budget review and confirming of mayoral cabinet appointments. By cabinet, I mean department head appointments in the District of Columbia government. With respect to the judicial function, Mr. Chairman, we feel that the judges of the District of Columbia Superior Court and the Dis- trict of Columbia Court of Appeals should be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the Council. With respect to fiscal affairs, all fiscal affairs should be transferred to the local government. The Federal payment of contribution, we suggest, would be established by a formula, subject to a 5-year review which would provide, in the first year, the current level of $190 mil- lion, plus a fixed percentage of that particular year's revenues. And then, in the second year, it would be the same $190 million, plus a fixed percentage of the second year's revenues, and so on, through a 5-year period. That would be the way that we would start this off. As to the electoral function, in addition to the presently elected School Board, the Council and Mayor should be elected. Govern- mental form and organization and Federal interest, has been discussed briefly by me a moment ago, and we will be happy to elaborate on this complicated matter in detail as our testimony and the question-and- answer period continues. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that we very much appreciate the opportunity to come today to express these ideas, particularly the one of my own that I mentioned, and we will be very happy to respond to questions which you may have. PAGENO="0057" 53 Before I finish, however, I would like to mention that the City Council has published one report. It was published by us and pre- pared by our Special Commission on Urban Renewal. Now, while I don't agree with everything in that report, I consider it a very fine report, and it does contain three things that might be considered relevant to your purposes. It contains a considerable discussion of that Commission's views on what the definition of the Federal interest might be. It also proposes a tripartite-type arbitration board to discuss this matter in the years to come, as the nature of the Federal interest and the local interest changes from time to time, which they must of course A tripartite type arbitration board, involving the Congress, the President, and the city government putting together members of it for resolutions of dis- putes on whether an interest is Federal or local. And, finally, it has some interesting suggestions about transfers of certain present Fed- eral authorities within the city to the local city government, notably the planning function in the National Capital Planning Commission, and the function of urban renewal and housing through the two Fed- eral agencies of Redevelopment Land Agency and National Capital Housing Authority. We would be happy if the committee would approve to furnish later a copy of that Commission's report. Mr. ADAMS. What is its length, Mr. Nevius, so the committee can make a judgment as to whether or not this should be included as part of the record or be placed in the committee files for use of the com- mittee members. Mr. NEvItrs. It is split between its own text and an annex, each of which is about 60 pages long. The text is about 60 pages, and the appen- dix or annex is about 60 pages long, so it's over 100 pages all told, Mr. Chairman. We are not specifically asking that it be included in the record. If it can be made available to those who are studying the problem, it could be incorporated in the record by reference if that would be acceptable. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Nevius, without objection, this will be placed in the committee files, and we might ask that you supply to the members of the committee, if you have sufficient copies of this, copies of it so that each committee member will have their own copy, in addition to the official file copy. Mr. NEvrns. We'll be very happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. ADAMS. All right. Without objection, we will follow that procedure. [The document referred to can be found in the files of the sub- committee.] Mr. ADAMS. Does any other member of the panel want to make a statement before I turn the matter over to the questioning of the committee? i~'Ir. NEVIUS. Councilman Meyers has one observation that has occurred to him since we got prepared. Mr. MEYERS. If. it is acceptable, Mr. Chairman, it is not a prepared statement in advance, but just some thought of what has already been testified to on behalf of the Council PAGENO="0058" For myself, I must say that remarks of the previous witness in one respect, I think, bear a great deal of attention. I have to liken it a bit to what you do when you stand with a 12-gage shotgun and try to shoot a moving skeet target. You have various choices. You can either decide to lift the gun, decide to look for the target, and decide to shoot it; or you can, in the very first instance, as an act of will, decide to hit the target the minute the thing comes up, and you pull the trigger. You are in the same position now. If you are going to do something about self-determination here in the District, it is literally an act of will that you must decide to do from the beginning. The exploring, the hesitation, the appointing boards, the appointing research groups and panels, has all happened before. An act of will, an act of self-deter- mination by the Congress is what is essential. In that regard, I think that one of the biggest stumbling blocks has been a preoccupation with how the city will function, instead of what the Congress wishes to reserve to itself. And I really think that if you were to pin down, in advance, those areas, as the chairman has alluded to, those areas which you wish the Congress to have exclusive control over in the future, it becomes simpler to approach the problem of how the city will resolve all the other matters that would be left to it. In that connection, I would like to say that I am not, myself~ entirely in accord with the idea of minicouncils in ward areas, because I come from another part of the world where the wards became minicouncils all by themselves, without an enacted political structure; namely, the political infrastructure itself. That becomes a service area. Things get done because, in the process of having ward chairmen, political leadership, an infrastructure that is now only beginning to happen in the District-because all our energies at the moment usually are chan- neled to community groups rather than political groups. As you begin to build that political infrastructure, believe me, there will be many city councils de facto. They don't need to be de jure. And the other, final, point that I wOuld offer is that, in the process of determining where the final choice will lie in a matter of dispute be- tween the city and any other agency, as to where authority lies, you must not overlook the residual authority the court will probably exer- cise, willy-nilly, whether anyone plans in advance for it or not. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. NEvrns. Needless to say, there isn't ~a unanimous agreement with Councilman Meyers' views as expressed, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Well, the commrnittee is well aware of the fact that there is no unanimity on this subject. Many people have referred to the fact that all of this has happened before. The chairman has had a little experience in this field, since about 1966, and I can say to you gentlemen that what is occurring has not happened before, because there is a very distinct possibility this year that this whole matter will go to the floor of the Congress. As you have heard members of this committee state to witnesses, as they have been before you, we are try- ing to analyze the very thing that Councilman Meyers just referred to, which is, what does the Congress consider their interests, the Federal interest, whatever you want to define in the cOnstitutional require- ment that the Federal Government exercise jurisdiction over this geo- graphic area known as the District. whatever that is. At least this member considers this a difficult problem. PAGENO="0059" 55 I might also state that, personally, the problem-I find retro- cession and statehood meeting together in a perfect circle, which- in other words, the arguments that both make, which many feel come from opposite ends of the spectrum, arrive at the same point. And this may cause this member some theoretical difficulty, but does not become obscured, at least, in, I am sure, the minds of the members of the committee. Doctor, did you indicate you wish to say something before we go to questioning? Dr. RoBINsoN. Yes, Chairman Adams, members of the committee. I was born in Washington around the turn of the century. I would like to say something about the charter form of government. When I finished the public school here, in my civics classes and elementary and the high schools, we were taught in the civic class about representation, taxation without representation is tyranny. And for 50 years we have talked about home rule, what we want here. I see nothing that a charter commission can give us that hasn't been talked about for 50 years. And when we come down to it, we know the Congress, the I-louse District Committee is the one that is going to pass any type of home rule bill here. So it seems to me that the Con- gress or the committee should tell us what type of home rule they are going to give us, then have a referendum or public hearing and let the citizens decide what type of government they want in relation to what the Federal interest is. Now, I would also like to know, what do we mean by Federal inter- est. I would rather hear the word, Federal function. Does Federal interest mean the Federal buildings or the Federal real estate-what is it going to do? Is the Federal interest going to have their own fire department, their own health department, their own water supply for the Federal units, or will the District assign them? So those are the things that I think should be addressed them~elves today. We have got to be pragmatic. The city or the City Council, the Statehood Party, the Republican Party, and the District of Columbia Party are not going to write this bill. So I think that Congress should tell us what is in the bill, then have a hearing on it. Let's get the best in, get the worst out, then have a referendum and leave it to the citi- zens what type of government you want. Thank you, sir. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much. Now, do the members of the- Mr. NEvIus. Mr. Chairman, may I inject once again? Mr. ADA~rs. Yes. Mr. NEvIus. Once again, Councilman Robinson's views don't nec- essarily reflect everyone's: And, indeed, at the appropriate point, if the chairman wishes, I would like to address myself to the charter issue that emerged yesterday. But I will await the pleasure of the committee on that. Mr. ADAMS. All right. Do the members of the committee wish to question at this time? Mr. Landgrebe? Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, we have had the pleasure, of course, of chat- ting with the members of the council on several occasions, and I hope that we will continue to have a lot of discussion. PAGENO="0060" 56 I am going ~o ask what may sound like a frivolous question, but I am sincere. You gentlemen are all appointed members of the Coun- cil. My question really is in two parts. No. 1, is there anyone of the appointed group who feels that the situation as it stands now does have some merit, some things about it that are good for the community? And, No. 2, what sort of dedication, greater dedication would you people put into your jobs if you were elected rather than, as you are at the present time, apiiointed by the President? Mr. ADAMS. Who wishes to- . Mr. NEYrUS. I have two who would like to speak. Mr. ADAMS. All right. We'll start, Mr. Foster, with you, and then we will go to Mr. Meyers. `Mr. FOSTER. I think this is a very, important and interesting ques- tion, Mr. Landgrebe, and particularly in this group, where you see three distinguished veterans of campaigns for election here. You have Mr. Nevius, Congressman Fauntroy, and the Reverend Moore. You also have three very battered-two battered campaign chairmen. I was Mr. Nevius' campaign chairman, and my colleague down there, Mr. Meyers, was a campaign chairman, so we believe in elections. I think there is a very important reason for elections, as distinct from appointment, Mr. Landgrebe; and this is that the executive branch of this city, as it is in the Federal, is organized functionally. We've got a highway department, a health department. and so on. And like such departments, they tend to think about their own func- tion, as distinct from the `piece of geography in which this function is applied. You as Congressmen, and Senators as Senators, and aldermen in the wards, worry about the delivery of service in a particular piece of geography from which you are e1~cted. This is so, in city terms, that the sewer department doesn't tear the road up one week, and you find the highway department coming down and tearing it up again the next week, because they are not coordinated. Until someone is elected from a particular piece of geography, he, I don't think, can ever have the close personal interest in what hap- pens in his district. Being appointed from a district is not the same. So that my basic answer to your question is, although there are ad- vantages in having people appointed,' this particular one, nO ap- pointed person can do properly. Mr. ADAMS. You wanted `to comment, Mr. Meyers? Mr. MEYEES. The question, I recognize, was not frivolous, nor is, I hope, that part of my answer which might be recognized as that. There is one value in what we have now. It has shown us how much we have to do, how far we have to go, and how little power we have to do the job that is asked of us. This, I believe, was touched upon' when we last met. It is a schooling ground in frustration. B'ut for those for whom frustration only draws you deeper into a commitment, it is probably a great training ground for enthusiasm for self-deter- mination for the District. ` ` Second, a~ to election, I can't imagine how we `could care more deeply, whether we were elected or appointed. I must say that. If you appoint or elect people who are going to care about the job, the hours PAGENO="0061" 57 they put in, the sacrifice they make in terms of their income, their homes, and their careers, they must be prepared to do that-ought to be the same. Mr. LANDGREBE. May I ask one more question? This is, perhaps, more touchy than the others. * Do you think that in political elections, would you gentlemen stand a good chance of being elected to the council, or would there be a much higher quality of people elected if we were going to have an election today or tomorrow? [General laughter.] * Mr. ADAMS. Now, any of you who would want to plead privilege at this point, the Chair would recognize you for that purpose. Who wishes to be first? And I will try to recognize you. Reverend Moore, we will start with you, and I think, Dr. Robinson, you indicated that you had a statement. Reverend Moore ~ Reverend MOORE. Mr. Congressman, I think your question could be in reverse and could be asked in your own district. As to the appropriate answer, as to the quality of the individuals who are elected to office under the electoral process. As you know, there are a combination of factors that enter into whether a person is elected to Office or not elected to office. It goes to the very heart of the question, as to the rights of the people to determine who represents them in rela- tion totheir basic needs and quality of their life. People have to accept what they get once they have elected an individual. Under the appointment process, as you probably well know, the appointment is in the discretionary power of the President of the United States with consent of the Senate. You might believe here that the discretionary authority of the President has been represented in the kinds of people who have been appointed to the City Council and to the mayorship of the city. * I would beof the belief that those of us who are striving to represent our people here in this city are giving a great deal of dedication to this particular assignment, far beyond what the legislation itself calls for, because we are supposed to be part-time people. Except that we had other sources of income to sustain ourselves, we never would.be able to give the inordinate amount of time to the job and the kind of dedica- tion to the job that we give. * So, in this sense, it tends to limit the kinds of people who can per- form the job under the appointment system. Mr. ADAMS. Dr. Robinson? Mr. NEvIus. May I inject just a word? Having been a veteran of one of these contests, Congressman Land- grebe, I earnestly believe that the voters of the District of Columbia are just as reliable and just as sophisticated as voters anywhere else in the country. I think that if it weren't for the rather lopsided party registration in the District of Columbia, for example, I could have `given Cor~gressman Fauntroy one whale of a race. The registration against me was about 7 to 1, and the statistics, the voting, brought it down to just close to 2 to 1, as I recall. I feel that the voters of this city made a very careful, thoughtful choice, and, in all modesty, I think they had two good candidates to choose between, and I feel that PAGENO="0062" 58 there are a number of other good people, many of whom have served on the Council and are serving on the Council today and holding other offices in the District. I earnestly believe, to give a specific answer to your question, except for the party registration part of it, where it happens that two-thirds of the Council are now Republican, which is permitted under the law- except for that, I think you would find just about the same kind of a City Council that you have today, particularly if you follow the con- cept that I was suggesting of the minicity halls, where people have an opportunity to develop a political base of a partisan political- I shouldn't use the word partisan, I mean an elected political base, rather than operating as Councilman Meyers says, the way we do to- day, where there are a bunch of organizations. If you have an elected political base created by my minicity hail system, individuals would become known to the voters. I am con- vinced that you would have, filtering up through that system, people of quality that you find in the present offices today, whether elective or appointive-or better. Mr. FAUNTROY. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. ADAMS. Dr. Robinson, did you have a comment you want to make? And then Representative Fauntroy wanted to have an oppor- tunity to comment. Dr. ROBINSON. Yes. In response to Representative Landgrebe's question, whether we think that an appointive council would give us a better quality of representative than an elected one. Now, I believe, sir, that if we get home rule here, there are many peonle who have not been on the City Council, who are not appointive, who well serye the city. I believe this because, if we have home rule here, then there will be a great interest here. The neople in the city of WTashington are not dumb. They realize the difference between rhetoric and accomplishment. Suggestively, I would like to give an examnie. You see people when they get on the jury. I have seen some people who have no interest at all, but it seems once they get in that jury box they have haloes around their head, and they believe in the law, and they will do right. So flow I would like to take a chance and he taken out of my ap- pointed job and-because at my age. I don't think I would run-but we have a fine quality of people on the Council now, and the citizens- they would have an advantage over somebody else running, because then the citizens of the District, they have had 3 or 4 years to see what these people can do. But I believe you would have just as good caliber of man in an elective job as you would on an appointive job. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Meyers, you want to comment, and then Mr. Fauntrov? Mr. MEYTRS. Mr. Adams. if I may, I think what I want to say prob- ably means more to me than anything I have ever said with regard to this subject. Mr. Land~rebe and members of the committee. I would like to get across somethina~ that has just been emerging in the consciousness of some of us. I believe that, even without a vote, this may be one of the healthiest bodies politic in the United States. PAGENO="0063" 59 The reason is, deprived of the usual tools of politics, it has instead fallen back on the community organization, the church groups, the neighborhood groups, the labor groups, the civic groups. You walk out the door in my home in Adams Morgan and you count 40 within 6 blocks. This infrastructure has been, almost since de Tocqueville, almost right from the 1830's, the business of volunteering for public business has been the way the District has survived all this time. These people know each other, they care, they have become involved. Now, very slowly and in very recent times, some of that energy is being transferred into a political process, but it has by no means really begun. When these people transfer those energies into the political process, two consequences, I think, will result, one bad, one good. One is that there will be a weakening of those community organiza- tions, because the young people may tend into the other system. But the second is a great strengthening of that system and the pouring of the same energies, the same wisdom, the same willingness, into the political process, as it has always poured into the community process. I think the strength is there, and I have complete conviction that it will work the same way. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Meyers. Mr. NEvrnS. It sounds to me as if Councilman Meyers is speaking in favor of my minicity halls. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Fauntroy? Mr. FAUNTROY. I ask the gentleman to yield his time at this point. Mr. LANDGREBE. As a matter of fact, I will yield back the rest of my time at this point. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you Mr. Landgrebe. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. I want to continue just about on the last question because while it is not the kind of substantive question that I want to get into-and I will get into it-it does deal with a serious philo- sophical and, perhaps, an emotional question that must be answered in the minds of the men and women on the 1-lill who must vote on what- ever we come up with. I think that, perhaps, Dr. Robinson answered the question in the sense that I think it was intended to be asked; namely, not whether or not an elected council would produce people of superior quality to yourselves. But rather the question on the minds of many people, is whether or not an elected council would produce people of inferior caliber, and, therefore, perhaps the form we have now is better. I think you have answered that question beautifully in every particular. I should just like to add one other dimension to it, and that simply is that, when there are serious powers available, at stake, you can rest assured that serious people will seek the office. People of no less in- terest and concern for the District than those who have been fortunate enough to be appointed will be seeking those offices. I think, given the sophistication of the community, they will reward those who are ser- ious with public office. So that I think that is one dimension that we must make very clear to the Members of the Congress, that everybody is not going to run for a position that has a lot of responsibility but~ clearly, no authority. Anybody with any sense is not going to waste his time doing that. I PAGENO="0064" 60 share with the members of the Council the sense of frustration and the deep commitment for home rule that grows out of service on the City Council. I think, if ever I was coversant to a thorough self-determination position, it was while I wrestled with the job which these men now have. I hope that point comes through very clear, on the quality that will seek the quality authority that goes along with responsibility. Now, I just have now a series of questions for the panel. Let me preface my series by saying that I am so appreciative of the quality of the testimony that you have given, and I want to assure the panel, on the basis of my knowledge of this committee and my growing knowledge of the Members of the Congress, that, Mr. Meyers, we are serious, that there is an act of will shaping in this committee, and I believe I see it in the Congress, to develop meaningful self-determina- tion for the people of this city. That act of will runs to both issues that you delineate. I think there is an act of will, a desire to define what the Federal interest is, and there is a recognition by the majority of the members of this committee, I think, of the District Committee, that that defi- nition cannot be made by the citizens of the District of Columbia. So that I am pleased that you have acknowledged the fact that a charter commission would sort of shift the responsibility for defining for the Congress the basis on which it is going to decide what the Federal interest is. That is fine. There is a serious effort on the part of this committee to get the Con- gress to decide the basis on which it will make a judgment, because, as you have rightly pointed out, the decision as to whether we get self-government is not going to be made by a commission. It is going to be made by this Congress. And I feel an act of will in this committee, in the District Committee to make that decision and to grapple for a basis for it. By the same token, I think there is an act of will and a desire, if not only in the majority of Congress, but certainly in this committee, that that act of will include a sound economic base for the substance of self-government, not simply the form, in terms of election and re- sponsibilities, but also the substance in terms of the ability to finance the machinery of government. Not only do I sense that commitment on the District Committee but in the Congress and House of Repre- sentatives, genuerally. I think I sense, if not a commitment, certainly a desire to define the Federal interest. And it is for all those reasons that I am very pleased that, in your prepared testimony, you have addressed two hard questions, one of which is a prime concern to me, and that is, how shall we finance the city? I am very much intrigued by your proposal that there be a fixed Federal payment to begin with a $190 million plus a fixed percentage of that year's revenues, plus a revenue process every 5 years for purposes of determining whether or not that formula is adequate for the time. I am very pleased with that, and I have two questions with respect to what you have suggested. The first is, for any member of the panel, how would we arrive at the fixed percentage of that year's revenues? Beyond that $190 million? I know that's a hard question to tackle. We have got to answer that if we want to put it together. PAGENO="0065" 61 Mr. NEVIIJS. Clearly, Congressman Fauntroy, that is the hooker in it, and I think that is something that would require a good deal of study. It could be a very small percentage, or it could be a substantial one. Indeed, the percentage itself might be subject to~ review from year to year. Frankly, this concept is a new one to us. That impre~ses us as being an avenue that really ought to be researched, but we did not have a chance to explore it thoroughly enough to come up with a recom- mendation as to how that percentage should be arrived at. It seems to me that it would be possible to develop either a flat per- centage-I think that would be preferable-or a flexible one, based upon several factors having to do with the composition of the budget. But I don't think that we are in the state of sophistication where any of us is in a position to actually make a concrete, thoughtful recom- mendation on how to arrive at that percentage. Mr. FAUNTROY. Let me assure you, Mr. Nevius, that neither you nor we nor anyone that I have been able to find on Capitol Hill considers himself in a position to make that judgment. But if we are going to come up with a viable form of self-government, we have got to do that. Mr. NEvrns. I agree. Mr. FAUNTROY. And so I am not asking for an example. I would like to see a little free association. How do we arrive at a fair and equitable Federal payment on your formula, subject to review every 5 years? May I suggest that the $190 million comprises about what-21, 22 percent of our budget now. Since that. first 5-year review period would be a testing period, I wonder if you could get a little more specific about what additional percentage of the budget we might want to suggest for the first go-around? Mr. MEYERS. I don't think, at this meeting, it is feasible. One of the reasons I suggest it may not be is that we cannot overlook, I believe. that the proposal for a fixed percentage would probably emerge, I think, in the President's budget. In which case, it would probably entail heavy involvement of 0MB in coming up with numbers to pro- pose to the Congress. That is a hunch that I take now. I think it is inescapable that it would come to the fact that it would be part of the Executive budget. Mr. NEVIUS. I might add this, Congressman. This is complicated in part by the fact that we operate a great deal on Federal grants right now, like all cities. Mr. FAUNTROY. And all States. Mr. NEVIUS. And all States, right. And the possible changes, one of which has already been imple- mented by Congress into a general revenue sharing concept as a sub- stitute for those fundings; also the possible changes into special reve- nue sharing block grants to replace part of these Federal grants; that complicates it, because, if the Federal grants remain at the same level, than we have got a benchmark from which to work. But if the reve- nue sharing totals should prove to be less, then that puts a burden on this percentile that we are talking about, which would, in my opinion, indicate that we would have to, increase that percentile if we 97-527--73-pt. 2---5 PAGENO="0066" 62 are going to be able to maintain the level of delivery of services that we presently have. So that is one variable that makes it difficult. I think the formula would have to reckon with-the percentage formula w~uld have to. reckon with any changes during the 5-year period, with respect to the Federal grant type of funding. Another thought that occurs to me is that it would be possible, in coming up with this percentage, it would be possible to-I think first of all, it is essential that the combination of the $190 million plus x be, as it is now, considerably more than the so-called real estate value tax. Because there is no logical relationship, in my mind, between the value of Federal real estate in the District of Columbia and the cost of municipal services. We are told-and I think accurately-that in re- cent years, the cost of delivery of municipal services has been increasing in all major cities in the country at half again the rate of speed as the increase in the local revenues. Mr. ADAMS. Now, wait a. minute. I understand that recent statistics show that local revenues will exceed local costs throughout the United States this year by about $12.5 billion. Mr. NEvms. Well, if that is true, then my information was wrong. Mr. ADAMS. Well, this may take in a lot of suburban communities and. other communities, but that is the most recent report from the analysis of local revenues as opposed to local expenditures this year. I am not saying that it is. true of the District or elsewhere. But this is a problem that I wanted to throw in at this point. Please proceed. Mr. NEVIUS. I may be mistaken on that, or it may depend on where the city line is drawn in terms of the character of the population, the more affluent being on the outside,, but included in the totality of the figures. All I know is that the League of Cities and the Conference of May- ors has generally made reference to that statistic. But I must confess that I don't know exactly where the line of demarcation is drawn within an SMSA for that purpose, or whether it includes the whole SMSA. Councilman Meyers has- Mr. MEYERS. There is one more element that is in it that is also an uncertainty, Congressman Fauntroy, and that is, we here are think- ing and reflecting with yesterday's equipment. But if we are talking about a system where the City Council was raising local revenue, we would have options as to what our own revenue structure would be, which we haven't even explored yet, which affects what that per- centage would be, you see. We have never had the right to set a sales tax, the right to designate new revenue sources. These are all things that would have to come into the equation. Mr. NEVITTS. The point I was trying to get at is that it is possible, even if statistics indicate that it is not, in fact, the case today-it is possible that. the cost of municipal services would continue to rise, particularly with the advent of union organization in municipal gov-. ernment, at a much faster rate than the value of the real estate in the Federal Government in the District of Columbia would rise. There- fore, I think this percentage should have in it an ability to take into account that kind of thing, in addition to the real estate tax. PAGENO="0067" 63 It seems to me right now the real estate tax is insufficient because we are delivering a lot of municipal services to the Federal structures in town, which costs us money. Except through the $190 million-let's put it this way-through the $190 million today is the only way we get compensation for that, in addition to getting compensated for the loss of real estate tax on over half the land in the District. Councilman Foster has something, too. Mr. FOSTER. I think this points up something which is growing not only here but everywhere in the country, which is the use of real estate, which is only one part of the cost of living, to base so many of our decisions on. In talking about the percentage, we must take in the factor of infla- tion, because the cost of municipal services varies with the inflation rate just like everything else. I suspect one of the reasons for Congressman Adams' figures there is that the cost of the real estate part of inflation has `gone up much faster than a great many other things. This would bring your reve- nues up in a distorted fashion. Now, particularly in cities, real estate as a measure of raising revenue, in my opinion, is very misleading. After all, your real estate tax, I think, historically was based on' rural things. It was another form of tax like the old personal property `tax- how many cows, how many tractors, how many acres. But in a city this is a distortion. And increasingly, as I seewhat our own real estate taxation is doing to the elderly citizens, people on fixed incomes-not just the elderly, may I add, but the youngsters who are starting out to house themselves who can't get raises as fast as their hOuses are increasing in value-these are, again, distortions of cities. So that I would hope, in `setting this percenta~O figure that we are talking about today, that a very important factor in it would hO the in- flation rate, something which does vary from year to year. and which, nationally, we have a fairly good hand in. Mr. FAUNTROY. Gentlemen, I must emphasize again the fact that it is my. hope that neither I nor this committee will be immobilized by a paralysis of analysis. `That is, we must begin somewhere; and I would be the first to agree with you that the real estate tax formula base is not an adequate base on which to arrive at the formula. I am further convinced that it is not feasible to establish the cost of services. That is, you cannot say how much Clorox is required to go into Blue Plains, or whatever they use to purify the water, to purify the water that the Federal employees drink as over against the IDis- trict employees or residents. That is folly. It is folly to try to quantify or qualify the amount of electricity burned on the streets in front of the embassies and in front of the Federal buildings, as over against that burned on my street, the street where I live. That's folly. But I do believe that we have got to wrestle; you with resources, us with our resources. We have got to wrestle with coming up with that fixed percentage. Now, there are variables. But we know how to deal with variables. If it goes this way, we develop a formula; if it goes that way we develop a formula; and if it goes another way, we de- velop a formula. My view is-and I hope that you would look at-assuming that our taxiiig authorities are transferred to the local government and that they remain roughly at the same relative level over the next 5 years; PAGENO="0068" 64 assuming that 0MB made a good judgment, and that you and the Mayor made a good judgment in complying with that view-assuming that is the case, and assuming that the revenue package, the revenue sharing formula remains what it is today, we ought to arrive at fixed percentage above that $190 million, which is oniy about 20 percent of the budget. And assuming that we may have a shift in the revenue sharing for- mula, we ought to work out a percentage, so that, I would hope that they would put somebody to work taking a good look at what would be a fair percentage of the cost of running the city the Federal Gov- ernment should be willing to bear, beyond its present level. And that is the great joy that I get from the formulation you have made here. It gives us something around which to begin. Mr. NEVIUS. Councilman Meyers wants to respond to this. But let me just say, we will, indeed, Mr. Congressman, try to come up with something concrete for purposes of such a percentage. I can't resist the temptation, at this point, to put in a small plug for our hope that we can have a modest increase in our staff in the new budget. Mr. ADAMS. Will the gentleman yield a moment? Mr. FAUNTROY. I'll be glad to yield, sir. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Fauntroy has put his finger on something that must be done, and I want to explain it to you from the problem that we face and make it very blunt and very specific-we have tried to do this in our questioning to the witnesses, and we will do it with the ex- ecutive branch of the Government when it comes in-is that, as- suming we do have the opportunity to sit down and mark up a bill, and thereafter go to the floor with it, we will have to have a section that will say something very specific on this. It is just as he is pointing out-if you are going to use a flat figure plus a percentage, that per- centage cannot float around in the air. The second thing that is involved with that is that, in an argument on the floor as to how this District should be financed, we must take into accountS as Mr. Meyers has mentioned before, the appropriations sys- tem which is up here, which operates on a year-to-year basis. If this payment became a Federal payment every year, unless a revenue shar- ing formula for 5 years, such as came out of the Ways and Means Com- mittee, is adopted-and which, incidentally, was fought bitterly by the Appropriations Committee-and may be rejected at some point during the next 5 years, because it does avoid the appropriation process. You must deal with the fact that, if the Federal Government is go- ing to transfer money to the District, it must do it either through the appropriations process or through a very difficult floor fight that will establish a different system, and that must be completely rationalized by the members of this committee who are there to defend it. People are going to want to know, just as Representative Fauntroy has stated, what is the basis for this. I agree with the comment made by Mr. Foster, and I think you can get general agreement in the Congress on this, that the property-that we don't want a payment in lieu of a property tax. The Congress itself has reasons for that. Because if it does that with Washington, D.C., it is going to have to go to every city in the United States and deal off with them on an in-lieu-of-property-type taxation. That is the reason for the States and the Federal Government backing off from one PAGENO="0069" 65 another on that issue. We don't tax theirs and they don't tax ours, be- cause it is too gigantic a job for both of us to take it on. But that rationalization, either with the executive branch giving us exactly how this works or the Council giving us precisely how this works, must be done. Because we as individual members of the staff of the full committee and the staff of the subcommittee-we simply do not have the resources that we can rationalize all of the things that he mentions. Now, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding to me for that; but I think it is very important that somebody does this. Now, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. I want to just emphasize that. You can understand why I am so happy about your testimony, because we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of what it is going to take to get anything passed on this floor. You went into my second question. I told you I had two questions. First, how we arrived at a fixed formula, and second, very substan- tively, how does the review process that you suggest, whether it is S or 3 or 2 years-how is that handled on Capitol Hill? Do we do it with a District Committee that sits around and waits for 5 years, or do we dissolve the District Committee and put the review process in the Ap- propriations Committee, qra select committee every other Congress to deal. with the review process? How do you see what you have recom- mended as a 5-year review process being handled by the Members of the Congress, who must agree to this formula? Mr. MEYERS. May we-the chairman has permitted me to respond. May we finish response to the first question and then try one on for the second? Mr. FAUNTROY. I would be very happy. Mr. MEYERS. I think, as for the first, that you have asked us to be more specific is happy news for us, because it means that we will turn around now and try. We can talk of ba1l~park figures at this minute, and say the Congress in its wisdom established $190 million now. We assume a certain inflationary cost, running 10 to 15 percent in terms of what the costs of government are, provided, however, there are cer- tain extraordinary startup costs. What do you do about. starting up St. Elizabeths? What do you do when you get hit with RFK Sta- chum and its expenditures? What do you do when you. get hit with a clear demand for new and better educational facilities, including higher educational facilities? Those are things that must be worked 11i. We truly are blessed in the District with a-I believe personally-a fine Department of Finance and Revenue. Now, we're going to be hold- ing a roundtable in May on the subject of whether the assessment sys- tem works. That will be after all the appeals are over May 2. Aside from that, their abilities that I count on strongly to be able to give us some real statistical assistance. I would certainly want to rank in as well, Mr. Coppie, and some of the members of 0MB before we get down and furnish members of the committee what we think would. be closer than a ballpark. estimate of how we should proceed. Moreover, the committee itself, obviously; during the course of its own hearings might want to' do the same thing. But we will certainly. proceed in that. PAGENO="0070" 66 As to the other, I hardly think that we could presume tO s~y the way the Congress should organize itself, but- Mr. FAUNTROY. You go ahead say it. That's all right. Mr. MEYERS. Well, if I had my druthers, both committees-there are four committees that are concerned with the District at the mo- ment. Should we establish a system of self-determination of the kind envisaged here, obviously we would then be competing in the future for th~ congressional budget with not as easy opportunity to claim that you had reason to spend that money. That being the case-that is, to operate the committee themselves-I would envisage, therefore, that all four committees would be dissolved, and that what would emerge is a permanent select committee-permanent whatever the terminology is-a permanent committee, joint committee of the two Houses of Congress with both appropriations and substantive author- ity. And it is at that- Mr. FAUNTRO~. Excuse me. Right on. Mr. NEVIUS. There are a lot of reasons why that would make the life of the District of Columbia government a lot easier. Mr. ADAMS~ Counsel-oh, you had another question. Mr. FAUNTROY. I had just one other comment on that. I think the inflation factor is something that you pointed out that might affect the $190 million as base. I, from my experience now in the Banking and Currency Committee in consideration of the Wage Stabilization Act, I know that they tie-we are proposing to tie allowable increases in prices and the like to the statistically arrived at rise in the cost of living, so that-each year-so that we say that the cost of living increases will be allowed, pursuant to the findings of the Bureau of Labor Statistics as to what the cost of living has actually been over that year. So that a sentence in the bill could take care of that infla- tion factor, and you all are going to work on the other. Thank you. Mr. ADAMS. Counsel? Mr. DEPUY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a series of specific questions which you as legislators may want to comment on. I will give you all four questions, and then you can take them singly or together, if you would like. First, what is the optimum size of the new council or legislative chamber under a new government? Second, how long should council terms be under a reorganized and elected government? Third, assuming the elections, would you recommend they be from wards, at large, or a combination? If in a combination, what kind of combination would you recommend? And then, finally, should the elections be partisan or nonpartisan? Mr. NEvrus. Councilman Foster has some thoughts on this. Mr. FosTRil. I'm. starting at this from two bases. I also served on the Board of Elections of the District of Columbia and the question of electoral administration comes into these questions. The first comment I would like to make is that distinguished soci- ologist, Mr. Parkinson of Parkinson's Law, proved conclusively that the strength of the British Empire diminished as the size of the cabi- PAGENO="0071" 67 net increased. And my own opinion is that we probably should not enlarge the Council beyond what we have now. The more you enlarge it, the weaker it would become. That is my own personal opinion. So that I would like to see not more than one person elected from each ward. I also would like to see the Mayor and the chairman elected at large. The reason for this is, the important thing about the forming of tickets in the electoral process, the ticketing process is very important. And I think I would see both the Mayor and the chairman of the City Council running-various slates would be running as tickets, and I think this would be healthy. There are those who would argue that the separation of powers get violated by this. I think this is not true. The separation of powers comes from the powers that the executive has and the legislative has, not from the fact that these men are allies or not. I think I would keep the same terms we have now, which is every 3 years. If we use the figure "9", which is the service areas we have, rather than "8", which is the election wards, this would give three people elected each time, and you have a constantly rotating Council. And last but not least, I think rather than saying partisan or non- partisan, I think the important thing is whether they are "Hatched" or "un-Hatched," if that's the proper phrase. An enormous number of our citizens-and some of our finest citizens-are also Federal employees. I think it would be a shame for them to be barred from the process of city government, and I think the city government would benefit from their input, advice, and work in the campaigns. So, partisanship is going to occur always, because this is a human trait. By that you mean Republican or Democrat, presumably. But I think more important is the "Hatched" versus "un-Hatched" factor. The last point I would like to make is that I believe these should be run in the off-years as much as possible, so that your electoral profes- sionals each year have a. task to perform. This keeps them on their toes and makes for better administration. But most importantly, for one who has tried to organize a campaign, your party workers, your party machinery, your political machinery has something each year to get interested, excited about, and to work on, instead of rusting m between elections. Mr. DEPrrY. Are there other comments from other members on that question? Dr. Robinson? Dr. ROBINSON. Yes. I would like to see one councilman elected from each ward, eight, one at large, the chairman being the one at large who received the highest number of votes. I would like to see the term of office 4 years. Personally, being a Republican, I would like for it to be a nonpartisan election. [General laughter.] Dr. ROBINSON. Because being outvoted, outregistered, 7 to 1, I see the same thing in the District of Columbia that we probably have in Montgomery County, where we have all the members of the council of one party. But I could go along with a partisan election. Thank you. PAGENO="0072" 68 Mr DEPUY Mr Meyers ~ Mr. MEYERS. Just one more point, Mr. DePuy. I. would like to see an independently elected comptroller as part of the electoral process. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Landgrebe? Mr~ LANDGREBE. Mr. Chairman, I would like 30 seconds to clarify one point. I asked a question, and it sounded, maybe, a little facetious or comical, but, no matter how the question sounds or how people inter- pret it, I want to say that this is the third or fourth time I have had the pleasure of interviewing these gentlemen. I don't think that this city could, under any terms or circumstances, elect a finer group of people, more dedicated people than we have before us. I really don't. Mr. FAUNTROY. I'll agree. Mr. NEvms. We are deeply grateful for that compliment, sir. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Nevius and gentlemen of the panel. We certainly appreciate the time you have spent with us this morning, and you have answered our questions that we had of you, other than the one that Mr. Fauntroy and I have left with you. We appreciate your being here Mr. NEvIus. We'll be happy to furnish-we'll really get. to work on this and try to furnish him something that is helpful and meaningful. [The information follows:] CITY COUNCIL, GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C., May 4, 1973. Hon. BROCK ADAMS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Operations, Committee on the District of Colnmbia, U.S. Honse of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ADAMS: This letter is responsive to your Subcommittee's request to City Council Members expressed during your hearing of April 5, 1973, that the Council suggest a formula to ascertain the annual Federal contribution to meet capital and operating costs of the D.C. Government. As we are aware that material must be supplied to you in the face of deadlines, Chairman Nevius has authorized me to respond individually. Such amendments and expansions as the full Council may wish to submit will be presented at a later date for inclusion in the record. First, Chairman Nevius' observation of April 5 that any formula must afford flexibility is reaffirmed. We are exploring a new relationship, one in which it will be impossible to anticipate every variable. Second, since the date of your hearing, we have examined with appropriate Federal and District officers several considerations from which a formula should be derived. Principal among these considerations is the trend of growth in local revenues as compared with parallel growth in the Federal payment during recent years. Census Bureau figures indicate an annual average growth rate in D.C. tax revenue between 1966 and 1971 of 12.1 percent, including increments both in rate of taxation and in the tax base. During a like period, the annual growth rate of the Federal payment has been lower. As a ratio, compared with the growth rate of local revenues, the rate of growth of the Federal payment is as 1 to 1.5; that is, local revenues have grown at an annual rate one and a half times the annual growth rate of the Federal payment. As viewed here, it would be of benefit to both governments, in designing a formula for the Federal payment, to incorporate genuine incentive to the City to stimulate local revenue growth within the limit of our own financial authority. Such an incentive could best be derived from a formula in which the annual rate of growth (or decline) in both local revenue and Federal payment would be on a 1-for-i basis. PAGENO="0073" 69 To achieve that end, the following formula is submitted, comprising a "floor." or base, and an annual increment: (1) The Base.-T his should be the highest of: (a) $100 million, representing the sum Congress has already deemed neces- sary;or (b) such Federal payment as the Congress may determine to be necessary for the next fiscal year; or (c) $100 million, plus or minus a percentage equal to the same annual .rate~ of growth or decline in local revenues experienced by the City since the Congress first authorized a Federal payment of $190 million. (2) Annaal Increment.-A percentage of the base selected above, calculated in such a way that the annual rate of change for each year bears a 1-to-i ratio with the rate of growth or decline in D.C. revenues raised from local sources, as the latter are forecast at the outset of each fiscal year by the City Department of Finance and Revenue. Any variations between predictions and experience would result in an adjustment in the Federal payment at the end of the year. It is believed that the foregoing formula would be fair to the interests of both the Federal and local governments while establishing a desirable incentive for local revenue growth. As with all preparation for self-government in the District, it is preliminary and subject to improvement during the period of adjustment following the tran- sition of authority. The implications of any formula, after all, can be appreciated only when all the variables are reasonably clear. Self-government in the District presents variables which neither the City nor the Congress wholly can anticipate now. These include, for example, municipal bonding authority vested in the City Government; the power to establish new local taxes and set rates therefor; and the high start-up costs of major civic improvements such as stadiums, institutions of higher education, major transportation systems, and the like. Accordingly, the proposed formula and our experience thereunder should be reviewed within three years from the time it is made effective. I am sure you can appreciate that this suggestion is spare and brief in order to be responsive to time requirements. Naturally, we will be ready to amplify and explore more extensively at your convenience. Respectfully, Tmsox S. MEYExS. Mr. NEVIUS. Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you. Our last witness this morning is Mr. Jordan, representing the Black United Front. Is Mr. Jordan here? Mr. Jordan, if you want to approach the witness table, the commit- tee will be happy to hear your testimony. STATEMENT OF ABSALOM JORDAN, BLACK UNITED FRONT Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, other members of the committee, I am happy to have this opportunity today to appear before the committee, but I do so reluctantly. I have a prepared speech, and I will read it, but I find myself a little caught, and I will address myself to one of the remarks that was made. It seems that the question, the tone of the questions, are such as to indi- cate that one particular form of self-determination has already been decided. The one particular form of self-determination has a leading edge, if you want to term it that way, and I think the fact of the matter is we just `don't want anything anymore; we want statehood. We want the citizens of this city to enjoy the rights that every other. citizen in the United States enjoys. Every problem which exists today in this city exists because the congressional controls and White House administrators have failed. PAGENO="0074" 70 The citizens of Washington, D.C., are as capable of governing them- selves as the citizens of any other State in the country, not to mention the fact that our population is larger than 11. The issue is how to deal with racism, because racism is both manifest and latent is the reason Washington, D.C., does not have self-determi- nation, which is the evil disease which grips the Congress, and which manifests itself in the continued colonization of this city. First, I want this committee to note that as .a full citizen of the United States-and I use that term guardedly-it is degrading for me personally and the citizens of this city to have to come before the Congress of the United States and beg, because in essence that is ex- actly what we are doing; begging for self-determination. I am insulted, and, indeed, the citizens of this city should be insulted, and so should our nonvoting delegate be insulted, for having to subject ourselves to these indignities which are blatent manifestations of the racist nature of this Congress. We have a nonvoting Delegate, and that is about all. Congress has played politics with Washington's three-quarters of a million residents, and so has the executive branch. In street terms, Washington, D.C., has become a whore. There is no doubt that Congress reaped great benefits from this city. Maryland and Virginia residents regularly screw this city and the city just lies here whoring for others, never benefiting herself. Now, clearly 50 percent of the jobs in the metropolitan area are in Washington. D.C., and vet, if we were to check our unemployment rate, it is the highest in the metropolitan area. There is no reason for that. In light of the fact that Montgomery County doesn't hire any resi- dents on its police force that don't live in Montgomery County; nor would Prince Georges County hire any nonresidents on its police force; I doubt if Montgomery County would hire any employees pe- riod which didn't live in Montgomery County, and clearly Washing- ton, D.C., is placed in an adverse position. We want the pimps to free the city and to see if this whore can't develop herself to her greatest potential. Mr. LANDGREBE. Mr. Chairman? Mr. ADAMS. Mr. La.ndgrebe. Mr. LANDGREBE. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? We invite people to testify in this Government, and we are here, and we listen to people, and we have some dedication to the prosper~ ity, the peace and tranquillity of people. But., Mr. Chairman, I object to the type of language used here. The man may feel deeply about his cause; he may not be qualified to use better language, but in the pres- ence of gentlemen and ladies, Mr. Chairman; I am objecting to this type of language. If this gentleman wants to testify and give us his feelings and omit the foul language-which is to me foul language- then I would suggest he proceed. Now, if you wish him to proceed as he has so far, then I will excuse myself. I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that this Government must maintain some standards of respectability in our hearings, and I am going to insist that this be done at this time. Mr. ADAMs. The remarks of the gentleman are noted. PAGENO="0075" 71 Does the witness wish to say something before the chairman sus- tains? Mr. JORDAN. Yes, I do. I find it very-you know, I don't understand the Congressman becoming indignant over terms which are used, words which are used, and wouldn't become indignant over the fact that some 750,000 people don't have the right to vote for representation. I would also find it-be incapable to understand it-how this Con- gress can lie here and talk about a small word which I used, which in the vernacular of the street everybody uses. I am sure it hasn't in- suited anybody in here. We know what it is. It is in the dictionary, and it is a way of expressing myself. Now, if you want me to put it politely then I will say that Wash- ington is a prostitute, but the fact of the matter is that Washington re- mains here used by everybody except its citizens, for the interests of everybody except its citizens, and there is no reason for it. Mr. ADAMS. All right. If the gentleman wants to proceed, the Chair would simply state to the witness that we have a series of rules of the House, and we must abide by them, those of us who are here, on the manner in which our remarks are made, and whether or not they are expunged from the record. I do not wish to expunge any of the remarks of the gentleman from the record, but I would prefer that he does proceed with his statement without-the words not meaning much. one way or the other to me-without as he refers to it the street language. I can tell the~ gentleman is a very well educated man. He can do exactly what he wishes in terms of being able to express himself, and I would appre- ciate that he would do so. Would the gentleman proceed? Mr. JORDAN. Self-determination will come to Washington, D.C., and in the near future; hopefully, will come through the concerted efforts of legislators and not through the activities similar to those carried out in Northern Ireland. In order for a pimp to keep a prostitute hustling, he physically abuses her, while occasionally giving her prospects of hope. The physi- cal abuse instills fear in the prostitute, making her understand fully the strength of the pimp to carry out any threat that he makes. In Washington we have proportionately the largest police force in the world, and it is designed to do nothing else but to intimidate and threaten the citizens~ and you speak about evils of communism, and you also speak about the evils of vice. In addition to having a Metropolitan Police Force of over 5,000 men. which seriously taxes the financial structure of the city, making it incapable of dealing with the needs of the grassroots people in this city, we have an illegal Capitol Hill Police of 1,000; Executive Pro- tection Service; Federal Protection Service; Park Police; White House Police; and on and on-police, police, police-totaling over 10~000 men, and you tell me that we are freer than the citizens of Soviet Russia, or that we are happier than the citizens of Peking, and that we should forget any desires for freedom. Mr. LANDOREBE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield at this point? PAGENO="0076" 72 Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Landgrebe. Mr. LANDGREBE. I have been in Moscow, Russia, young man, and I have seen some fine young people over there, and I tell you they are not as free as the people in Washington, D.C. They are not free to work where they please. They are not free to live where they please. They are not even free to leave Moscow, if they want to leave Moscow. Now, you are free to leave the District of Columbia any time you want to leave this District. Now, let's hope to God that we have people in this Congress who will continue to assure you of that freedom as long as you are able to live and others following you. Now proceed. Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Congressman, I am assuming that you are saying that there are degrees of freedom. I am saying that you are either free or you are not, and I am not. I can't vote for congressional representa- tion. Possibly I deserve it more than other people in the country; pos- sibly I deserve more than people in your own district. I am making a comparison here, because I am tired of hearing the right wing argu- ment that we are free-compared to what? The freedom that we are talking about is comparing the freedom of Washington, D.C., resi- dents with the citizens of this country, and we are not free, and when you start arguing the point that I can move where I want-no, I can't; and when you start arguing the point that I can get a job where I want-no, I can't; and when you start arguing the point that I can move where I want-no, I can't. I am talking about freedom of move- ment; no, I don't have it, and it is a lie, and it shouldn't be perpetrated on the people of this city, that we are free. In no terms are we free. I can't move in this city in the way the whites do in Georgetown. I will be stopped if I go to Spring Valley, and the police won't make no bones about stopping me and asking me what are you doing over here, boy. So in terms of comparisons with other governments, we are no freer, the citizens of Washington. The oppressor never admits that he is oppressing people. I don't expect you to admit that I am not free, and that you are oppressing me, Mr. Congressman. But, I would remind this committee of the terms of Patrick Henry, a man that you taught me to learn about in school. You made me learn about Patrick Henry, and Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death," and maybe that is what we should be talking about, liberty. Because the thing is that this country likes to pride itself on its in- volvement in giving other people around the world liberty. Many black men died, disproportionately in our numbers in Vietnam to free the Vietnamese, and here in Washington, D.C., we can't vote for rep- resentation in the Congress of the United States. Many black men have died in Korea to free people, and here in Washington, D.C., we can't determine the financial situations of this city and whether poor, black mothers are to receive an adequate wel- fare-a check, and I don't call it welfare. It is assistance; it is a sub- sidy in the same way that Lockheed gets subsidies, and the Penn Cen- tral gets subsidies. Let's not get hung up on semantic arguments. It is not semantics, and I think the Congressman understands fully what PAGENO="0077" 73 my intent is; that comparatively speaking, the citizens of Washington, D.C., are no freer than people in other parts of the world, who we like to cite as being captives of an alien form of government, which doesn't allow expression. I understand the paradoxes in this country. I see the lies before me, and the truth stands before me every day, for the fact is that Congress is not willing to voluntarily release the power it exercises over the District of Columbia, and undoubtedly the oniy alternative which is open now is a people's revolution. I remember reading a report from the Joint Congressional Com- mittee on Urban Affairs in which it was stated that the only Negro which whites understood is the second generation Negro raised on the sink, for, in fact, they had trained that Negro but, sir, you can't take any comfort in the idea that the good niggers will continue to be submissive to this oppression, for as I have been able to see the light; other blacks will see the light, too. The drugs, the narcotics which are placed in our communities are not preventing us from seeing our goal, and our goal is liberation, nothing shorter than that. One final remark; Stokeley Carmichel once wrote an article on the dangers of liberalism, ana his conclusion was that the most dan- gerous element in the black community today is the white liberal, and I fully concur, for year after year after year whites have raised the hopes of blacks in this community, and we have never seen them fulfilled. Year after year after year whites have developed schemes to thwart, our thrust for liberation, and just as South Africa will be free one day; just as Rhodesia will be free one day; just as Mozambique will be free one day and Angola; the blacks in Washington, D.C., will be free one day of oppression. Our struggle is international, for the oppressor is international, and it is in utter contempt that we hold the Congress of the United States which keeps in bondage the citizens of Washington, D.C. No more asking; please, let this be the last time. Mr. ADAMS. Do members of the committee have any questions? Mr. JoRDAN. I have some additional comments to make, Mr. Chair~ man. I don't understand how we can sit here. From the earlier testimony we were debating a degree of freedom or liberation of the citizens of Washington, D.C. What we were debating was continued controls over their lives. I find this contrary to everything which the Constitution represents. While Congressmen like to cite the Constitution of the United States, and it was cited fully; a portion of it was cited by the Nelsen Commission, what the Congress fails to cite is the rest of that sen- tence which says, "And Congress will exercise the same type of author- ity over lands purchased by the Congress with the consent of the States for the establishments of forts, arsenals," and it goes on. So, what we have here, sir, is that. Washington, D.C., is not in .a unique position. We are constantly told that we are in a unique posi- tion, but the Congress of the United States exercises the same type of control, legislative control, over Washington that it does over all Federal lands. PAGENO="0078" 74 I am sure that Congressman B. F. Sisk would have no problem whatsoever in having the people in Coarsegold, Calif., which is on Federal land, vote for him as they do now. I am sure that people who are residents living on the Perry Point, Mid. Veteran Administration's reservation vote for Congressmen. So, I don't understand the argument that Washington is unique: that we can't vOte for representation in Congress because the Federal Government has exclusive legislative control. The Federal Govern- ment exercises that same type of legislative control over all Federal lands, and in no place except Washington, D.C., does it disfranchise the citizens who live on that Federal land, except in Washington, D.C. So, what we have to talk about then is meaningful self-determina- tion, and I heard the argument being presented about quality people will seek the jobs, and you know I have a problem with definition. We talked about people in these jobs who are the finer groups of people, and maybe that has been one of the problems in this city. The finer groups of people so often overlook the problems of the poor. The finer groups of people so often overlook the problems of the oppressed. The finer groups of people so often overloOk the problems of me. So, I am saying possibly we need to talk about meaningful self- determination with no strings attached. A Federal payment then brings about continued Federal control, and the Black TJnited Front is unalterably opposed to continued Federal control. But when we start talking about financial responsibility in this city, and city government that is responsive to the people, then we would find a city government that wouldn't retire the Fire Chief on total disability, a man who 18 months earlier had taken a physical and passed it with flying colors; a man who has done nothing in the 18 months since he became the Chief of the Fire Department of Metro- politan Washington; who has done nothing to injure himself or ag- gravate any injuries which he may have had prior to this; now ends up with total disability, 662/s percent of his salary, nontaxable, until he dies. And while he is receiving this money, we want to cut back the social services that we are providing to our children whose father couldn't live with them any longer. We want to cut back the services which this city would like to provide to the mothers who can't work. When we talk about fiscal responsibility, we start talking about jobs, and we need to start talking about ending discrimination in jobs in this city. We also, as Congressman Fauntroy knows, have been strongly sup- porting the position of an elected judiciary, because we feel that it is justice. I am appalled whenever I go to one of the courtrooms in Washing- ton, D.C., and see the justice which is meted out to my brothers and sisters there, and then as I see the judge leave, he gets in a car, a Cadillac or a Volkswagen; it doesn't make any difference what type of car it is, with Maryland or Virginia tags. And we talk about people being tried by their peers. We talk about a justice system being balanced, and still I am sure that we would never get the citizens of Maryland or Virginia to accept the premise PAGENO="0079" 75 that a judge or a person in the judiciary of Maryland or Virginia Lould live in Washington, D.C. Also, we are supportive of a system which elects a police commis- *sioner. Now, I know this idea isn't alien to anyone, for the fact is now that the Commissioner of our city, Walter Washington, has no control whatsoever over the police chief. These branches of the gov- *ernment are separate at this point. But we would like to see the citizens of this city exercise a type of authority over the police. That is necessary for Washington, D.C. And, finally, it disturbs me, this constant reference to having our budget reviewed by the Office of Management and Planning or hav- ing the executive branch come to testify on home rule. There is no guarantee in the Constitution that the executive branch will have any responsibilities or any control over this city whatsoever, and I don't understand why the Congress of the United States insists on letting the President run it. The Congress can legislate that the citizens of this city control their own destinies. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the oppor- tunity to appear. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Jordan. I appreciate your testimony. Mr. FAUNTROY. I have one question Mr ADAMS. Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. Just let me say, Mr. Jordan, that I certainly am impressed with your testimony. There is much truth in much that you have said. Even though my colleague found the analogy repulsive to him, I think that there is a measure of truth in it, and truth is where you find it. I just want you to think about, however, the necessity of the Fed- eral payment and to understand that a Federal payment is not a gift to the District of Columbia. It is a responsibility of the major industry operating in this city and in the area, to the people who must provide the services that enable it to operate. So, that I am for one; whether you call the form of government statehood or home rule-I feel a responsibility to the people of the city not to allow to happen to us in our efforts to govern ourselves what has happened to the people of the Congo, who have full self-deter- mination to elect who shall govern them, but the control of the dia- mond mines is in the hands of the Belgium corporations. I am not going to sit by and see happen to us in the District of Columbia what happened to our American Indian brothers, who have full self-determination on the reservation away from the wheat belt and the productive land and without a buff alo~ and I think that if you think deeply about the question of the obligation and not the gift, the obligation of the Federal Government to see to it-if the Federal em- ployees are going to drink purified water; if they are not going to allow them to pay for it through a payroll tax in the District of Colum- bia. then on behalf of all the people in the Nation, the Federal Gov- ernment ought to help us pay for that water. I do not like paying for the clorox. It may be the wrong term: maybe the fluorine. Tf I am going to drink the fluorine I don't mind paying for it. but if the fluo- rine goes to others who do not help me pay for it, I am concerned PAGENO="0080" 76 The Federal payment is not a gift; it is an obligation that we have to qualify and quantify and get before we will have meaningful self- government. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Jordan. Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, go ahead. Mr. JORDAN. Congressman Fauntroy, you know we have discussed this. I think if you put it in those terms, that it is not a gift but an obligation, the only problem I have is what happens if the Federal Government decides it wants to give less. Bu~ I accept fully the idea and the concept that the Federal Government must pay for what it gets, and I think at this point that has been one of the weaknesses in the city now, in the city's financial structure, is that the Federal Government has never paid its dues, and that the citizens of this city must receive some type of restitution and some relief, because at this point we are carrying too much of the burden financially for the city, and we must receive some type of relief from the Federal Treasury, which gives money to States, and I think we should give the money to the District government in the same vein that we give it to States and with the same type of strings that are attached. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Jordan, for your statement. I think it was very eloquent. These hearings will be recessed now until 9:30 on Monday, April 9. We will meet in room 345 of the Cannon Office Building, which is the caucus room. We stand at recess until Monday at 9:30. [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Monday, April 9, 1973.] PAGENO="0081" SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUM- BIA, AND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DIS- TRICT OF COLUMBIA MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DIs~nucT OF COLUMBIA, Wa.s/iington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room 345 Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Brock Adams presiding. Present: Representative Adams [presiding], Delegate Fauntroy, Representatives Breckinridge, Landgrebe, and Symms. Also present: James T. Clark, legal consultant; John Hogan, minor- ity counsel to full committee; and Jacques DePuy, counsel to the sub- committee; and Anne Darneille, subcommittee staff. Mr. ADAMS. The subcommittee will come to order. The first witness this morning is Mr. William Simons of the Wash- ington Teachers Union. Mr. Simons, do you want to come forward; and the committee will be pleased to hear your testimony. [The prepared statement of Mr. William H. Simons follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF WilLIAM H. SIM0NS, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON TEACHERS' UNION Gentlemen, you are well aware of the fact that the Washington Teachers' Union has always supported self-determination for the citizens of the District of Columbia. There is really no need in spending any time trying to justify the need thereof. As a matter of fact, there is the cry today that ways must be found to reduce government spending. These hearings themselves are a prime example of wasted funds. The most expeditious way to handle the matter before you is to institute the procedures necessary to establish statehood for the District of Columbia. That is the only way to eliminate the stigma of second class citizenship under which the residents of this city suffered. In doing so, the issues which you have raised, i.e., Legislative Function, Executive Function, Judicial Function, Fiscal Affairs Function, Electoral Function, Government Form and Organization, become moot. With respect to the question of Federal interest, certainly the Federal inter- ests could be protected here in the same manner that the Federal interests are protected in the fifty states. This argument has been effectively used by the opponents of self-determination over the years. It is time to put the question to rest. With respect to the question of the Federal payment to the new state of Columbia, a formula should be developed which will provide automatically each year a sum based on the services provided by the Federal Government, the prop- erty occupied by the Federal Government, the limitations on the local tax base, and the amount of revenues produced by the state government. The Federal payment is an obligation and there should be no quarrel as to its necessity. (77) 97-527----73-pt. 2-C PAGENO="0082" 78 The time now is for action, not words. Even though the composition of the House District Committee has changed, there is still a major question as to whether this committee is really sincere in its efforts to correct this injustice of long standing. The denial of the basic tenents of a democratic society to the citizens of the District of Columbia is one of the greatest acts of duplicity and hypocrisy in the annals of history. Whe you are ready to interrupt the flow of business in Congress for as long as necessary until this wrong is corrected, then, and only then, can it be said that the House District Committee has gone through a period of transformation and that the change was a meaningful one. STATEMENT OP WILLIAM H. SIMONS, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON TEACHERS UNION, ACCOMPANIED BY BARRY SPIEGEL, LEGIS- LATIVE ASSISTANT Mr. SIMoxs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is William Simons. 1 am president of the Washrngton Teachers Union. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Simons; do you want to pull that microphone in front of you so that all the members can hear you? Mr. SIMONS. My name is William Simons, president of the Wash- ington Teachers Union. With me is the legislative assistant of Wash- ington Teachers Union, Barry Spiegel. My statement is very brief. I am not going to bother to read it because I don't think that it is really necessary. In this day and time we are talking about bringing the Feciera~i budget into line, I think that this is an example of how we waste the taxpayers' money. These hearings are totally unnecessary. We have a task which should have, been clone years ago. So that I can simply say to you that self- determination for the people in the District of Columbia is long over- due, and there should be no further questions about it. What form of government should we have? Well, I think that since we are citizens of these United States, we should have the same form of government that is enjoyed by the citizens of the rest of the 50 States, and we should become the 51st State. That being the case, then the questions that were raised by the sub- committee with respect to the form and substance of government and what have you, all become moot. Now, the question of the Federal interest in the District, I don't think that there should be any problem in working out a form of gov- ernment that is going to provide for the protection of the Federal interests, the same as the Federal interests are protected in the 50 States. So I don't see any particular problem with that. The Federal payment in this city should be such that it is going to be on a formula basis. It's going to be automatic so that the Govern- ment will not have to wait and wonder how much money it is going to receive as a Federal contribution to the District of Columbia. Such contributions should take into account the factors of the property that is removed from the District tax rolls; also, the services provided by ~the city to the Federal Government; and also the amount of tax reve- `flues that are generated by the citizens of the District of Columbia. So with that in mind, I don't think that there is anything else that iieeds to be said. But let's get on with the business, and give us our freedom, period. PAGENO="0083" 79 Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Simons. As you quite properly point out, one of the key aspects of self-deter- mmation is access to an adequate Federal payment, or in short, a Fed- eiai remuneration for the services that the local government would de- liver to the major industry in this city and in the metropolitan area, the Federal Government. I wonder if you have had opportunity to develop a position on how that Federal payment should be computed, and on what basis it should be made available. Mr. SI~ioNs. Well, it should be, as I indicated in my statement, com- puted on the basis of the property utilized by the Federal Govern- ment that has been removed from the tax base of the District of Col- umbia; also taking into account the unusual limitations that have been placed on the development of real estate in the District of Colum- bia by the Federal Government; the services rendered to the Federal Government by the city that would not normally be necessary if it were not for the presence of the Federal Government; and finally, the percentage of tax revenues raised by the people here in the District of Columbia. The formula should be automatic, and the payments should be by the first of July each year, so that the planning for the new State could take place in an orderly fashion. Mr. FAUNTROY. One of the key aspects of self-government, of course, is the administration of our public schools; and of course, you are deeply involved and concerned about that question. Under the form of self-determination that you would like to see, would you have independent, or would you suggest independent fund- ing and development of resources by the Board of Education, or should it be a part of the municipal or, as you suggested, State government? Mr. Smroxs. That matter, I have not really decided because of the complicating factors that are involved. Certainly, if you're not going to give a broad enough base from which the Board of Education could draw its revenues, you're going to have change. On the other hand, you're going to have to take into consideration that the Board of Education is simply one facet of the services per- formed by the entire city, and should be included as part of the overall city. But whatever the source of funding is, once the funds are deter- mined by the Board of Education, they certainly should have com- nlete control as to the expenditure of these funds. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Landgrebe. Mr. LANDGREBE. Mr. Simons, you point out in your second para- graph that is the only way to eliminate the stigma of second class citizenship. Is this a factual statement, or is this more of a fiction and propaganda? I mean is this real, the stigma of second-class citizenship. What is the factual effect of people living in the District of Colum- bia versus living in Chicago? Other than that they can't go to the polls and vote for their-what is the effect on them? Mr. Smroxs. I am a native Washingtonian, born here and have lived here all my life. And I consider myself a second-class citizen, as com- pared to the citizens in the other 50 States. PAGENO="0084" 80 I have never had the opportunity to vote for a major, never had the opportunity to vote for a member of the City Council, never had an opportunity to even vote for a Member of Congress, with the excep- tion of Congressman Fauntroy, who is really not a full-fledged Mem- ber of this body. I've never had an opportunity to vote for a Senator. Therefore, I am a second-class citizen. It was only recently that we had the right to vote for the President of the United States. Now, if that isn't second-class citizenship, maybe it's lower than that-l5th class. Mr. LANDGREBE. What effect has that had on your life? Aren't you a rather prosperous gentleman? Don't you- Mr. SHroNs. It has a very much of an effect in my life. It means that I have no voice in determining what is going to happen to me. When I was in the classroom as a social studies teacher, it was very difficult to get the students to understand the great American democ- racy, the electoral process, when the first question would be to me from the students who understood, when was the last time you voted for somebody? Mr. LANDOREBE. OK. Now, after at least a century or more of being denied the right to vote for this, that, and the other thing-and you've listed a whole number of them. This city does have the right to vote on school board members, do they not? Mr. SmroNs. Yes, but that's simply a token proposition and simply voting on the school board- Mr. LANDOREBE. Well, the real fact is that a token amount of the people turned out to exercise that right, isn't it? Mr. SIM0Ns. V~Tell, it makes no difference if only one person votes. Why deny the rest of the people the right to vote? Now, if people don't exercise their rights, it's no reason for not giving it to them. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, what greater interest should there be amongst the citizens~of this community than the management of their schools, the quality of education that their children are going to receive? This seems to me is-with the right to vote and with the importance of the field that they are not voting in, it seems to me that they would have been voting 90 percent rather than 1 to 10 or 15, whatever it was that did bother. Mr. SIMONS. Well, one thing you fail to understand, the school board still does not control the schools. You, sir, have that ultimate responsibility-the fact that you. control the purse strings-so that until the board of education gets control of the purse strings, then we can say that we have an elected school board who really has control over the schools. So here a.gain~ we've gone through the century of nonpolitical activ- ity here in the District of Columbia, and it is not going to be created overnight. When you give the people something meaninc~fu1, some- thing real that they can get a hold of, then, I think, you will find that the situation is going to be different. I might also point out to you that this is nothing new. If you're looking at the voting records nationwide, it is abysmal compared to many other countries around the world. PAGENO="0085" 81 Mr. LANDGREBE. I understand in the Presidential election there were only 55 percent of the people who exercised their right to vote, and certainly, it was a a clearcut choice of Presidential candidates. Have you any idea, seriously, what percentage of the people in the District of Columbia, turned out to vote in the Presidential election last year? Does anyone know? It isn't of any particular importance, but- Mr. SIMONS. No. I don't recall. Mr. HOGAN. I can point out, I think, Mr.~ Landgrebe, that in the last school board election-the Presidential figures were given here the other day, and there is a larger percentage in the Presidential elec- tion-but for the school board, 16 percent of the registered voters had voted in the last school board election. Mr. ADAMS. If the gentleman will yield; 1964, 91 percent voted for the election, according to the figures that were given to us; in 1968, 84 percent voted; in 1972, 60 percent voted, with a total vote of 165,678 people. That is the Presidential election. Mr. LANDGREBE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAUNTROY. If the gentleman would yield a moment. Mr. LANDGREBE. Yes. Mr. FAUNTROY. I think that again was above the national average. It was on a national election, where the person elected had not only responsibi1ity~ but as we have seen great authority. I think there is merit in what Mr. Simons has said, that the election for Board of Education is a token election for a token board which has token authority; and that where residents of the District of Columbia have an opportunity to vote for a viable candidate for an office with authority as well as responsibility, we respond higher than the na- tional average in terms of voting. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, if the gentleman will permitme to make just a brief response. In any State, in any community where there are school board elections held, the school board members have some au- thority in school matters, but in the scheme of things they don't have almighty power either. They have to live with the city councils. They have to live with the State legislatures, and even with the rulings and decisions of this Congress. I mea~n, at no place in the country does the school board have sig- nificantly more power than the School Board that is elected here, I don't believe, All right. Just one more question, Mr. Simons. You touched on statehood. Are you an advocate of statehood, or would you also embrace the idea of retrocession? Would either one be satisfactory to you, and to achieve the goal of people having the right to vote? Mr. SIMONS. I don't think that the question of retrocession should be discussed at all. We have been an entity for all these many years. I think that we are capable of self-government. And in order to put us on equal footing with the rest of the citizens around the Nation, in the 50 other States, there is only one answer-make us equal and whole and not a part. Mr. LANDGREBE. I have no further questions. Do you have any questions? PAGENO="0086" 82 Mr. HOGAN. No. I am yielding. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Sirnons, do YOU think that the matter of salaries for teachers should be controlled by the School Board or by the Execu- tive and Council, who have overall budget authority? Mr. SIMoNs. I think it should be controlled by the School Board. Mr. ADAMS. All right. Now, if it is controlled by the School Board, do you think that an overall budget figure for the School Board should be established by the executive and Council or legislature of this new government? Mr. SIM0NS. The overall budget figure has to take into account the available sources of revenue, and also the services that are needed by the other segments of the city. Mr. ADAMS. All right. Do you think the budgetary process established by whatever execu- tive and/or legislative body, should set the overall budget figure in advance of the year in which the services and the other materials will be obtained, or at the end of the year after the services and materials have been furnished? Mr. Smroxs. Well, I think it should be set before, in order that you can have an orderly process of planning. Mr. ADAMS. Then you would have frozen a year in advance by the executive and by the legislative branch the operation of the School Board within certain parameters for that year? Mr. Snroxs. `Well, I don't think it should necessarily be frozen. Mr. ADsMs. `Well, I mean, I a.sked you the question. `What I'm look- ing for is the process that you are in favor of. You either set in ad- vance what you are going to spend in a particular area, which is the budgetary process, as you know, overall, an allocation would be made to the School Board, or an allocation of a percentage of tax sources would be so allocated. If this were done, then for that year you would have an opera- tion that would. in effect, be frozen, unless you had a supplemental, which would mean that the executive and the Council would have to take from some other source. I am just trying to determine-and I think your approach is prob- ably correct. I'm not trying to tell you which one to go for. I'm asking you. because this is an area of your experitise. Mr. SmroNs. Well, you have to be able to plan ahead. And this has been one of the major problems of the school system-not knowing how much rnoney~ is going to be available to spend at any given time. For example, in the year 1971 when the budget was not completed until December 2.3, I believe, in the budget there was the provision to expend some $3 million for special education, which has been sorely in need; but there was no way that the system could gear up between January 1 and June 30 to expend those funds; so we lost some of them because we were not able to plan ahead, because we didn't know. Now. if we had known in July of that year that $3 million was going to be available, I'm quite sure that money could have been utilized. And that is the problem, you see. If you don't know what you're going to get before you go into your school year, then you have a waste of funds, in a sense : because it takes time to have orderly planning in order to get the most effective use of the funds. PAGENO="0087" 83 Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Simons. We appreciated your testimony this morning; and without objection, your statement will appear in full in the record prior to your oral remarks. Thank you. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a couple of questions? Mr. ADAMS. Just a moment. Counsel would like to ask some ques- tions. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Simons, you indicate that you favor an automatic Federal payment. Is this automatic in the sense that the Congress in no way, either authorizing or apprOpriating, would have any deter- mination as to what that amount would be? Mr. SmIoNs. Yes. You would have to take into account the factors that I enumerated; so it~means some study is going to have to be made, but the study should be made in time so that the State would receive its funds in time for it to work on its budget. Mr. HOGAN. Well, now, you criticized the committee for holding hearings on this matter. Don't you think that the Federal payment alone desires considerable study? Mr. SIM0Ns. Well, that's one aspect of it. I am talking about a ques- tion as to whether or not the citizens of the District of Columbia should have the right to self-determination. Mr. HOGAN. But isn't Federal payment part of that? You would have statehood determined separately from what the financing situa- tion or fiscal situation should be between the Federal and local govern- ment? Mr. SIM0N5. What I am saying is that that could have been done years ago, and it should have been done years ago; that at this point in time, 1973, we are still deciding whether or not we are going to let the citizens of the District of Columbia have self-determination. It's a question that is long overdue, and I don't think it is necessary to con- tinue to hold hearings on it when what we need to do is to set in motion that which is necessary to get this accomplished. Mr. HOGAN. Well, do you know, Mr. Simons, do you know of any other situation in the Federal Government, or do you know any other situation locally, where there is an automatic payment to an entity such as the District Government by the Federal Government, where there would be no determination by the Congress, everything would be automatic? Mr. SIM0Ns. Well, I didn't say that there wouldn't be a determina- tion. There would have to be a determination, because the various factors would change. But what I am saying is once you get the formula established, then the payment would be based on that formula. Mr. HOGAN. But do you understand also that as far as the formula is concerned, if the local taxes for some reason were to decline-let's assume that the sales tax were to decline, or let's assume that income taxes were to decline-that automatically the Federal payment would be reduced accordingly, even though the number of children, let's say, in school were the same or might even increase; that your Federal pay- ment would be reduced accordingly on the Federal formula basis, an automatic Federal formula basis? You understand that, I trust. Mr. SIM0N5. Well, I don't think that that necessarily would have to be the case. You might deduce that from that, but I think that the PAGENO="0088" 84 formula that is derived could take into account that which is needed in order to have an effective operation. Mr. HOGAN. So what you're saying then is that the Federal formula that you endorse is one that would never call for a reduction no matter what the revenue to the District of Columbia would be. It could always increase, but it would never decrease. Mr. SI~ioNs. It might decrease, you know, if the cost of living went down. It's the same thing, I should imagine, that the Federal ex- penditures for the military service should reduce. They would not be at the save level for each year. Federal expenditures for other pro- grams would be reduced and have been reduced. So it doesn't mean that we're going to set it on a peg and never take into consideration a change in factors. Mr. HOGAN. But if I understood you correctly, you said that the number of students in the school were relatively the same, and the needs were either the same or increased, that you think that there should be some additional element introduced at that point so that there would not be a reduction in the cost of operating the school system. Is that correct? Mr. SIMONS. If the need was there. Mr. HOGAN. If the need was there, then there should not be a re- duction in the Federal payment, notwithstanding the fact that the revenues in the District of Columbia declined; and it would normally call for a reduction under the Federal formula in the amount of the Federal payment. Is that correct? Mr. SIMONS. That's correct. Mr. HOGAN. Now, you indicate that you think that the purse strings of the school system, that the School Board does not have control over that. Is that correct? Mr. SnroNs. That's right. Mr. HOGAN. Now, they have this year, or they will prospectively have, approximately a quarter billion dollars, both in operating funds and in capital funds, this year; and prospectively it will be about the same for the next year, will it not? Mr. SIMON5. Well, that all depends. That's what we're asking for, but who knows what's going to come out. Mr. HOGAN. Well, do you know what the operating funds were this year for the school system? Mr. SIM0Ns. About $147.5 million. Mr. HOGAN. Do you know what the capital budget was for this school system? Mr. SIM0Ns. I don't have that figure on hand. Mr. HOGAN. It's in the $75, $80, or $90 million, is it not; so it comes by and large to about a quarter billion dollars. Now, prospectively, as I understand it, your schedule by the Mayor, the allocation that he would give you, would be approximately $170- Mr. SIMONS. $168.5 mfflion. Mr. HOGAN. $168.5 million for fiscal year 1974. Mr. SnioNs. Right. PAGENO="0089" 85 Mr. HOGAN. And he's also budgeted approximately $75 million for capital outlay, which is again about $250 million or a quarter billion dollars. it that correct? Mr. SIM0Ns. That's right. Mr. HOGAN. sow, in the amount approved by him, largely that budget has been determined by the School Board, has it not? Mr. SIM0Ns. Right. Mr. HOGAN. So that they do in fact have control of the-assuming they get that amount, they will have control of that quarter billion dollars, will they not? Mr. SIMONS. Well, the problem is this. That is the initial amount based on the programs that have been established. If there are to be any shifts because of changing needs, they cannot shift funds to meet those needs. Mr. HOGAN. Yes. I understand that. And as a matter of fact, this is one of the items taken up by the Nelsen Commission. The Nelsen Commission indicated in their report that they felt that there should be greater programing authority for the District generally, but par- ticularly they indicated the reprograming authority for the school system should be increased, did they not? Mr. SIM0Ns. Right. Mr. HOGAN. And except for that reprograming authority-and if there is tOo much reprograming, it seems to me that there's an indica- tion that there is poor planning-but as far as the reprograming is concerned, except for that, the School Board pretty much has control over that quarter billion dollars, does it not? Mr. SIM0Ns. When they finally get it, they do spend it in accordance with the allocations as set up by the Appropriations Committee, and eventually Congress. Mr. HOGAN. Do you know the differences that occur from the time that budget leaves the school system until it is approved by Congress? In other words, the number of changes that are made by the Mayor, the number of changes that are made by the City Council, the number of changes that are made by the Appropriations Committee Mr. SIMoN5. In previous years there have been a number of changes. This year, fortunately, the City Council and the Mayor did not make any significant changes in the budget that was submitfed by the Board of Education. But this has not been the case in previous years. I recall, for example, that one year the City Council ehmin'tted `dl of the funds that the Board hid requested for staff development services Mr HOGAN Yes Well, here again, the Nelsen Commission report recommended that the piograming, the funding for the programing and so forth, be left to the School Board pretty much In other words, the Mayor and the District Council make recommendations to the School Board as to what program shifts there should be But as far as the level of funding, that would be primarily, the Mayor's job, and primarily the District Council's iob And then that would then go to Congress. But within the level of funding, that ~the School Board would have the primary say Now, I gather that that `is the way that the budget is operating this year, is it not? In other words, the Mayor is not telling you whether PAGENO="0090" 86 or not you can have it, whether you can put 90 percent of those funds into vocational education if you so desire, is he? Mr. SIMONS. Well, as I said, the Mayor this year did not alter the school budget, the $168-well, actually the Board did request $176 million. Mr. HOGAN. All right. Mr. SDI0Ns. The initial request was $164 million. The Mayor did add to the budget. But in previous years such has not been the case. Mr. HOGAN. All right. So that the spending level and the programs, to a large extent, will in fact be determined by the School Board this year, is that not correct? Mr. SIMONS. Hopefully. Mr. HOGAN. Well, unless-there will be some cuts in Congress, but by and large what I have said is correct, is it not? Mr. SnioNs. Hopefully, except that there again, you still have not removed that process that anything over $25,000 for reprograming has to come back through the City Council and the Mayor and to the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee before final approval is given. Mr. HOGAN. That's correct. And the Mayor and the District Council, and for that matter the School Board, can cite the Nelsen Commission recommendation on reprograming when they appear before the Ap- propriations Committee as far as the recommendation to Congress is concerned, canthey not? Mr. SIMONS. Yes, They can. Mr. HOGAN. Now, turning a moment to the spending, you indicated that in prior years that the District didn't know what their funding was-and I agree with that to some extent-but they had about the same knowledge, it seems to me, as to the level of spending as a lot of cities, and certainly, they had the same amount of forecasting avail- able to them as other Federal agencies have. Isn't it true that the District was under a continuing resolution so that they could spend at the same rate as prior years? Mr. SnioNs. That has been the case, but that still does not give any leeway. Mr. HOGAN; For increases in spending. Mr. SmioNs. Right. Mr. HOGAN. Right. But it doesn't alter- Mr. SmroNs. And also, as I pointed out to you, for example, in 1971 when the $3 million was made available for special education, that was not $3 million additional dollars in the overall budget, but Congress said you take it from here; so actually, they simply shifted $3 mil- lion, leaving the overall budget the same so that there had to be cut- backs in some of the other programs in order to furnish that $3 mil- lion in special education. Mr. HOGAN. Yes, but the special education requirement that par- ticular year, in effect, was a new program of funds. It was a new re- quirement, or it was a new program that the School Board was trying to initiate, was it not? Mr. SmroNs. Well, they had been trvin~ to do it for a number of years, but they were never able to get any funds to carry out the program. PAGENO="0091" 87 Mr. HOGAN. That's exactly the point I'm making. If there had been prior funds under the continuing resolution, they would have had those funds to spend the following year. In other words, whenever a Federal agency, Mr. Simons, wishes to initiate a new program, they have to come to the Congress for funding, or in cities they have to come to the city council, or if they've got a strong mayor government, they've got to come to the mayor for those funds. Is that not correct? Mr. SIM0Ns. That's correct. Mr. HOGAN. And if they go beyond the fiscal year, I assume that the cities, although I'm not certain of it, that there is a continuing resolution concept where the local government agencies can spend at the prior year's levels. And all I am saying is that when you talk about delays-and it is true it constitutes a problem. There is no question about it. But this is a problem you have in common in the District of Columbia that other Federal agencies have, is it not? Mr. SIM0N5. That is true, But, you know, one point that you're missing, if the bottleneck is in city hall, then city hall has to be ac- countable to the citizens at the next election. As it stands now, they are not accountable to us. Mr. HOGAN. All right. But pursuing this one step further, Mr. Simons, the Federal pay- ment now is approximately $190 million, and what you are asking, it seems to me, is that this become automatic. Now, the Congress has other constituencies that they report to. Let's assume the farmers, for instance-shouldn't the farmers in the country have the same right as the citizens of the District of Colum- bia and have an automatic payment for their programs? Shouldn't there be a portion set aside in the Federal budget so that a, number* of dollars go to farmers, so that they can make their plans, so that they can plant their crops a year ahead of time, so that they can make their plans with their farms and with their produce and with their animals, so that they can predict ahead of time what they can do? And yet, this is not the case, as you know. Mr. SmroNs. Well, certain of us seem to enjoy it, or nonfarmers, you might say, they know what they're going to get next year. And, you know, they're living pretty good. All I am suggesting to you is simply this, that the Federal Govern- ment has to meet its obligations to the citizens of the District of Co- lumbia; and it should be done in such a way that it is not going to hamstring the operations of the District of Columbia. Mr. HOGAN. All right. Then I agree with that, and I think the Nelsen Commission ad- dressed some of the ways in which this can be done. Mr. Chairman, I just have one further question. It is not true, Mr. Simons~ that in the last School Board election there was 16 percent of the electorate that voted; and I think in the general election, by reason of that, there was something less than 9 percent or approximately 9 percent of the electorate who would have seen an individual elected at-large in the District of Columbia. Is that not correct? PAGENO="0092" 88 Mr; SnioNs. Probably so. I don't know the figures. Mr~ HOGAN. Well, I think if you checked the records, it will be so reflected. Now, second, also the School Board by the large controls, as I think we have spoke heretofore, ~s far as their authority in spending, they have approximately one quarter of the total budget of the District of Columbia, both operating and in capital. So that you do have, to some extent, controlled locally through an elected School Board, approximately 25 percent of the operating and capital budget for the District of Columbia, do you not? Mr. SmioNs. Yes. Well, of course, that still is not enough to meet the needs of the students here in the District of Columbia. Mr. HOGAN. I understand it. I'm not taking a position on this, Mr. Simons. What I'm trying to do is to bring out for the record and for the C ngressmen some of these facts which came to the attention of the Nelsen Commission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Hogan. Mr. Breckinridge. Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. No questions. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, may I bring Out for the record that any effort to compare the residual powers and controls of the School Board with those which exist in any other community in this country is erroneous. The fact is that the Mayor approved a proposed school budget, but that i~'Iayor approved it not in reference to the people in this community, but in reference to the Office of Budget and Manage- ment, which is controlled by the President of the United States, who is not solely responsible or responsive to the people of this city by virtue ckf the fact that he's not elected by them. The fact is that before they can exercise that control over the funds which they may or may not get,. depending not upon the decision of people who are responsible to them, but upon the decision of~ the President and his Office of Budget and Management, they have also got to get clearance from Members of this Congress, not one of whom governs by the authority vested in them. by the people who are gov- erned in the District of Columbia. - It is simply impossible to compare the District of Columbia with any other city or any other State in the United States of America. We remain the last colony. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Landgrebe, did you have a comment, before we go to the. next witness? . . Mr. LANDGREBE. Mr. Chairman, this is not a question directed to the witness, but I notice wehave a large room. There's some 250 seats available. I wonder if those citizens of the District who are not on congressional staffs or government employees or press or media would be kind enough to hold up their hands so we could determine some- what the amount of general interest in this hearing this morning at 10 on this lovely morning. [A show of hands.] Mr. LANDGREBE. I see one hand, Mr. Chairman. *Ms. DARNEILLE. I'm not sure they heard you, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0093" 89 Mr. LANDGREBE. They can't hear me. I'll be glad to repeat the question. It's 10:30 on Monday morning. We have seats for 250 people. We're discussing a very controversial question of home rule for the District of Columbia. I wondered if those present, the citizens of the commu- nity, citizens of the District of Columbia who are present, who are not on congressional staffs or government employees of this District or the Federal Government or are members of the press, would be kind enough to hold up their hands. [A show of hands.] Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, we have six. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's the information that I want. Mr. SIM0N5. Even so, I say that is still no excuse for delaying, and if it is only one person here, that one person should have that right and privilege and should not be denied. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Simons, we appreciate your testimony this morning. Thank you for being with us. The next witness this morning is Mr. Alfred Trask; president of the American University Park Citizens Association. Mr. Trask, the committee has before it your statement. Mr. TRASK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should correct the designation. I am the past president of the American University Park and a member of the executive board. We believe that the division of the District government should evidence- Mr. ADAMS. Pardon me, Mr. Trask. We have your statement. Do you wish to put it in in full and then comment on it ~ Mr. TRASK. I was just going to summarize it. Mr. ADAMS. All right. Without objection, your statement will appear in full at this point.~ If you wish to proceed and summarize it and highlight in any way, please go ahead. [The prepared statement of Mr. Alfred S. Trask follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN UNIvERsITY PARK CITIZENS AssocIATIoN, APRIL 9, 1973 Mr. Chairman: I am Alfred S. Trask, residing at 4306 Alton P1. N.W., member of the Executive Board and past president of our Association. Since this city is the Nation's Capital, the usual form of city government would be undesirable because of the primacy of the federal interest. The Nation's found- ing fathers gave to the Congress the exclusive power to enact legislation in all cases whatsoever over the seat of government of the United States (Article I, Section 8(17) of the Constitution. We should like to see a form of government here which would adequately protect the federal interest and yet give the elec- torate some voice in the local government, but not an exclusive voice. We do not believe that any of the bills now before the House would accomplish that. Referring to the retrocession bill, H.R. 950, there are so many federal buildings without the confines named in the bill, and so many schools on both sides of the boundary which would be subject to different jurisdictions, that living patterns would be disrupted. Further, there is serious doubt that Maryland would accept this territory. On the statehood bill, H.R. 2574, whether or not the citizens would vote in favor of the referendum, the liabilities of "statehoOd" far outweigh the benefits. The tax base would be small, and the new state would receive federal benefits only as accorded the rest of the states, without the specific federal aid now PAGENO="0094" 90 granted to the District of Columbia as such. Further, putting the District on an equal footing with the other states would nullify the purpose for which it was originally set up; namely, to give the Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the seat of government and the right to take such protective measures as may be found necessary to safeguard government facilities and personnel. Referring to the home rule bills, H.R. 5211 and 6439, there is a large number of offices whose members would be appointed by the Mayor (See Organization Chart dated July, 1972, attached), in addition to other offices such as the Board of Library Trustees and the three citizen members of the Board of Zoning Ad- justment. The general organization apparently is nOt to be disturbed, H.R. 5211, Sec. 321(b); H.R. 6439, Sec. 305(b). We would deplore placing the entire admin- istrative structure in the hands of an elected Mayor under these bills. The number of potential voters here is less than that of nearly all of the states, compared with the number of inhabitants of voting age, because federal employes are entitled to register and maintain voting residence in their home towns. If they do, they cannot vote here. In other words, many residents are franchised elsewhere. The result is that any vote here does not reflect the views of as many of its inhabitants as in other cities or the states. This makes for a larger propor- tion of the voting population to be represented by people who receive their sup- port from public assistance, and whose financial and other interests differ from and in many cases conflict with those of other citizens. Total control of city zoning is a major announced goal of the principal ele- ments demanding home rule. The single-family dwelling regulation is under at- tack as discriminatory against poor people, and as a barrier which walls the more affluent into a sanctuary west of the Park. The lack of low-inëome apart- ments in purely residential areas is a concern of those seeking control over zoning. A vote for home rule is a vote against the zoning principles which maintain in our neighborhood the quality which we now enjoy. It also would be a mandate for accelerating abandonment of the city by those bearing the heaviest burden of its residential property taxes. We do not advocate exclusion of all participation in city government by the electorate. Neither do we want exclusive control of the government of the Nation's Capital by the relatively small proportion of residents living in the District who would be eligible to vote. For that reason, we favor a combination elected and appointed government such as proposed by Mr. Broyhill last year in H.R. 12543 (92nd Congress) three Presidential appointees, three Congressional, and three elected. We should prefer to have the Chairman elected by the Council, as the President'of the Board of Education is elected by the Board. We are not entirely satisfied with the government set up by the Reorganization Plan numbered 3 of 1967. We preferred the 3-Commissioner plan. (Letter to Mr. McMillan dated July 30, 1967, "D.C. Reorganization Proposals", House District Subcommittee Hearings, June-August 1967 page 229.) We would welcome a con- structive change which would not be ruinous to the welfare and safety of the Capital. STATEMENT OF ALFRED S~ TRASK, PAST PRESIDENT AND MEMBER OF EXECUTIVE BOARD, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PARK CITIZENS ASSOCIATION Mr. TRASK. Yes. sir. Referring to the home rule bills, they have put practically the entire administrative structure in the hands of an elected mayor. To give an idea of how comprehensive this power is, there is attached a chart of the District of Columbia government to the statement. Referring to this chart, it would be noted that some of the officers in the box at the right are also appointed by the mayor, besides the library and zoning boards mentioned in the statement. We note that the Board of Higher Education is appointed by the mayor. In contrast, the Board of Vocational Education is appointed by the President. PAGENO="0095" ASSOciATED ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS A d I Facilities Emergency Medical Services Neighborhood Planning Food, Nutrition and 11cc/tie Pub/ia Welfare A Health Planning Public Welfare - Day Care BicenrennialAusenrblf Hansen Rights Service Area Bicentennial Commiuoiotl International Visitors Span:sh Commonity Citizen's Traffic Mayor's Economic Development Vocational Rehabilitatisg a'ncmnnicn Pearaerioe Medal C/tied Yootlt Sate/ceo if Part of Manpower Admin., U.S. Dept. of Labor. 2/ Evec. Order 11401 of March 13. 1068, designated the Maysras the National Cap/set Housing Authority. ~ Reorganization Plan No. 4sf 1968 gioeu the Mayor the aathsr/cy to appoint the RLA Board of D/rscrocs. ~ Jurisdiction ousr D.C. marters en he phased out between February 1971 and August 1972. July 1972 QPM THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE PRESIDENT and THE CONGRESS ~ ~OUNcI~t! ~ ~G~W~H FISCAL ~~~TARV LPORA~J_ ~ 1.LJ~TANNG Re~:nue EXECUTIVEOFFICE ~nrslSennioes Financial Management ____ H:nhwsys and Traffic Duil Detente Human Resources I Human Rights Icturatca I Munic/pal Audit Motor Vehicles and Inspection Police Personnel Recorder of Deeds I Plenninnsnd Management Rooreatioa Public Affairs Surnryor [,~~rian Youth Opportunity Seroices The Council /scompnsod of a Cho/eman a V/nt Cheirmen, and snoen other members, all of whom are appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the ada/ce and consent of the Secant. At the n/mn of his appainemnnt each mnmher of the Council must be ac/risen of the Un/ted States, and `an actual nesidnet of the Disteict of Columb/a for three yearn preceding h/sappointmenl. The Council/s nonpartisan and no more than s/a of inn members can be adherents of any one political party. Appointmentsto the Council are made with a u/ewtoward ach/coing a Council mnmbnerln/p which/s broadly reprenentat/oe of the Disnnictaf Columbia community. [~ANT TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR HOUSING PROGRAMS D.C. MANPOWER ADMINISTRATOR if ~fE~docat/as _j Apprenticeship Council Armory Board Bail Agency Board ef Electians Board of H/gher Edaoat/nn Pednnal C/ty Collega D.C. TeachersCotege Board of Vocationel Education Wanhin~tsn Techn/cal lest/tune Board nf Library Trustees Board of ZoeingAdjasnmeac D.C. Courts: Superior Court Court of Appeals National Capital Housing Authority21 National Guard, D.C. Public Defender Public Sets/ce Commission Redecnlopment Land Agency21 U. S. Courts: .4/ Appealtfor D.C. Wash/nnton Aqueduct Wash. Metro. Area Transit Author/ty Wash. Metro. Area Transit Znn/ng Comm/ca/an Alcoholic Beverafe Cantrol Lahnr Relations Appnals ond Reu/ne Cocdemnat/on of Insanitary Buildings Condemnation Review Contract Appeals Minimum Wage end Induce/al Safety Occupationsand Profess/ens Parole Relacaf/on Ado/sony Crim/nal Just/ce Cnord. Hackers' L/cense Appeal Untmplaymtet CompensationS ~ PAGENO="0096" 92 We also have an elected local school board. This is an interesting example of how it is easier to delegate authority than to get it back. It appears that there would be little chance of getting back to an ap- pointed board, even if that should be found desirable. This also shows that the Congress should be extremely reluctant to delegate further authority, even though the Congress did take it back once after the Sheppard administration. * We favor an approach that would give both appointed and elected members of the city council, such as proposed last year in the Broy- hill bill, H.R. 12543 in the 92d Congress. I thank you for the privilege of appearing here. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Trask. Mr. Fauntroy? Mr. FAUNTROY. No questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Landgrebe? Mr. LANDGREBE. I don't believe I have any questions, sir. I haven't had time to read your statement, but it is refreshing to have a witness before the committee who has some objective comments regarding the situation, and who recognizes the Federal interest, and the fact that the District of Columbia is in relationship to the Federal Government an unusual situation. And so, I assure you we will give very great specific consideration to your statement. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Trask, I have no questions. I have read your state- ment now, and I appreciate very much your coming in to testify this morning. Mr. Tit~sK. Thank you. Mr. HOGAN. Could I just ask one question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Hogan has one question. Mr. HOGAN. Is your citizens' organization-you talk in here about zoning- Mr. TRASK. I'm sorry, sir. Could you speak a little louder? Mr. HOGAN. You have made some statements, in your statement you address the question of city zoning. Have you read the Nelsen Commis- sion's report of its recommendations on zoning and planning? Can you hear me? Maybe I'm not speaking loud enough. You make some statements here about zoning in the District of Columbia. Has your citizens' association reviewed the recommenda- tions of the Nelsen Commission as they relate to planning and zoning? Mr. Tu.~sK. The recommendations of the- Mr. HOGAN. Nelsen Commission with respect to zoning and planning. Mr. T~sK. I'm sorry. I'm at a~ disadvantage. Mr. HOGAN. All right. That's fine. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Trask. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of questions now that I've been able to read a portion of your statement, which I wish we'd had the benefit of oral testimony on. But I'm just curious as to the factual basis for a couple of statements, which I note here, in argu- ing against self-government for the people of the city. You suggest that many residents are not franchished here, but are franchished elsewhere. Mr. TRASK. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0097" 93 Mr. FAUNTROY. How many? Mr. Tit~&sK. Well, that'S because a lot of them vote at home, and if they vote at home, they can't vote here. Mr. FAUNTROY. Well, I understand that, but how many? What's the f'tctual basis for that statement ~ Mr. TRA5K. Well, I mean that decreases the proper representation of the available electorate. Mr FATJNTROY You made it very clear to me that you don't have the facts to substantiate that statement. You also say that this makes for a large proporion of the voting population to be represented by people who receive their support from public assistance. Mr. TIt~&sK. Yes, sir. Mr FAITh mo~ Now, what is the basis for that stateni~iit[ Mr. TRASK. Well, of course, that doesn't disqualify them from vot- ing, but it might affect the amount of public assistance that is granted to the disadvantage of the budget. Mr. FATJNTROY. Sir, you made two very general statements, for which you must have some specific basis. You say a larger proportion of the voting population, larger than what? What is the proportion? Mr. TRASK. Well, that-I have nothing specific. Mr. FAUNTROY. I thought so. Mr. TRASK. That particular statement, it is actually a committee job and I can't say definitely about that. Mr. FAUNTROY. Next time you come, bring your committee. Mr. TRASK. I would have to retract the part about the larger; I just don't know about that. Mr. FAtTNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't read the rest. If I read the rest, I may ask some questions for the record after I finish reading. Mr. LANDGREBE. If I may, I will hand the question to the witness. Mr. TRASK. Well, I say that's a tough question, true, considering that the possibilities of ad\ ersely affecting the living conditions that we tre used to like single family dwellings, we ]ust don't want to be governed by the majority in the District. That's about the size of it. Mr. FAUNTROY. Now, that is a factual statement. I appreciate that kind of clarity. [General laughter.] Mr. LANDGREBE. I will read the question so Congressman Fauntroy will get the full thrust of the answer. I think without the question, you don't get the full thrust of it. Doesn't it trouble you that you're a second-rate citizen without full right to vote for all city government officials, and we have heard the answer, so I guess we'll just let the record stand. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Trask, for your statement. - We appreciate you being with us this morning. The next witness this morning before the committee is Mr. George W. Brady, former president of the Federation of Citizens Associa- tions. Mr. Brady, the committee has before it your statement. Do you wish to place it in the record, and summarize it, or how do you wish to proceed? Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be most effective to present our views if I run through it briefing it to a certain degree, but I would like the complete statement to be printed in the record. 97-527-73-pt. 2-7 PAGENO="0098" 94 Mr. ADAMS. All right. Without objection, your statement will be printed. in the record in full, and you may now proceed, Mr. Brady. [The material referred to follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF CITIZENS AssocIATIoNs OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APRIL 9, 1973 I am George W. Brady, today representing Dr. Ellis Haworth, President of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia. I am a past president of the Federation (19~38-1970) and am currently a member of its Executive Board and Chairman of its Fiscal Relations and Taxation Com- mittee. Our Federation, which is in its 63rd year of service to our city, currently has a membership of twenty-five neighborhood Citizens Associations, all within the boundaries of the District. The Federation which I represent desires to support those proposals which will make Washington the model city for the Nation, physically, economically, socially and culturally. Therefore our viewpoint in commenting on the various "Home Rule" proposals Is a pragmatic one. Would the change l~ad to a more efficient government? Would a new city government be more responsive or better able to resist special interests? Would it be able to balance the sometimes conflicting desires of the Federal and local interests? Would our taxes be lower and our schools better? We believe the answer to these questions is No. We believe that an unfortunate illusion has been created and false hopes held out, especially to the disadvantaged, that "Home Rule" will solve their problems. I would like now to present our views in a little more detail under the follow- ing four headings: Nelsen Commission Recommendations, Elected Local Govern- ment, Statehood Proposals, and Subcommittee Questions. NELSEN COMMISSION AND D.C. GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY The Congress in September 1970 established the Commission on the Organiza- tion of the Government of the District of Columbia, better known as the Nelsen Commission, to make recommendations "to promote economy, efficiency, and improve service in the transaction of public business in the District. The Com- mission's Report which became available late last year contains many recom- mendations, some of which can be accomplished by administrative action by the Mayor-Commissioner and the City Council, but also a number of others which require legislative action by the Congress. We would point out that whatever from of the government, in the District, it is important that the departmental organization meet the criteria of "economy, efficiency, and improved service." With the Nelsen Commission report at hand, the first priority to us would be to implement those of its recommendations that consideration by the Mayor and City Council shows will accomplish the stated objective. We think it is unfortunate that in the year of which recommendations of the Nelsen Commission are available, the Home Rule issue is being given higher priority. We strongly recommend that the energies of all ,concerned with the well-being of our city be devoted to studying and acting on the Commission's recommendations. ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT Many of our Federation delegates who have lived in the District for many years have said that they were well satisfied with the three Commissioner form of government and saw no advantage in the Mayor-Commissioner and City Council form of government instituted in the Johnson administration. We regard Mayor Washington as an able and conscientious executive and believe that the City Council has worked diligently, but we are very displeased at some of the things that have happened since this form of government was established. The runaway budget situation shows no sign of leveling off even though the city's population is static. We have recommended to the Mayor and the City Council that a budget ceiling be established for the District similar to that imposed by the President on the Federal Budget. To emphasize this point the District Budget for FY 1974 is 14% higher than asked for in FY 1973. Should not a little price control be imposed on the District Budget? PAGENO="0099" 95 The response of the District Building to our recommendations has been mini- mal, and we must now look to the Senate and House Appropriations Subcom- mittees for relief from this larger budget and increased taxes through excessive assessments. Now with regard to the basic question of an elected local government for the District: 1. First there is the constitutional question as to the authority of the Congress to delegate its responsibility to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases what- soever over-the seat of government of the United States." We believe that if the Congress decides that it no longer desires to be concerned with governing the Nation's Capital, the issue should be presented to all the people of the United States by the constitutional amendment route. 2. Our second point is that because the District is the headquarters of our national government-administrative, legislative and judicial-Congress should not completely divest itself of all authority and responsibility. A simple hypo- thetical example is the height of buildings in the federal area. Suppose an elected local government, in a desperate quest for greater tax revenues, should decide to permit 100 story office buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue or along K Street. This would violate the historical concept of Washington as a horizontal city, but if Congress had already delegated away its authority on zoning it could do nothing about it. Hence it is obvious that Congress must retain many of its prerogratives to protect the interests of the Federal government. 3. Our third point relates to the most recent experience with elected officials in the District, the School Board. First, School Superintendent, Dr. Hansen, was forced to resign, and since then we have had one acting and two supposedly permanent superintendents, and are now looking for another. Under the elected School Board, the conditions in the public schools have continued to worsen, including the morale of the staff, vandalism, acts of violence toward pupils and staff, thefts of money and property, extortion of money from pupils by other pupils, and a lowering of educational achievement levels attained by the pupils. Many teachers exhibit a lack of professional concern, involving poor or no lesson preparations, poor record keeping and failure to meet classes. The contract between the Washington Teachers' Union and the Board of Educa- tion has resulted in the almost complete inability of principals to act as educa- tional leaders in their schools. Hence we regard this experience as a poor omen for an elected local government. 4. Because we have in Washington five major universities most of whose stu- dents come from out of town (FCC and WTI have primarily local student bodies) and because, under recent changes in voter qualifications, all these students, re- gardless of their true residence, can vote in local elections, it is quite possible or even likely that the results of an election could be distorted by temporary student voters. This has already happened in other localities. 5. Our final two points on the elected local government issue pertain to alleged benefits. First it is alleged that an elected Mayor-Council government would be more responsive. This we doubt. Our present appointive Mayor-Commissioner and City Council we believe are trying to be responsive through public hearings although, as we said earlier, our recent experience on our budget and assessment recommendations make us wonder whether they are really listening. Our last comment relates to another alleged benefit, which is best described by the bumper stickers "Last Colony." Without going into the constitutional question again, I submit that this is an emotionally effective but practically spurious argument. No one is forced to live in Washington. We believe that the convenience and quality of living in the District is enough superior that most of us who live here are willing to accept the fact that we are locally disenfranchised. STATEHOOD PROPOSALS One type of "statehood" proposal would make the District df Columbia the 51st State, complete with governor, legislature, senators, and representatives. One version of this proposal which was discussed in last year's hearings would expand the boundaries of the District into both Virginia and Maryland, perhaps as far as the outer Beltway. However this would require approval by the two States concerned and also a Constitutional Amendment. We consider it unlikely that either Maryland or Virginia would concur in a proposal of this type in the PAGENO="0100" 96 foreseeable future, although if some of the East Coast Megalopolis prophesies come true in another decade or so this might change. Hence because of the prac- tical problems inherent In full statehood we will make no further comment on this type of proposal. The second proposal which we consider under statehood would permit the District to have the same Congressional representation to which it would be entitled if it were a State, i.e., two Senators and one or more Representatives. At first glance this proposal is attractive as it would probably give the District a stronger voice in the Congress. Also it might be thought of as a step toward demonstrating that the District had the capacity for Home Rule. The principal disadvantages which we see for partial statehood through Con- gressional representation are that it adds one more layer of authority without responsibility to running the District government, and further, that differences of opinion between the congressional delegation and the city administration could adversely affect the city. SUBCOMMITTEE QUESTIONS The questions raised in the Subcommittee staff memorandum are all good and make one realize that even if one were enthusiastic for home rule there are still many items on which decisions would have to be made. Our comments on some of these questions have been given in previous parts of our testimony, and in view of our rejection of the concept of an elected local government, answers to others would be redundant. However we do offer the following comments which we hope will be helpful to the Subcommittee: 1. Transfer of Legislative Power.-We believe that all purely municipal func- tions should be delegated to the District government, subject to Congressional review of those that concern the Federal interest. Congress should retain some type of review and veto power over City Council actions to comply with the Constitution. 2~ Municipality vs. State Laws.-No comment. 3. Number and Election of Legisiators.-No comment. 4. Chief Executive-Elected or Appoint ed.-We recommend an appointed chief executive who is responsible for the policy aspects of the city administration, and who is backed up by a professional city manager who handles the day to day business of running the city. 5. Executive's Power.-See comment in (4). 6. Selection of Judges.-We believe that D.C. Judges should be appointed by the President. The prosecutional officials should be appointed by `the District's chief executive, possibly with concurrence of the City Council. 7. Fiscal Powers of Local Government.-The present District government al- ready has substantial fiscal powers, but we believe that some further transfer, such as reprogramming authority, is desirable as set out in Section VI of the Nelsen Commission Report. However we believe that Congress must continue to be responsible for setting the overall Budget ceiling for the District, and for approving the District's long term debt. Congress should also act to simplify the D.C. Budget cycle as recommended in Nelsen Commission VI-16. 8. Federal Payment.-The Federation has recommended in its Council and Subcommittee testimony over the last several ~years~ that the Federal payment he on a formula `basis of 50% of the taxes raised locally. However, after reading the Nelsen Commission~Report, we now believe that some flexibility in setting the Federal Payment is necessary in order to take care of possible emergency or special occasion needs on the one hand, and to prevent the District from taking advantage of a formula to increase its taxes and hence Federal Payment on the other. For sound fiscal planning we support Nelsen Commission recommendation VI-45 that "Congress continue to authorize the Federal Payment at least one fiscal year in advance." 0. Additional Local Revenue Sources.-The Federation has supported the con- cept of a recipi~ocal commuter tax as an equitable means of sharing the cost of running the District with those whose income' is derived from District employment. 10. Elective vs. Appointive.-As previously stated we favor the appointment by ~the President of the Chief Executive, City Council, and D.C. Judges. The Chief Executive should appoint the City Manager, Department Heads, etc. 11. Election Law.-No comment. PAGENO="0101" 97 12. Governmental Form-Our first choice would be a return to the former three Commissioner form of government, including the Engineer Commissioner. Our second choice is the present appointive Mayor-Council with a reasonable balance between the authority of each. Consideration should be given to making member- ship on the City Council a full time job. 13. Levels of Government.-No comment on the first part of this question. Our previous comments answer the second part. 14. Governmental Organizat~ion.-We support the Nelsen Commission's recom- mendations that the RLA and NCHA should be a part of the District govern- ment. However we do not agree with that part of the Commission's report which proposes that the portion of the NCPC's responsibility which pertains to local planning be transferred to the District government in a new office to be titled Municipal Planning Office. It is essential, not only for efficiency, but also because federal and local interests overlap in so many places, that overall city planning authority and responsibility be kept in one place, the NCPC. 15. Federal Interest.-Fundamentally the Federal Interest is to make sure that the District of Columbia provides (a) a suitable environment for the con- duct of all the business of government, both domestic and foreign, (b) a physical appearance in keeping with its role as the Nation's Capital, and (c) proper facili- ties and a congenial and safe atmosphere for its many residents and visitors. SUMMARY 1. We believe that Congress should give priority attention to the implementa- tion of the Nelsen Commission Report. 2. We believe that the present District government should be given the op- portunity to improve itself based on the Nelsen Commission recommendations. 3. We oppose an elected local government for the District of Columbia. STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. BRADY, PAST PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. BRADY. Thank you. I am George W. Brady. Today I'm repre- senting Dr. Ellis }Jaworth, president of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia. I'm a past president of the federation in the years 1968 to 1970, and I'm currently a member of its executive board, and chairman of its fiscal relations and taxation com- mittee. Our federation, which is in its 63d year of service to our city, currently has a membership of 25 neighborhood citizens associations, all within the boundaries of the District. The federation which I represent desires to support those proposals which will make Washington the model city for the nation, physically, economically, socially, and culturally. Therefore our viewpoint in com- menting on the various home rule proposals is a pragmatic one. WTould the change lead to a more efficient government? Would a new city government be more responsive or better able to resist special interests? Would it be able to balance the sometimes conflicting de- sires of the Federal and local interests? Would our taxes be lower and our schools better? WTe believe the answer to these questions is "No." We believe that an unfortunate illusion has been created and false hopes held out, espe- ically to the disadvantaged, that home rule will solve their problems. I would now like to present our views in some detail under the following four headings: "The Nelsen Commission Recommendations, Elected Local Government, Statehood Proposals, and Subcommittee Questions." PAGENO="0102" 98 Tinder the heading of "Nelsen Commission and District of Columbia Government Efficiency," we note that the Congress established the Commission on the Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia, better known as the Nelsen Commission, to make recom- mendations "to promote economy, efficiency, and improved service in the transaction of public business in the District." The Commission's report, which became available late last year, contains many recommendations, some of which can be accomplished by administrative action by the Mayor-Commissioner and the City Council, but also a number of others which require legislative action by the Congress. WTe would point out that whatever form of the government exists in the District, it is important that the departmental organization meet the criteria of "economy, efficiency, and improved service." With the Nelsen Commission report at hand, the first priority from our point of view would be to implement those of its recommendations that consideration by the Mayor and City Council shows will accomplish the stated objective. We think it is unfortunate that in the year in which recommenda- tions of the Nelsen Commission are available, that the home rule issue is being given higher priority. We strongly recommend that the ener- gies of all concerned with the well-being of our city be devoted to studying and acting on the Commission's recommendations. Into our second heading of "Elected Local Government," we first comment on the feeling of many of our federation delegates who have lived in the District of many years, that they were well satisfied with the three Commissioner form of government, and particularly-I would interpolate here-that fact that one of the three Commissioners was the Engineer-Commissioner, who handled essentially the phys- ical aspect of the city. And we saw no advantage in this Mayor-Commissioner-City Coun- cil form of government instituted during the Johnson administra- tion. We regard Mayor Washington as an able and conscientious execu- tive and believe that the City Council has worked diligently, but we are very displeased with some of the things that have happened since this form of government was established. The runaway budget situation shows no sign of leveling off even though the city's population is static. We have recommended to the Mayor and City Council in our testimony to the budget that a ceiling be established for the District similar to that imposed by the Pres- ident on the Federal budget. To emphasize this point, the District budget for fiscal year 1974 is 14 percent higher than was asked for a year ago in fiscal year 1973. And we ask the question: should not a little price control be imposed on the District budget? The response of the District Building to our recommendations has been minimal, and we must now look to the Senate and House Appro- priations Subcommittees for relief from this larger budget and in the increased taxes, which are being imposed on many of our residents through excessive assessment. Now, we have a few comments on the basic question of the elected local government. First, there is a constitutional question. I don't want to go into that other than to say that we think that the Corn- PAGENO="0103" 99 mission should consider that if they desire to institute local, elected local government, that the issue should be presented to all the people of the United States by the constitutional amendment route. Second, because the District is the headquarters of our National Government, Congress should not completely divest itself of all au- thority and responsibility. And we cite, as a hypothetical example, which is of interest to all of us, which is the height of buildings in the Federal area. And our example is that suppose an elected government, in a des- perate quest for greater tax revenues, should decide to permit 100- story office buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue or along K Street. This would violate the historical concept of Washington as a horizontal city; but if Congress has already delegated away its authority on zoning, it could do nothing about it. Hence, it is obvious that Congress must retain many of its prerogatives to protect the interests of the Federal Government. Our third point relates to the most recent experience with elected officials in the District, the School Board. First, School Superinten- dent, Dr. Hansen, was forced to resign. Since then,, we have had one acting and two supposedly permanent superintendents, are now look- ing for another. And in my next paragraph, which was supplied to me by Dr. How- ard, who has had 50 years of service in the school system, including District of Columbia Teachers' College- Mr. ADAMS. i'm sorry. I didn't get the name. Mr. BRADY. Dr. Howard. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you. Mr. BRADY. Under the elected school board, the conditions in the public schools have continued to worsen, including the morale of the staff, vandalism, acts of violence toward pupils and staff, thefts of money and property, extortion of money from pupils by other pupils, and a lowering of educational achievement levels attained by the pupils. Many teachers exhibit a lack of professional concern involving poor or no lesson preparations, poor recordkeeping and failure to meet classes. The contract between the Washington Teachers' Union and the Board of Education has resulted in almost complete inability of prin- cipals to act as educational leaders in our schools. We therefore regard this experience with an elected school board as a poor omen for an elected local government. Our next item is that because Washington has five major universi- ties, not counting Federal City College and Washington Technical Institute, which have primarily local student bodies, these five uni- versities have students, most of whom come from out of town. And because of recent changes in voter qualifications, all of these students, regardless of their true residence, can vote in local elections; we there- fore think it is quite possible or even likely that the results of an elec- tion could be distorted by temporary resident student votes. This has already happened in other localities, and I believe the most recent one occurred in Madison, Wis. Five, our final two points on the elected local government issue per- tain to alleged benefits. First it is alleged that an elected Mayor- PAGENO="0104" 100 Council government would be more responsive. This we doubt. Our present appointive ii\'layor-Commissioner and City Council we believe are trying to be responsive through public hearings although, as we said earlier in our comment on the budget, our recent experience make us wonder to what degree they're really listening to us. Our final comment on this heading relates to another alleged benefit, which is best described by~ bumper stickers, "Last Colony." Without going into the constitutional question again, I submit that this is an emotionally effective but practically spurious argument. No one is forced to live in Washington. We believe that the convenience and quality of living in the District is enough superior that most of us who have lived here are willing to accept the fact that we are locally disen- franchised. I have a brief comment here on statehood proposals, but I will not read it, and we'll go on to my final section which has to do with the subcommittee questions. I think the questions in staff memorandum, which I obtained here about 10 days ago, are all good and make one realize that even if one were enthusiastic for home rule, there are still many items in which decisions would have to be made. Our comments on some of these questions have been given in previous parts of our testimony; and in view of our rejection of the concept of an elected local government, answers to others would be redundant. Now, we did have a few comments on some of the points. The first point has to do with the transferral of legislative power. And we think that all purely municipal functions should be delegated to the District government, subject to congressional review of those that concern the Federal interest. Congress should retain some type of review and the veto power over City Council actions to comply with the Constitution. On the question of an elected or appointed chief executive, we favor the appointed chief executive, with the appointment to be made by the President, who is responsible primarily for the policy aspects of the city, but who is backed up by a professional city manager who handles the day-to-day business of running the city. On judges, we think they should be appointed by the President. And the prosecutional officials, on which there was a question in your staff questions, should be appointed by the District's chief executive possibly with the concurrence of the city council. On fiscal powers of the local government, the present District gov- ernment already has substantial fiscal powers, but we believe some further transfer, such as reprograming authority, is desirable as set out in section ITT of the Nelsen Commission Report. However, we believe that Congress should just continue to be re- sponsible for setting the overall budget ceiling for the District, and for approving the District's long-term debt. And I would just like to interpolate there that the fact that it is estimated in the current budget documents, that the Mayor's office put out, that that will in- crease to $40 million a year, that is the debt service cost to $80 million. And there are some terribly large deficits coming up in the police and fire retirement programs, which are just funded on a year-to-year basis, and I think also in the teachers' retirement program. PAGENO="0105" 101 On the question of Federal payment, we have recommended before council and congressional committees for the last several years, that Federal payments should be on a formula basis. However, after read- ing the Nelsen Commission Report, we now believe that some flexi- bility in setting the Federal payment is necessary in order to take care of possible emergency or special occasion needs on the one hand, and to prevent the District from taking advantage of the formula to increase its taxes and hence Federal payment on t~ie other. And we add čne other comment into this heading. For sound fiscal planning, we support the Nelsen Commission recommendation No. VI-45 that "Congress continue to authorize the Federal payment at least 1 fiscal year in advance." On additional local revenue sources, we have supported and we con- tinue to support the concept of the reciprocal commuter tax. On elective versus appointive, as we said earlier, we favor appoint- ment by the President of the chief executive, whether he be called MayorS Commissioner or Mayor-Commissioner, the City Council and the District of Columbia judges. And that the chief executive himself should appoint the city manager, department heads, et cetera. On the question of governmental form, our first choice would be a return to the formerthree-Commissioner form of government, includ~ ing the Engineer Commissioner. Our second choice is the present, appointive Mayor-Council with a reasonable balance between the au- thority of each. Consideration should be given, I think, to make a membership on that city council a full time job. On governmental organization, we support the Nelsen Commis- sion's recommendations that the Redevelopment Land Agency and the National Capital Housing Authority should be part of the District government. However, we do not agree with that part of the Com- mission's report which proposes that the portion of the NCPC's re- sponsibility which pertains to local planning be transferred to the District government in a new office to be titled municipal planning office. It is essential, in our opinion, not only for efficiency, but also be- cause Federal and local interests overlap in so many places, that over- all city planning authority and planning responsibility be kept in one place, which we think should be the National Capital Planning Commission. And we have tried our hand at developing the Federal interest, that your staff questions brought out. And we say this, that funda- mentally the -Federal interest is to make sure that the' District of Columbia provides: first, a suitable environment for all the conduct of all the business of the Government, both domestic and foreign; second, that the city should have a physical appearance in keeping with its role as the Nation's Capital; and third, that the proper facili- ties and a congenial and safe atmosphere for its many residents and visitors be provided. And in summing up our statement, we say first we believe that Con- gress should give priority attention to those aspects of the Nelsen Commission Report which require legislative action; and second, we believe that the present District government ~should be given the opportunity to improve itself-as they've already started to do-based on the Nelsen Commission's recommendations; and thirdly, we op- pose any elective local government for the District of Columbia. PAGENO="0106" 102 That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ALAM5. Fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Brady, for your statement. Mr. Fauntroy? Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Brady, I simply want to commend you on two counts: one for the very thorough fashion in which you have addressed the specific issues that the committee requested witnesses to address; and secondly, I commend you for having the courage to read your statement. It is a very revealing commentary on the state of mind of those whom you represent, and I guess my only question is an assessment on your part of the extent to which the people of this city agree with what you have outlined as being the position of the Federation 9f Citizens' Associations. How many citizens do you represent, do you think? Mr. Bit~uy. I know that question was asked by you last year of our then president, and I do not have an exact figure. But I know the Spring Valley-Wesley Heights Association, that I represent, has 600 families; multiply that by two, it's 1,200. Georgetown Citizens Association has about 1,500. And I think if we added up the total we represented, it would come to something between 5,000 and 8,000. Mr. FAUNTROY. I see. You would think that the majority of the people of the city, how- ever, would not be in agreement with your statement about- Mr. BRADY. I do not know, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. I didn't ask if you knew. Do you think that the majority of the people- Mr. BmADY. I would rather not comment on that. I have read your testimony, and I know that you have held public hearings, and I assume that you can answer that question much better than I. Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes; I will answer the question. The majority of the people, I'm sure, don't agree with this statement. Mr. BRADY. Does that necessarily make it wrong? Mr. FAUNTROY. No; it doesn'tmake it wrong, but I was about to ask you the question whether or not you agreed with rule by the majority. Mr. BRADY. Well, I think that's reasonable. If it's an informed maioritv, yes, sir. Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes. You made in your statement the fact that no one who lives in the District of Columbia has to live here. That they have a choice to move out. And Mr. Trask. before von, suggested that he was not in favor of majority rule, and I just thought maybe-I know of some places where small minorities do rule, and should we get self-government, I hope that you would consider staying and trying out a ~democratic gover~n- ment. - Otherwise, I am aware of certain nations in South Africa, for ex- ample, that do have informed minorities ruling over majorities. And maybe that's a better place to live. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0107" 103 Mr ADAMS Mr Landgrebe ~ Mr LANDGREBE Mr Brady, we might `ust `is well get down to some of the facts of life here. It is obvious that you and the former speaker expressed less than a great deal of confidence in the majority of this city. Now, are your suspicions and your fears founded on the color of peoples' skin? Mr. BRADY. No, sir. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, then, what is the problem? What makes you think the majority of the citizens of this city would not necessarily, once they get control of city hall, would not necessarily make life- increase the quality of life for the people generally of this community? Mr. BRADY. Well, as I said in the beginning, our view is a pragmatic one. We asked the. questions, will a change of this sort help our city? We do not think so. I might just quote one other point. As we know, this is somewhat of. an emotional issue, and maybe color does enter into it to some degree. I think it probably does, but we know sometimes emotion will carry away the situations. And may I quote the Equal Rights Amendments as one? Congress passed that by a large majority to institute through the congressional amendment route-I think it's No. 27-that we should have equal rights for men and women in this country. But as we have seen, further consideration of something of that sort indicates that it is not agreed to by many of the people and in many of the legislatures of our States in this country. Mr. LANDGREBE. In other words, emotionalism can affect a majority, a higher number of people, as well as a smaller number? Mr. BRADY. Yes, sir. Mr. LANDGREBE. You represent 15,000 people, you say about. What percenta~re of those 15.000 would be homeowners would you guess? Mr. BRADY. I'm sure the majority are. Mr. LA~DGREBE. Property owners in the District? Mr. BRADY. Yes. Mr. LANDOREBE. How many people in this city who would have an equal right to vote with people, same as you homeowners and so forth, how many peonle are on welfare in this city? Do you know about? Mr. BRADY. Let me see if I understand your question. How many in our membership are~ Mr. LANDGREBE. No; about how many people in the city, regardless of color, how many people in this city are on welfare, or are receiving we' ~are payments of some kind? Mr. BRADY. It's my recollection that something like 100,000, or one- seventh of the population of this city-now, I'm not sure whether that includes the families of the recipients. Mr. LANDGREBE. . I don't believe I have any more questions, thank you. Mr. ADAMS~ Mr. Symms? Mr. SYMMS. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Do you have any question you want to ask? Mr. DEPUY. No questions. Mr. ADAMS. Do you have any questions, Mr. Hogan? PAGENO="0108" 104 Mr. HOGAN. Just one, Mr. Chairman. You indicated in your statement here that-I believe you feel that there is a possibility of segregating out the local and Federal planning interests so there can be a transfer of local authority. Is that correct? Mr. BRADY. Insofar as the municipal functions. are concerned with the reservation, as I commented on the city planning portion, and may I say on that before we established our position on tilat, I consulted with Mr. Flarland Bartholarnew. who is a leading city planner of the Nation, one of the planners. He lives in St. Louis, now. He was Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission during the Eisenhower administration. We wrote to him, and he replied saying that in his view you cannot divide a municipal planning organization or function between two organizations and not have it be successful. And I would be glad to supply you with a copy of his letter to me if you would so like. Mr. ADA~rs. Mr. Hogan, do you want such a letter? Mr. HOGAN. Is this-in other words, you're saying he's taking a position contrary to the recommendations of the Nelsen Commission. Is that right? Mr. BRADY. Insofar as a splitup of the National Capital Planning Commission's function to local and Federal, hecause we don't think it is practical. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, it might be well for you to send a copy of that to Mr. Nelsen, Congressman Nelsen. Mr. ADAMS. If you would please supply a copy of it for the record, we would appreciate it. It will be entered in the record at this point, and copies will be made available to counsel. Mr. BRADY. I'll be glad to do so. [The information referred to follows:] HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW, St. Louis, Mo., Noveimber 19, 1973. DEAR GEORGE: Thank you for your letter of Nov. 15, and for the copy of the Report of the Commission on the District of Columbia. I have examined this Report. It is my opinion that it does not provide for the adoption of an Official Comprehensive Plan, and for appropriate procedure and enforcement. In 1925 an extremely capable and representative Committee appointed by the Secretary of Commerce (Herbert Hoover) prepared a "Standard City Plan- ning Enabling Act,". which was published by the Department of Commerce for the purpose of helping cities to follow a sound procedure in preparing, adopting and implementing an Official City Plan. This publication is extremely valuable because of its many annotations explaining the whys and wherefores of im- portant provisions of this Standard Act. You could probably obtain a copy from the Public Library. It has long been out of publication and copies can no longer be found. Several years later the Model Municipal Charter was rewritten and the provi- sions of the Standard Act were incorporated. There is no other adequate standard or model to my knowledge at this time. The proposal of the Commission on Organization is inadequate in several ways: 1. It fails to provide for adoption of an Official Plan, with specific provisions for procedure. 2. It provides for a Municipal Planning Office under the Mayor to which "com- prehensive municipal planning now vested in the NCPC" would be. transferred. Who would adopt, maintain and implement an Official City Plan? To assume that this could be done by one official as head of a Municipal Planning Office is totally' erroneous and unrealistic. PAGENO="0109" 105 3. Either there is an official City Plan which is respected and followed, or growth is not directed. Only a City Plan Commission composed of truly well qualified citizens and public officials responsible for municipal functions affected by the Plan will have proper public respect and acceptance. The powers and duties of the NCPC should be more fully defined and strengthened as provided in the Standard City Planning Enabling Act, not weakened, or placed in the hands of any individual. 4. Zoning is an integral part of an Official City Plan. There should be no Zoning Commission. This is a throwback to the days when cities were hastening to adopt zoning ordinances before there were any official City Plans. Cincinnati has an official City Plan of which zoning is a part and all zoning matters are handled in the same manner as other parts of the city's plan. 5. "The Municipal Planning Office would relate the social and economic needs of the city to physical planning-." This could be done far better by a City Plan Commission, and more particularly if there were a well qualified sociologist and an economist as a member of the Plan Commission. To say that social and eco- nomic needs have been ignored by city plan commissions is modern propaganda by a few misguided enthusiasts. Every public work has some social or economic significance, or both. A well developed park will enhance land values in its vicinity and will have social value to people who use it. 6. "In general, responsibility for planning for the District of Columbia and District property and facilities outside its borders would rest with the Municipal Planning Office." This sentence emphasizes the misconception of the proposal of the Commission on Organization (or whoever is responsible for this whole pro- posal). The term "planning" as used in this sentence quoted above, and elsewhere in the Report, means exercise of authority by some individual without any reference whatsoever to an Official City Plan. It could be an invitation to skullduggery. 7. The development and growth of a city should be a consistent long range undertaking, not subject to change with each turnover of public officials at elec- tions every few years. Only by a Commision with members whose terms overlap, will there be a steady, firm adherence to a plan. As time goes by some changes Will Le necessary, but frequent change and turnover by changing administrators soon produces a haphazard procedure. 8. The idea of a "Municipal Planning Office" and abolishment of a City Plan Commission is a hobby of certain City Managers who want personal control unhampered by any Plan Commission. Hastily and sincerely, HAP.LAND. FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DECEMBER 18, 1972. WHEREAS: The Report of the Commisison on the Organization of the Gov- ernment of the District of Columbia ("Nelsen Commission") recommends that a Municipal Planning Office be established in the Office of the Mayor-Com- missioner, and `WHEREAS: The Nelsen Commission also recommends that those parts of the planning functions of the National Capital Planning Commission which pertain to municipal as opposed to Federal interests be transferred from the NCPC to the proposed Municipal Planning Office, and WHEREAS: The Nelsen Commission also recommends that the Zoning Com- mission of the District of Columbia be abolished and its authority and functions transferred to the proposed Municipal Planning Office and the District of Colum- bia Council, and WHEREAS: There is no provision in the Nelsen Commission Report for the establishment and supervision of enforcement of a Comprehensive Plan for the District of Columbia, and WHEREAS: The distinction between "Federal" and "local" planning func- tions is wholly artificial and unsuited to the unique nature of the District of Columbia as the national capital, and WHEREAS: The recommendation for a division of authority between the NCPC and the proposed Municipal Planning Office appears to violate good man- agement practice in that it would result in further fragmentation of authority over planning, decision-making and policy execution among federal and local bodies, and PAGENO="0110" 106 WHEREAS: The Federation has consulted a former Chairman of the NCPC who is also an outstanding pioneer city planner in this matter and he has ad- vised that the proposed change in planning "fails to provide for the adoption of an Official City Plan, with specific provisions for procedure," and further that: ~`Either there is an official City Plan which is respected and followed, or growth is not directed. Only a City Plan Commission composed of truly well qualified citizens and public officials responsible for municipal functions affected by the Plan will have proper respect and acceptance. The powers and duties of the NCPC should be more fully defined and strengthened as provided in the Standard City Planning Enabling Act, not weakened, or placed in the hands of any individual. "The development and growth of a city should be a consistent long range undertaking, not subject to change with each turnover of public officials every few years. Only by a [City Plan] Commission with members whose terms over- lap will there .be steady, firm adherence to a Plan. As time goes by some changes will be necessary. But frequent change and turnover by changing administrators soon produces a haphazard procedure." NOW THEREFORE, The Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia at its meeting of December 14, 1972 hereby resolves that: 1. The Federation asserts that all planning for the District of Columbia should be centered in a single agency which is organized to provide continuity of policy regardless of changes in the District of Columbia administration. 2. The Federation opposes the proposal for a Municipal Planning Office in the Office of the Mayor-Commissioner and the transfer to such new Office of the municipal planning functions of the NCPC. 3; The Federation recommends that the responsibility of the National Capital Planning Commission be enlarged and its authority strengthened, and that the Chairman of the District of Columbia City Council and at least two additional citizen representatives who are residents of the District of Columbia be added to the membership of the NCPC. 4. The Federation recommends that the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan for the District of Columbia should remain the responsibility of the NCPC and that the adequacy of the NCPC staff be reviewed to ensure that such plan and any changes thereto can be prepared and issued on a timely basis and with provision for citizen participation. The Federation further recommends that procedures for approval of the Comprehensive Plan and any changes in the plan also be reviewed to assure that adequate coordination with the Mayor-Commis- sioner and the Chairman of the D.C~ City Council has been accomplished prior to the final approval of the Plan. 5. Copies of this resolution be sent to the following: the President, Chairmen of the Senate and House District Committees, Chairmen of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees and of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittees, the Chairman of the Commission on the Organization of the Government of the Dis- trict of Columbia, the Mayor-Commissioner, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the D.C. City Council, and the Chairman and Executive Director of the Na- tional Capital Planning Commission. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Syrnms? Mr. SYM~Is. I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman. There are two or three bills before the House, which in general terms deal with retrocession. What is your feeling and attitude on that? Mr. BRADY. We have talked a.bout that. I think we feel that it won't accomplish very much. I've talked to a Marylander just yesterday, and he did not seem very enthusiastic about having the non-Federal part of the city retroceded to his State. But we have not taken a positive position on it as I recall. Mr. SYM~xs. You don't recommend it then? Mr. BRADY. That is right. Mr. SYMMs. That's all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Brady, very much for your statement. We* appreciate very much receiving it. Mr. BRADY. Thank you. PAGENO="0111" 107 Mr. ADAMS. Our next witness this morning is Mr. Arturo Griffiths, director of the Washington Ghetto Industrial Improvement and In- vestment Corporation Foundation. Mr. Griffiths~ Mr. GInEFITHs. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Arturo Griffiths follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARTURO GRIFFITHS, DIRECTOR OF THE WASHINGTON GHETTO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORP. INC. Mr. Chairman, the selected issues, problems and guidelines for this testimony appears to me that if this testimony if adhered to, there would have to be a book- let written on each selected issue and problem. So please bear with humble puople like myself and my organization as to our lack of financial capability. Our outline would only take into consideration what we would define as basic topics. It is discomforting to me when I hear the constant cry for home rule, by poli- ticians. As a very humble Ghetto boy I find that in the community of Washington, D.C., there is no home rule aspirations. The guy from humble circumstances says with one voice "Rule What ?", there is nothing to rule. The Ghetto Economist says, if this was an industrial area, then there would have to be another thought. This constant political maneuver to have a few jobs for a few Blacks is for the birds. Up to this moment there has not been an outline to this community indicating the feasibility of home rule. Our Ghetto Citizen or the poor are still wondering why "home rule". No home rule hearing has not attracted any substantial groups. I can assure you that if the citizenry of Washington, D.C. was interested in home rule, we would have droves of D.C. Blacks and poor, urging the Government to pass the Home Rule Act. In the worst times when depression was predominant, this community enjoyed better budgeting than any community in the United States. This happens to be the capital of the Nation and I do not think that there is a Congressman who would want to deteriorate this community. There are other forms of self government, such as an elected Mayor, an elected Councilman and an elected Police Chief. We have an elected School Board, and it is unfortunate the way the school board is handled. frhe aspirations of this community is earn- ings. Through observations and evaluations, it is our belief that with our com- munities interest at heart, there should be no mis~interpretation of an approach to self government for the District of Columbia, which we have tried to outline in the foregoing statement. STATEMENT OP ARTURO GRIPPITHS, DIRECTOR OP THE WASHING- TON GHETTO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP., INC. Mr. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, also visitors visiting this hearing today. I would like to emphasize that frank discussions are impOrtant to me, and we cannot masquerade any more than 700 poor people in this community lack existence in a State. I happen to be an economist, and statistics have a lot to do with my discussion. I don't play partialities in any form. I am impartial in everything that I say and do. One of the reasons that I am impartial is that I've found that we live in a country that has to assume an impartial attitude in order to make it a better country. So, Mr. Chairman, the selected issues that you have put before us, and problems and guidelines for this testi- money, it appears to me that this testimony, if adhered to, it would be a booklet written on each selected issue and problem. So I am asking you to bear with humble people like myself and my organization as to our lack of financial capability. Our outline would PAGENO="0112" 108 only take into consideration what we would define as the basic topic. IL is comforting to me when I hear the constant cry for home rule by politicians. As a very humble ghetto boy, I found that in the coin- munity of WTashington, D.C., there is no home rule aspiration. The guy from humble circumstances says with one voice, rule what? That is nothing to rule. The ghetto economist says, if this was an industrial area, then there would have to be another thought. This constant political maneuver to have a few jobs for a few blacks is for the birds. Up to this moment, there has not been an outline in this commu- nity indicating a feasibility of home rule. Our ghetto citizens or the poor are still wondering why home rule. No home rule hearing has attracted any substantial groups. I can assure you that if the citizenry of Washington, D.C. was interested in home rule, we would have droves of District of Columbia blacks and poor, using the Government to pass the Home Rule Act. In the worst times when depression was predominant, this commu- nity enjoyed better budgeting than any community in the United States. This happens to be the Capital of the Nation, and I do think there is not a Congressman who would want to deteriorate this com- munity. There are other forms of self-government, such as an elected Mayor, an elected Councilman and an elected Police Chief. We have an elected School Board, and it is unfortunate the way the School Board is handled. The aspirations of this community is earnings. Through observations and evaluations, it is our belief that with our community's interest at heart, there should be no misinterpretation of an approach to self-government for the District of Columbia, which we have tried to outline in the foregoing statement. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much for your statement. Mr. Fauntroy? Mr. FAUNTROY. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Landgrebe? Mr. LANDGREBE. Mr. Griffiths? Mr. GRIFFITHS. Yes, sir. Mr. LANDGREBE. I appreciate your statement a great deal. I really do. Mr. GRIFFITHS. Thank you. Mr. LANDGREBE. I think that you have placed in the record a very important statement of the people of this community, and I have nothing to argue. I have nothing to question you. I think your state- ment-of course it is simply, simple words, simple language. I agree with you this is our Nation's Capital. It is our Capital City. It belongs to the people of this Nation, and certainly I am one Con- gressman who is not here to withhold freedom from people. But after~ all, I represent the people from Indiana. This is our Capital City. I want this Capital City to be the finest Capital City in the world. I want the people here to be happy, pros- perous, proud Americans and that's what I'm going to dedicate my- self to regardless of which way these hearings go. Thank you for your statement. Mr. GRIFFImS. May I say a word, Mr. Landgrebe? PAGENO="0113" 109 Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Griffiths? Mr. GRIFFITHS. I happen to be a liver in this community. I don't speak it. I don't happen to be a-have any political ambitions. My only ambition is to see our children go forward, our community and our children go forward. Now, it's not been proven to me in any form that on the present facilities that our children are going to-our community has been more deteriorating, because I don't just talk; I live in it. I have to live in very humble circumstances, the most humblest in the community; sometimes no food, no wearingapparel, nothing of this kind. And I just don't talk it, because I live in the community where most people get up and say good morning, and I know their problems. Mr. LANDOREBE. I will respond on the education. I've seen some of the schools in this community. The enrollments have dropped: The school people are in here for lots more money. And it's another exam- ple of throwing money against a problem doesn't solve it. And the school problems of this city ought to be of concern and in- terest to every Member of the U.S. Congress. If we are going to be up here in these ivory towers while the schools of this city just fall apart. certainly we are not doing jobs as Members of the U.S. Congress. Thank you very much. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Landgrebe. Mr. Symms? Mr. Sy~t~is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take it that what you are saying is that employment is the biggest problem in the city? Mr. GRIFFITI-Is. Income, income is the problem here not employment particularly, but ownership of businesses. The whole economic gener- ating concept has to be established. That is more important than 10 home rules put together. We happen to be a good 70 percent of this community, and earnings that we would have would be a credit to our community. Once we use it within our community, honestly to make our brothers and sisters have a better livelihood-that's the only approach. Earnings is the big item. I think I should be very glad to know that the capability of Con- gressmen coming from other areas on committees of this kind would in their minds be helpful, rather than to hurt, to show that the Na- tion's Capital-and talents are something you don't buy every day. You just have to buy it. It doesn't go on emotions. To be able to implement it is an important aspect, do you understand, because I don't believe in buying talent; I believe if you have it, you have it. If you don't have it, get out. You understand? That's the only way I think. So talent is what we want. And in a lot of cases, we have people who have had organiza- tions here, you understand, and when they want the talents, they went out of the community and there's a similar approach, to get somebody out of the community that will bring the talents to Washington, D.C. So that's what we are actually doing today. In the District govern- ment, we have several people that came from Alabama, Ga. Why can't we have Congressmen who would have the Government's interest at heart? 97-527--73-pt. 2-S PAGENO="0114" 110 It doesn't make sense because I feel that regardless of what the con- cepts of discrimination and racial difficulties, there is no Congress- men, I think, that would want to deteriorate the city of Washington, D.C., under no circumstances, for what? This is the Nation's Capital and the showplace of the world. Every- body comes here to get that concept over. Everybody wants to see what Washington, D.C. is, and there is no room for emotions. Mr. Sy~nis. Thank you for your statement. Thank you, Mr. Chair- man. Mr. ADAMS Thank you very much, Mr. Griffiths. Mr. GRIFFITHS. Thank you. Mr. ADAMS. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until it recon- venes tomorrow, April 10, at 2 p.m. in this room, 345 Cannon, and the first witness scheduled is Mr. Tom Fletcher. The committee will stand at recess until tomorrow at 2 p.m. [Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled mat- ter was recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m., April 10, 1973, in room 345 of the Cannon Office Building.] PAGENO="0115" SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUM- BIA, AND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ORGANIZATION OF TilE GOVERNMENT OF THE DIS- TRICT OF COLUMBIA TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPEn~TIONs, OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DismicT OF COLUMBIA, Wa$hington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 345 Cannon House Office Building, the Honorable Brook Adams presiding. Present: Representative Adams [presiding], Delegate Fauntroy, Representative Landgrebe. A'so present: John Hogan, minority counsel to full committee; Jacques DePuy, counsel to the subcommittee; and Anne Darneille, sub- committee staff. Mr. ADAMS. The subcommittee will come to order. I apologize for the lateness of the starting of the meeting. We are having a series of votes. I think they are terminated now, so that we can proceed with the meeting. We will start now, even though some of the other members may still be voting, and will be coming back soon. Our first witness today-and this is continuation of the hearings of the Subcommittee on Reorganization of the Government of the District of Columbia, and our first witness is the Honorable Thomas Fletcher, president of the National Training and Development Serv- ices, and former Deputy Mayor of the District of Columbia. Mr. Fletcher, the committee wants to welcome you. Many of us have known of your work, your record in Washington, D.C., as Deputy Mayor, and we are looking forward to hearing your testimony and in having an opportunity to question you regarding how we should proceed with the government. Mr. Fletcher? [The prepared statement of the Honorable Thomas Fletcher follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT BY THOMAS W. FLETCHER Mr. Chairman and members of the Government Operations Subcommittee. I am Tom Fletcher, President, National Training and Development Service, and formerly Deputy Mayor of the District of Columbia. It is not my intent to repeat or go over prior testimony this subcommittee has already received. I have read the testimony the Metropolitan Coalition of Self Determination for DC and, in general, associate myself with that testimony. My purpose here today is rather to emphasize certain points and to make myself available for any questions the committee may have. (111) PAGENO="0116" 112 1. I believe one point that has not been adequately emphasized has been that there has been more than just the rightful desire for self determination which should motivate Congress' action to give the District home, rule. With elected officials and the authority for self determination, the District Government will finally become responsible and responsive~ to the needs of this community. With a constituency for the first time, the elected leaders of this city will not only have the legal right of decision making but the political incentive as well and will no longer be able to put responsibility on the shoulders of Congress. Let me hasten to say that I think the appointed leadership of this city have been extraordi- narily successful in their response to this city even though they have been under difficult restraints in the decision making process. But it has always been a temptation to shift responsibility to Congress because, in actual fact, that's where much of the responsibility must lie. This is particularly true in relation to financial responsibility both in budget preparation and revenue proposals. It is always easier to let Congress shoulder the burden for the adoption or elimination of programs and taxing measures. However, in any true sense of government, this sense of responsibility should be shouldered entirely by elected representatives who must face their constitu- encies. Because of this constituency control, I feel little concern for the fears that some have expressed that home rule would lead to irrational, irresponsive acts of government. I believe it is also almost needless to point out the Congress of the United States has far more important matters to deal with than the flying of kites on the Mall and the charges assessed at the District's Dog Pound. 2. Questions have also been raised by this Committee relative to the form of government and suggestions have been made that consideration be given to a bicameral form of government or that the Congress retain state functions and delegate only to the District those matters which are local in nature. I have two very strong feelings on this subject. One is that the proposed form of government of the District must be as simple and direct as possible in order to eliminate as much decision making bureaucracy as possible. In this day and age, flexible and quick decisions are often the lines that separate responsiveness and chaos. Secondly, although we all recognize that the District is unique, that it com- bines the historic roles of state, county and city governments, however, it is this uniqueness which should be retained in order to provide the best possible level of coordinated delivery of service to the District constituency. To in any way separate these authorities would create in the District the same sorts of prob- lems which are plaguing this country because of the divisions of responsibility between the various levels of government. 3. Questions have been frequently raised about the protection of the Federal interests in the District and although I understand and respect the reason for those questions, I would also point out that those same federal interests are of primary concern to those who live here. It is their city, their monuments, their principal source of income, and, above all, their source of pride. One cannot di- vide their interests between local and Federal. They are inextricably intertwined. But needless to say, al lof us recognize that regardless of the ultimate form of home rule, the Congress of the United States still will retain, constitutionally, the right to alter or eliminate that form of government. It is my honest belief that the recognition of this ultimate authority and responsibility will act as a restraint on any actions which mght, in fact, be detrimental to the Federal inter- ests here. 4. The District has waited long and remarkably patiently and it is my sincere belief that the time for home rule has now arrived and that the last colony in the United States should properly be raised to the status of total democracy. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS FLETCHER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, FORMER DEPUTY MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA Mr. FLETCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the corn- mittee. I have a prepared testimony which I have furnished which is very short. If you wish, I can read it in about 5 minutes. Would you prefer I do that ~ PAGENO="0117" 113 Mr. ADAMS. Whichever way you would like to proceed, but it is a short statement. Why doift you proceed with reading it, and then we can question you on that. Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Government Operations Subcommittee, it is not my intention to repeat or go over prior testimony the subcommittee has already received. I read the testimony of the Metropolitan Coalition of Self-Determination for District of Columbia and in general, associate myself with that testimony. My purpose here today is rather to emphasize certain points and to make myself available for any questions the committee may have. I believe one point that has not been adequately emphasized has been that there has been more than just the rightful desire for self- determination which should motivate Congress action to give the Dis- trict home rule. With elected officials and the authority for self-deter- mination, the District government will finally become responsible and responsive to the needs of this community. With a constituency for the first time, the elected leaders of the city will not only have the legal right of decisionmaking but the political incentive as well and will no longer be able to put responsibility on the shoulders of Congress. Let me hasten to say that I think the appointed leadership of this city has been extraordinarily successful in their response of this city even though they have been under difficult restraints in the decision- making process. But it has always been a temptation to shift responsi- 1)ihty to Congress because, in actual fact, that is where much of the resr)onsibihty must lie. This is particularly true in relation to financial responsibility both in budget preparation and revenue proposals. It is always easier to let Congress shoulder the burden for the adoption or elimination of piogr'~ms `tud Mxing me~sures However in any true sense of govern ment, this sense of responsibility should be shouldered entirely by elected representatives who must face their constituencies. Because of this con stituencv control, I feel little concern for the fears that some have expressed that home rule would lead to irrational, irre~ponsi~ ~ `ic~s of ioveri~ment I believe it ~s `ilso `ilmost needless to point out the Congress of the united States has far more important matters to deal with than the flying of kites on the Mall and the charges assessed at the District's Dog Pound. Th~ second noint J wish to r~ke~~ ouest~ons have also bee.n raised by this committee relative to the form of government and siigges- tions have been made that consideration be given to a bicameral form of government or that the Congress retain State functions and dele- gate only to the District those matters which are local in nature. I have two very strong feelings on this subject~ One is that the proposed form of government of the District must be as simple and direct as possible, in Order to eliminate as much decisionmaking bureaucracy as possible. In this day and age, flexible and quick deci- sions are often the lines that separate responsiveness and chaos. Second, although we all recognize that the District is unique, that it combines the historic roles of State, county, and city governments, however it is this uniqueness which should be retained in order to PAGENO="0118" 114 provide the best possible level of coordinated delivery of service to the District constituency. To in any way separate these authorities would create in the District the same sorts of problems which are plaguing this country because of the divisions Of responsibility be- tween the various levels of government. The third point, questions have been frequently raised about the protection of the Federal interests in the District and although I understand and respect the reasons for these questions, I would also point out that these same Federal interests are of primary concern to those who live here. It is their city, their monuments, their principal source of income, and above all, their source of pride. One cannot divide their interests between local and Federal. They are inextricably intertwined. But needless to say, all of us recognize that regardless of the ulti- mate form of home rule, the Congress of the United States still will retain, constitutionally, the right to alter or eliminate that form of government. It is my honest belief that the recognition of this ultimate authority and responsibility will act as a restraint on any actions which might in fact be detrimental to the Federal interests here. Final point, the District has waited long and remarkably patiently and it is my sincere belief that the time for home rule has now arrived and that the last colony in the United States should properly be raised to the status of total democracy. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Fletcher. That was an excellent state- ment. Mr. Fauntroy? Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Fletcher, let me also commend you for just an excellent statement, and coming from one who has had the responsi- bility of helping to govern this city under the present system, you can believe me that we on the committee take it very seriously. I am particularly pleased at the manner in which you handled the question of accountability for elected officials, and particularly the Federal interest question, which many of us have been finding difficult to separate out, and noting that the retention by the Congress of ulti- mate authority is perhaps the best means by which we can define, from time to time, what the Federal interests and the judgment of Congress is. During the course of previous testimony we have dealt with the question of how the Federal payment should be made available to the city for providing the services required, and both the self determina- tion for the District, of Columbia and the City Council have given us a start in thinking in these terms, and I wondered if you would have any thoughts on how to arrive at the Federal formula that would be made available to the city? Mr. Fr~Tcii~n. Yes, sir. I would associate myself very closely with the testimony received from Mr. Jim DuVal on that point. If you will recall, his testimony indicated that there should be a floor of the Federal payment as it now exists, and that that should increase as a direct relationship to the lo- cally generated income of the District, and then be reassessed in terms of that formula at the end of a 5-year period. One of the things that I might point out that Mr. DuVal did not mention, and I think it is a very important point, however to remem- PAGENO="0119" 115 her, and that is that in periods of inflation which we have now and have had for some time, even if no additional programs or services or em- ployees are added to the District, the cost of government would con- tinue to escalate, both in terms of salary, cost of services, and material. When that happens, there is in fact to some extent a built in increase to the District itself, through primarily sales tax and income tax. As you know, the property tax does not go up as fast. It is not as respon- sive to inflation. Sales tax and income tax are directly related to an inflationary period. Now, when you do this, I think there ought to be an inflationary factor built in to the Federal payment, and Mr. DulTal's proposal takes care of that. Then I think he also very wisely indicates that that should not go on forever. I think that shows judgement on his part, that the Con- gress ought to look at that formula at the end of 5 years, to see what happened. I know there is other questions that have been raised relative to sources of revenue. I think these can be taken care of in the way in which you draft the legislature on home rule. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Fletcher, with regard to the Federal payment fol- lowing it one step further, we had the basic problem throughout the entire Federal Government, in fact, involved in it right now-the Federal Government must appropriate funds whenever they are going to be taken from the Treasury each year, or there must be a contract, or there must be a system whereby money is transferred. Do you have any specific recommendation as to how this should best be set up, using an authorization committee or the Appropria- tions Committee, or a joint committee of some type? I am just talking now about the direct, fiscal problems of funds moving from the Fed- eral Government to the District. Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir. My opinion on that would be you should adopt a formula which is automatic. On that basis, you would not in fact, as I would understand it, have to come back to any Committee of Congress. One of the prob- lems is that one of the difficulties of the District government is that presently, if it might be, if in fact they still had to come before some Committee of Congress relative to that Federal payment, and then in fact again subject the District to full scrutiny of their budget, is that they find great difficulty in the District Government of trying to put a budget together, not knowing ahead of time what-how much money they are actually going to have available to them. Mr. ADAMS. Suppose we do as is done with certain highway and air- port and other funds. We have an authorization by means of contract, where the Govern- ment of the United States would contract with the government of the District of Columbia for a period of time, be it 2 years or 3 years. Most of our bills here run 2 or 3 years, and then, prior to the end of that period, there is a process whereby the two parties, the District government and the Federal Government, agree on either another contract or an extension of a period of time. PAGENO="0120" 116 If we were to get into some arrangement such as that about how long a leadtime do you think the District government needs to have in order to make its program? Mr. FLETCHER. Two years, Mr. Congressman. The budgeting process of the District is a 2-year period. Mr. ADAMS. So that if you had some arrangement like this, because I think the-as I remember the Nelsen Commission report recom- mends that we start with where we are and then look to future needs, which would be justified. if we were to establish a point in time in a contract for that period, it would take-well, it would be necessary for the District to function well, that we would have to start either. with an authorizing committee or an appropriations committee, and I agree with you that we should try to avoid as many steps as possible, 2 years in advance for it to match into the budgetmaking process of the District. Mr. FLETCHER. That is correct, sir. It takes that much time before you actually have a budget adopted and in operation, so they should know 2 years ahead of time what to expect in terms of their income. Mr. ADAMS. Now, you mentioned in here that there is the congres- sional control established by the Constitution, a requirement of what they should do. If there were not a veto power placed in a bill, but it was rather left to the Constitution, do you believe it would be better form to write that into a specific system, or simply leave it for, again, the Congress to structure itself in whatever way it wanted to be structured in order to have that avenue available? Now I am thinking in particular that there will probably be some functions that will be left here that are gOing to continually shift back and forth between the two govern- ments. I visualize most easily the police force. because as somebody pointed out to me today, I think we have 10 police forces in this area, some of which are exclusively Federal, some do a little bit of both, some are exclusively local, and so on. How would you feel that that would be best structured? I notice you reject the idea of using the Congress as the State legislature, so would you give me your opinion as to what is an alternative? Mr. FLETCHER. Well, the alternative is, Mr. Chairman, is that I think you should, in terms of full home rule, you should give the de- cisionmaking power to the elected representatives of the city. I think that is the only true way that you can say that you have given the District, in fact, home rule. Let me speak for a second to the question of the Congress retaining, in fact, let us say the State, or part of the State function. This is the field that I have been in for almost 25 professional years and have been constantly appalled at the problems that I see throughout this country because of the varied division of authority that has been cre- ated between States, counties, and cities, particularly when it relates to urban problems~ when you have basically urban States, urban coun- ties, urban cities. They get all in each other's way in terms of the dif- ferent rules, regulations and the .budgets in the system. Criminal jus- tice is a classic example of that in which all three or even four agen- cies all walk in each other's way in terms of one single person and one single problem. . . . PAGENO="0121" 117 You have the unique opportunity, as I indicated in my prepared material, to keep that uniqueness here in the District and not to bifur- cate it or trifurcate it by keeping some control in terms of certain of those functions. I think, in fact, you can give home rule to the District; I don't think, in fact, that you need a veto power in Congress. Maybe I am an idealist in hoping that is what Congress would adopt. It may be that some form of veto power would be necessary to get adoption through Congress. That is `a decision that you have to make. You are asking me my opinion, and my opinion is that, if you want, in fact, the home rule to meet the needs of the District, which has to `be fast, has to be quick, has to be responsive, has to meet the needs, of the con- stituencies, they should not, in fact, be fettered by not knowing whether any decision they make will or will not go into effect, because it may be that if there is `tn important decision that has to be made now and cannot wait for 30- or 60-day periods before those decisions in fact will go into effect. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Landgrebe, do you have, any questions? Mr. LANDREBE. Mr. Fletcher, I regret very much that I arrived a little late, and therefore, I am not sure what areas of your comments have been covered by the chairman, for that, if we repeat some of the questions, I will be very sorry. I did get through part of it, and I see that you have very, very kind things to say about the leadership abilities of the appointed City Council-I presume you are referring to those gentlemen. Do you feel that they could actually do a better job if they were elected, or would respond in some other way. Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, sir. As I pointed out in my prepared material, sir, that despite the fact that they are appointed, I think they have done an extraordinari1y zood job of being responsive. The point I am making, however, is that having to face a constituency which elects them. I think increases their layer or their knowledge and understanding of what in fact responsi- bility and response is, which `is what. I think it should be rather than simply puttin~ the. burden on the shoulders of Conrrress. Whenever a difficult decision has to be made, ouite frenuentl.y that is shifted to the shoulders of Congress. I think that ought to be done in the Dis- trief Building by elected officials, elected by the people of the city. That is particularly true, sir, in terms of financial responsibility. I think they can be far more responsive in terms of taxing measures, in terms of the size of the budget when they have to face an electorate continuously as von do in terms of the decisions they make. Now they do not have to face an electorate and the decision on the hnd~re.t and the decision on taxing measures rests entirely with Congress~ not with th~ nffieials of the District government. Mr. LANDUREBE. Well, do you feel t,hat if these men were elected, and had greater responsibility, what would you anticipate? More efficiency or more waste or what might happen here? Very seriously. Mr. FLETCHER. I think there are two words that have to be used simultaneously in answering that' question. One is efficiency and the other is effectiveness. I think sometimes we do very efficiently what we should not do at all. I think that we cannot just totally concentrate on PAGENO="0122" 118 the word efficiency; I think we have to be equally concerned with effec- tiveness of delivery of service. For example, I think we should look at what we should continue doing, things we are doing. Can we eliminate them, can we do them better? Once you make those decisions then the question of doing it as efficiently and as cost saving as you can, I think, becomes paramount. It is my opinion that by the elective process there is a greater responsi- bility to do just that, to be, in fact, fully aware of both efficiency and effectiveness, and I think they can be. Of course, I am prejudiced in terms of the Nelsen Commission re- port as to having been a member of that commission, but I think a large percentage of those recommendations strike right at the heart of your question, and if, in fact, adopted, will produce both increased efficiency and effectiveness. Mr. LANDOREBE. Speaking of the Nelsen report, the Nelsen Com- mission report, do you endorse the Federal payment recommendations contained in that report? Mr. FLETCHER. Yes; but I was also in response to the chairman's question, would like to support a variation of that, which I think is a very good one that Mr. Du Val presented here to you last week, which adds a measure to it which I think is even more responsive to the needs of Congress; and if you will recall his testimony to you last week was to create a floor of existing Federal payments to increase the Federal payment as a direct relationship to revenue produced within the Dis- trict, but to make that commitment for a period of only 5 years re- quired to be reconsidered by Congress at the end of that period so that this would not go on forever, as far as Federal payment in terms of Congress role in that decisionmaking. I think that is an added bless- ing to his recommendation we did not have in the Nelsen Commission. Mr. LANDGREBE. You, having been the Mayor of this town, or some- thing? Mr. FLETCHER. Deputy Mayor. Mr. LANDOREBE. Deputy Mayor some time ago, you should be some sort of authority on the performance of ~eo~le in the community. How do you appraise your locally elected School Board's performance, say, compared to the appointed city councilmen who are now in office? Mr. FLETCHER. In my opinion, the injustice that was done in that regard is that all Congress did is permit them to be elected. It gave them no authority, it gave them no rights, it gave them no decision- making ability in terms of their budget, in terms of their revenue, in terms of snlaries. in terms of the clecisionmaking which was still re- tained by Congress. and if you were to do that to the District govern- ment and simply pass legislation which elected a Mayor and a Council, I think you would create chaos in the city. I think you would be raising the expectations of the constituency and then get no delivery service, all you did was permit them to be elected. Home rule means home rule, which means that they have the right to make decisions. You did not do that in the case of the School Board; all you did was have them elected, yet there was no delegation of authority that they were elected by. They had the same restrictive abilities to make decisions they always had when they were appointed. PAGENO="0123" 119 Mr. LANDGREBE. Who is going to name the new superintendent of schools? I understand there is an opening there. Mr. FLETCHER. It should be the elected School Board. I cannot think of anyone elsewho should have that authority. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, who will have the authority? You say they have no authority, who will do this? Mr. FLETCHER. Well, in terms they have no additional authority than they had at the appointed Board; they always had that right, to name the school superintendent, that was an authority that was al- ways retained. But I am talking about the fiscal responsibility, the right to make reorganization, the right to adopt their budget, all the other factors, which I think are important to in fact give them the authority an elected official ought to have. Mr. LANDGREBE. Do you think a School Board member should be paid, should be considered for a full, annual salary of $25,000 or $30,000 a year? Do you think that would make them a better School Board member? Mr. FLETCHER. They certainly ought to be paid a lot more than they are paid now, based on the amount of time that they are required to spend. I think their pay now is $1,250 a year? Mr. LANDOREBE. That is correct. Mr. FLETCHER. If my memory serves me right. Asking men and women to serve an extensive amount of time, you are asking a School Board member to serve and pay them slightly lower than $100 a month, I think is absolutely a great injustice on people. I think you ought to pay them based on the amount of work that has to be done, and there is an enormous amount of work that all of you gentlemen know has to be done in that school system. I think they ought to be paid commensurate with the work they have to do. That is also true, sir, in terms of the Council. Mr. LANDGREBE. I think the School Board members are paid som' thing like $1,200. Mr. FLETCHER. A year. Mr. LANDGREBE. A year. I am going to my own, for my own information, find out what the School Board members are paid in Indiana and I shall insert that in the record at our very next hearings. If Congress is willing to shoulder that burden, as it has been in the past, the burden of adoption. You state that Congress should let locally elected officials shoulder the burden for the adoption or elimination of programs and taxes, is that right? Mr. FLETCHER. That is correct, sir. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, if Congress is willing to shoulder that burden, as it has in the past under its constitutional authority to legislate for the District, can it not, in its own wisdom retain an authority as the wisest, historically sound, course? Mr. FLETCHER. I do not think so, sir, because none of the members of Congress, with the exception of Mr. Fauntroy, are elected by the people you are making decisions for. I think the decisionmaking ability in terms of the level of programs and the service to the District ought to be properly made by those whom they elect~ which in my opinion, can only come from home rule and the election of a Mayor and Council PAGENO="0124" 120 to make those decisions for them. I do not think that is the proper role of Congress. As I also indicated in my prepared material, I frankly think the Congress has a great deal more important. things to do in this country than deciding whether you need `t new typew riter in the Corporation Counsel's office or -you need to change the fee at the dog pound. These are decisions which this Congress has had to deal with through the years, and I just think it is a waste of Congressmen's time and it is something that they should not do; that should properly be the role' of the elected officials in the District. Mr. LANDGREBE. You state the District government has certain ad- vantages because of its combined State and. county and city functions in one government. It is not plagued by the three State-county-local governments conflicts of, say, my own community back in Indiana. Is it :not possible with the situation we have presently, some are elected, some are appointed, is it not possible to have a real, good effec- tive and efficient government in the District under the present situa- tion, considering the possibility of people at all levels acting in good faith? Mr. FLETCHER. Sir, that is true of any system. You can desie~n the worst system in the world; if you have the people with good will and abilities and so on, sometimes it will work, but that is no excuse for mediocrity, that is no excuse for doing it improperly based on the fact that people of good will might, in fact, make it work. I think you have to strive for the best. form of government on the basis of that regard- less. then, of the people involved who will have a better chance of operating, not simply have to hope that you in fact have the people of good will you are talking about. I think the system ow~ht to be built in such a way that that is not one of the criteria.. I think the election process is the one that deter- mines the ~ualitv, as it does in Congress; I think it determines the oiiality in the District government as given to them, and I think on that basis, they are the ones that properly ought to make those decisions. Now I would also point out. in reference to your State. I think you are fully aware that we are talking here of only 70 square miles. I do not know what the size of your State is. but it is substantially larger than that, and it has many other urban-rural nrohlems. while in this area it is t~t~lly 100 nercent urban: and as I nofrit out in my pre- pared material, one of the great problems I have found in this court- try, being a. public administrator for 25 years. has been the very di- vision of responsibilities between the cities, counties, a.nd States. It is one of the main causes of difficulty in delivering service that we find in the urban areas of this country is that division, which you do not have here in the District and would not have if you were to delegate, in fact, full responsibility and not retain any of it to Congress. Mr. LANDGREBE. Just suppose tha.t we were to adopt some form of complete home rule, even as has been proposed here, repetitiously something like State rule. Just suppose that the suspicions of many of the people of this community were not unfounded, but were actually true, that the people of this city with the present makeup of the popu- lation could not rule themselves, could not maintain tranquility, law PAGENO="0125" 121 `tnd order, restr'unt in taxing problems, and things of this kind Where would this great United States be if, in fact, that should happen to be the way it would go? Mr. FLETCHER. AU right, there are two answers to that. One, it is inconceivable to me that that could. happen. I think that the 75t3,000 people of this Districtare not any different than the 750,000 who live in the major city of your State. I think they are the same human beings, they. have the same ability to make decisions, the same ability to govern themselves as those who live here, and the mere fact of their chance of their location does not affect their decisionmaking ability or their right to govern themselves. There could be nothing in my mind that could indicate that crossing the boundary. into the Dis- trict they lose all ability to govern themselves. I cannot conceive of the basis of the question but I would add, however, another point, and that is, in my prepared material, by the Constitution, whatever, laws the Congress passesthey can always take away. If in fact, what I cannot conceive of mightin fact happen, Congress has the right'to take it away-as you did in 1874,. as a matter of fact. Mr. LANDGREBE. What great joy and tranquility and opportunity and peace of mind and so forth do you think would be heaped upon the people of this community should.they have the right to elect their Mayor and their City Council and, indeed, some sort of a government that would be able to lead them? What opportunities are the people of this community missing other than going to the polls to vote. They can worship the way they please, they can drink, whiskey, they can go to the tracks, what great joy in life is being withheld from these people who have chose, either themselves or their forefathers, to come and move into the Capital City of this great, wonderful country, enjoy the benefits, the extraordinary benefits of living in the Capital City. Now what joys are they missing? What additional joys are they going to have other than a big,. political factional fight. each 2 years to decide who is going to take over and run city hail? Mr. FLETCHER. Well, to me, sir, the joy of democracy is the greatest joy that we can possibly have in this country. It is a privilege that every resident of your State has which the District resident does not have, and I think that is one of the greatest joys that the people in America . could have, and I know of no reason why that should be taken away from the peopleS who live in the District, because it "is, in fact, a great joy. Mr. LANDGREBE. But it has.not been taken away from them, because these people have moved here at some point knowing full well that this is the Capital City, that it was the mecca of not only the great United States, but really the free world. Mr. FLETCHER. Let me say, sir, it was taken away from them, back in the 1800's. They had the right to vote, and it was, in fact, taken away from them by Congress. I would also point out the fact that the Federal Government itself is one of the principal reasons they are here, it is because this is a great employment center and they are brought here to work. I would also point out that there are no signs that the- Mr. LANDOREBE. I think a fairer statement is that they came here to work. PAGENO="0126" 122 Mr. FLETCHER. But there are no signs on the boundaries of this city which tell here when they come through, and I would say that the majority of the people outside of the work that the League of Women Voters have been doing throughout this country, the majority of the people have no knowledge that they do not have the right to vote in the District. No one tells them that when they come in; they are not told ahead of time that they do not have it, and I have not met many people who have expressed great shock when they have discovered. that that when, in fact, they became a resident of the District they did not have the same rights they had before they came here, or the rights that everybody else in this country has. They are not given a choice ahead of time, because they are never told they have a choice. Mr. LANDGREBE. One final question. - Assuming that the possibilty should come about that we, this Congress-I do not think this committee would be very much de- layed-but supposing that by the time we go all the way through the congressional and the White House and all that it would be a move toward the so-called home rule. What way would you be inclined to go? Through the retrocession to Maryland? To maybe dividing the city maybe half and half, half to Virginia. half to Maryland? Or do you think that the statehood for the District of Columbia, that the State of Columbia is the one and' only fair solution to the matter? Mr. FLETCHER. Well, my solution that I would recommend is that~ this be given the right of home rule as, in fact, a city with a Mayor and Council. I do not approve, in my own thinking, that statehood if that. involves a bicameral system or a difficult system of government which I do not think the city needs in relationship to its solution of prob- lems, I think; and certainly retrocession is not the answer, in my opin- ion. No. 1, Maryland has not asked for it, nor do they want it, and I do~ not think we should split the city. Mr. LANDGREBE. Retrocession is not the answer, statehood is not the answer, so that you are asking that we give to the people of the District of Columbia something that the United States do not enjoy at this~ time, even the great Chicago with its great Mayor Daley-who mci- dentally is an extremely competent mayor-hut he still has to. go hat~ in hand down to Springfield, and the great Indianapolis in Indiana. has to go over to the capitol building. It seems to me that the proponents of home rule are somehow~ caught up in the idea of having an absolute home rule and then as Mr.. Simon of the School Board comes along here and testifies yesterday, "Yes; we want not only home rule, we want statehood and we will determine what the Federal payment will be to our city; we will deter- mine it." He does not even want any questions asked. Now this is impossible for this to come about in that way. Mr. FLETCHER. Well, I am not asking that the District necessarily make a determination on the Federal payment. I do, however, reject the argument that because it has not been done it should not be done' here. I think that in effect it can be done here and it is the only solu- tion. I think there is a unique opportunity here in the District to pro-~ vide, in fact, a single form of government to provide the answer to the needs of a single group of people who are the District residents. PAGENO="0127" 123 I see no justification of splitting them between two houses or two separate functions. You are dealing with the same people; and the mere fact that it has not been done before-and there are many, by the way, combined city-counties throughout this country-so through- out this country you have many examples of almost halfway or over halfway to doing what we are talking about here. San Francisco is a classic example of that city-county; many other good examples throughout this country have shown how you can do this in terms of city-county functions. I think adding the State function does not violate the concept of delivery of service to the people of this area and I think it can, in fact, be done and I think it can be done more ef- ficiently than what you are now having to do in Chicago or any other place. Mr. LANDGREBE. No other questions. Thank you. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. DePuy. Mr. DEPtYY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fletcher, you are recommending that there be a system of horizontal checks and balances but no vertical checks and balances in essence. Are there other mechanisms such as initiative or a ref- erendum system or a recall system that might provide additional checks from the populus instead of from a State legislature or the equivalency? Mr. FLETCHER. Being from the West, sir, I am an advocate of the initiative, referendum, and the recall and I would see no problem at all adding that to home rule, as far as the District is concerned. It works in the West; as a matter of fact, that is what home rule means in the ~VVest: that they have in fact the right of initiative, referendum, and recall, and I think that is a right that a citizen properly can have. Mr. DEPTTr. Second, there has been some concern about the effects of the Hatch Act in terms of restricting qualified Government em- ployees seeking elected office. Would you recommend some modifica- tions of the Hatch Act? Mr. FLETCHER. Not particularly; I think, if I remember, the court decisions that have been made on that is that by sheer nature of their having been a government employee does not in fact restrict. I know this is true, for example, in city governments, that as long as they are doing it on their own time and not as a city official or county official or State official, they can, in fact, engage in political activities as Tong as they represent themselves and not their city and is on their own time. Now whether that, in fact, would require revision of the Hatch Act, I do not think it would. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Fletcher, if the gentleman would yield for a moment. That applies only to nonpartisan city elections, though, does it not? Mr. FLETCHER. No, I do not think it does, sir. I think if I remember correctly, in `California-and I am not an expert on the Hatch Act, being, in fact, nonpartisan myself and I have been in all of my pro- fessional life-my understanding is that it in fact can be done. I think by court action. I know that in California that as long as it was on their own time it did not disenfranchise them, simply because they were government employees or city employees; they, in fact, could become involved. PAGENO="0128" 124 Now I may be incorrect and somebody can correct me, but that is my understanding, not being an expert in partisan politics. Mr. DEPUY. On that same question, partisan versus nonpartisan, do you have any feeling as to whether we should go the partisan route or a nonpartisan route in terms of elected municipal officials? Mr. FLETCHER. Yes; my mind is divided on that, I must confess. I see absolutely nothing wrong with going through a partisan election. I think the country was set on that; it was established that way and it continues to function. My experience, however, has been generally a nonpartisan situation and I have found generally-and again, using the West as the best example-that city government works quite well as nonpartisan. But I do not feel strongly either way. I certainly would not speak against partisan elections. I think there has been a tradition-let me say this. There has been a tradition in the District of, in fact, when you have elections to be of a partisan nature, and I think that should be retained and I see no problem in having partisan elections. You can work either way. Mr. DEPUY. One final question. As a member of the Nelsen Commission, are there any recommenda- tions you made this morning or this afternoon that you think are in- consistent with recommendations made by the Nelsen Commission ~ Mr. FLETCHER. I know of none other than the modifications of the Federal payments and I might ask John, if his memory serves him better than mine, as to anything. I do not believe I have said anything that would in any way violate the Nelsen Commission with the excep- tion of the modification on the Federal payments. I suspect that is correct. Mr. DEPUY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Hogan, do you have any questions? Mr. HOGAN. I have no questions. I was asked by Coneressman Nelsen to extend his regrets to Mr. Fletcher for his inability to be here and to welcome him and to state to him that he considers him a good friend and that he enjoyed very much working on the Nelsen Commission with him and he regrets that he cannot be here. Mr. ADA~rs. Thank you, Mr. Fletcher, very much for your testimony today. The committee appreciates very much the time you have taken to come here to be with us. Mr. FLETCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. The next witness is Mr. Warren Richardson, general counsel of the Liberty Lobby. Mr. RIchiARDsoN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee- Mr. ADAMS. I notice that you have a statement here, Mr. Richard- son. As with other witnesses, you may either read it or submit it and summarize, whichever you prefer. Mr. RICHARDSON. Even though it is rather short, I would like to submit it and summarize. Mr. ADA~is. All right. * Without objection, your statement will appear in full at this point in the record; Mr. Richardson, you are recognized to proceed. PAGENO="0129" 125 [The prepared statement of Mr. Warren Richardson follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF WARREN S. RICHARDSON, GENERAL COUNSEL, LIBERTY LOBBY Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Warren S. Richardson, General Counsel of LIBERTY LOBBY. I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of LIBERTY LOBBY's 20,000-member Board of Policy, and also to appear on behalf of the approximately quarter of a million readers of our monthly legislative report, Liberty Letter. At the outset, Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that there appears to be a "new look" on the problem of D.C. self government. In the past, opponents and proponents have lined up along rather hard lines. Neither side has convinced the other of its rightness. If the newspaper accounts and what we hear around Capitol Hill are accurate, there appears to be a sincere desire to resolve the conflict which will probably always exist on this question. That conflict is how to accommodate the constitutionally mandated exclusive right of the federal government to legislate for the geographical area of the seat of its own govern- ment with the concept of self determination by the inhabitants of that seat of government. In the past, those who would propound so-called self government would overlook, in most cases, the Constitutional provision of Art. I, Sec. 8, which states that "The Congress shall have Power . . . to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) ." On the other hand those opposing home rule have overlooked com- pletely, for the most part, the problem of self determination by such a large part of the population of the U.S. Another indication of a sincere effort to resolve the primary conflict is con- tained in the questions propounded by this subcommittee. The mere fact that the committee is trying to determine answers to these questions indicates that we are now trying to find solutions rather than defend old cliches. As you know, Mr. Chairman, LIBERTY LOBBY opposed the concept of D.C. home rule. Our opposition was based upon the very plain and obvious fact that prior efforts overlooked the Constitutional mandate. Now that the man~iate is recognized, we can turn our attention to practical solutions. Moreover, we are now able to endorse once again the principle which LIBERTY LOBBY has historically taken-self-determination. Most recently, we found ourselves in agreement with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in the great contro- versy over compulsory busing. We suggest that a method to marry the principle of self determination to the constitutional mandate of exclusive Congressional control is to catalog the fed- eral and local functions in the District of Columbia and sort out the assets of the District between those of local and federal use. The cataloging should be under the supervision of some members of this committee (along with counter- parts from the other body) and persons elected by the residents of the capital city. Such a fact-finding commission could then formulate an intelligent plan for the national interest to continue under the exclusive legislative control of the U.S. Congress and the local interests can then be subjected to the self deter- mination of the inhabitants. It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the answers to the committee questions will, to a large extent, be in the facts found and conclusions reached by the Commis- sion. One area of the questions-fiscal affairs-deserves special mention. Self determination carries with it the obligation of fiscal integrity. In other words, the obligation to finance your own government must be co-extensive with the quantum of self~determination. Thus, no federal money can be paid into the local affairs if the inhabitants want self government. Wherever there is an over- lap of function, one government may pay the other a legitimate fee for the use of the facility; otherwise, neither government will support the other monetarily. Therefore, we conclude that the federal interest must continue to be exclu- sively within the control of the U.S. Congress and the local interests should be within the control of the local governmental entity. That governmental entity should be organized by the commission after it has separated the local and federal functions. Since local residents will participate in the allocation pro- cedure and have a voice in what form of government they shall enjoy true self determination on a fiscally sound basis will come into existence for the rem dents of the District of Columbia Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here today and present our views. 97-527-73-pt. 2-9 PAGENO="0130" 126 STATEMENT OP WARREN RICHARDSON, GENERAL COUNSEL, LIBERTY LOBBY Mr. RIcITAm~soN. The first part of the statement sets forth our appre- ciation for what we call the new look in the committee approach to this problem. In the past, the opponents have been widely divergent in points, with seemingly little in common. We were most pleased to receive the questions that were sent along with the invitation, and that alone indicates that you and the committee and the staff are trying to seek a solution to the problem. The problem as we view it is how do you grant self-determination to such a large group of people, in face of a constitutional mandate, to allow the Congress to have exclusive legislative control over the seat of its own Government. Until this year, I am afraid, it was our opinion at least that little headway was made in resolving this rather impossible situation. Your questions have put it into focus, and hopefully this Congress will see great strides made toward the solution. Incidentally, the organization I work for has been on record over the years as in favor of self- determination. Unfortunately, we were cast here in the role of being opposed to home rule, simply because in the past no credence was given by the proponents of home rule to the constitutional mandate. Since that has been cured, we look forward to solutions. We would suggest as a~ first step in resolving this conflict to make a catalog of the various functions which are performed, categorizing them by local or Federal, also cataloging the assets. And then we suggested a committee or a commission or whatever you wish to call it of members of this committee, its counterpart com- mittee in the other body, as well as elected officials from the District with these facts in hand, make a determination how to grant the self- determination to the inhabitants; and at the same time, retain the con- stitutionally mandated exclusive control over the seat of the govern- men by the Congress. We have hopes that this can be done. If you've been acquainted with cost accountants and systems engineers in the past, I'm sure you will know that they will be able to come with reasonable separations of these factual data which will make it then easy to answer your questions. Right now, I don't believe your questions from our point of view resolve into easy answers. As pointed out in the written testimony, the important grouping of questions there involves the fiscal, which is on page 2. I'm sure the proponents of home rule or what we call self- determination are aware that every point has two sides. And with the acquisition of an elected government, they also take on the burden of financing it. This cataloging of the interests and the assets and the functions would help in this direction, so that a proper financing scheme could be worked out. There is no reason why, since you have compacts of governments today amongst counties: in our own area, you have the Metropolitan Government AssociationS you cannot have cooperation, and in effect a payment by one government for the use of the other's facilities. This should be able to be worked out. PAGENO="0131" 127 Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we feel that the age-old struggle may finally be coming to rest if everybody puts their shoulder to the wheel and makes this determination. I would appreciate questions, I'm sure that we haven't said everything that can be said on this subject. We are trying to keep it short in view of the time limitation. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much. The committee appreciates your statement, and the fact that you have compressed it and made your point. Mr. Landgrebe? Mr. LANDGREBE. I thought the chairman would ask his questions first. Mr. ADAMS. I was looking over to Mr. Fauntroy, and he's not in his seat. Congressman Fauntroy wanted me to announce for the record that he had to attend a session of the Banking and Currency Committee at this moment. So why don't you proceed, Mr. Landgrebe, and I will defer? Mr. LANDGREBE. So you're Warren Richardson of the Liberty Lobby. Is that right? Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes, sir. Mr. LANDGREBE. Nice to see you, Warren. Usually Liberty Lobby is a little more concise in their stand on matters. It seems to me at this time, you are just kind of getting in the act without taking a stand. You point out here in your first page that Congress or the constitu- tional provision in our Constitution today-and certainly you're a strict constitutionalist as any one member-the Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District, not exceeding 10 miles square. Now, if we're going to get serious about home rule, at some time are we ~iot going to have to have a constitutional amendment that will have to be adopted by 38 of 50 States if we're going to move toward real meaningful home rule? Now, Liberty Lobby is not going to let us just do this by legislative actions. Mr. RICHARDSON. My answer to your question would be somewhat lengthy, but I'll try to compress it. I realize that the statement in my testimony appears to you, and maybe to others, as if we had, as they say these days, waffled. It's not true. We're not waffling on the subject. There are two-really, it's the old song of the irresistible force and the Immovable object. For many years, we have believed in and sup- ported self-determination, as I pointed out in this testimony last year, we were in accord with the Congress of Racial Equality, CORE's stand on busing, for example, which is essentially a self-determination stand. We've also been opposed to what I call home rule in the past on the grounds you just stated from our testimony; namely, that the Consti- tution makes it mandatory that the Federal Government control the seat of its own government. But we see, particularly with the change in the committe~ attitude-and I don't know what caused the change, and it's really immaterial-that there's an attempt to reconcile these two almost irreconcilable forces. PAGENO="0132" 128 I would suggest that, Mr. Landgrebe, that Liberty Lobby would sup- port a legislative approach to this problem as long as the congres- sional mandate is carried out. I see no reason why it cannot be. If the cataloging of these interests and functions and the assets is not carried out, and then a reasonable attempt made to allocate them, it's almost a problem in what we would call cost accounting, if you're familiar with the function of a cost accountant. This would allow the Federal Government to retain exclusive legislative jurisdiction, which it must have under the Constitution, over the Federal, as they say, in the questions submitted by the committee; Federal interest. I call them functions or assets rather than interests. Interest is too difficult to define. But certainly we could postulate extremes. It certainly is reason- able to say that the Federal Government should not be involved in the granting of dog licenses to dogs, or carrying on a local hospital function or schools and so forth. On the other hand, the local government certainly has no business or concern with what happens to the Department of Justice or any of the Federal agencies and commissions and so forth. So you have the two extremes. Now, where do you draw the line in between? How do you merge into the middle? And I suggest that you won't find that merging point until somebody sits down and makes the-like a catalog of all these functions so that they can be separated. A good example of separation would be, for example, your police. Certainly the citizens of the District of Columbia have a right to and have a definite interest in and should have a good police force. Now, that you would be primary to them. The Federal Government is interested in the same function, but perhaps to a different extent, because they have your Executive Pro- tection Agency, the old Secret Service, you have the FBI, you have other police functions here; you have, for example, in this building, your own guards. They don't need the same police protection that the citizens do, and they would perform a different function. Yet, even so, the Federal Government would want to have for its own protection an operable and well-qualified and well-trained Metropolitan Police Force. So there's an overlapping function which could be worked out in terms of what were to be worse to the Federal Government; to pay for their share of the services in the Metropolitan Police? And this could be determined, again, by cost accountants through the medium of research into what amount of time-and I'm sure they keep their logs on police work-how much time is involved in various types of activities, such as patrolling the streets, and how many man-hours are involved in this and that. I'm sure Chief Wilson has this broken down already, and it shouldn't be difficult to obtain. Therefore, in that type of situation where you have an overlap~ if the balance is in favor of the District, then it would be considered a District function, and the Federal Government would pay for it, just as if they went out and hired another police force, or as if they hired the FBI, just simply on a man-hour basis. So I don't see that this means that we have to change the Constitu- tion if approached from that point of view. We're trying to find a solution rather than to throw up impediments. PAGENO="0133" 129 I think this is a fruitful avenue to approach, and if I understand. the previous testimony and what I read in the paper, I believe the committee is going in this direction. May I ask a question? Is that the type of thing you're talking about? Mr. ADAMS.. Well, they've certainly been trying, Mr. Richardson, I don't know where we are, but we've been trying. Go ahead, Mr. Landgrebe. I'm sorry. Mr. LANDGREBE. I don't think we have clearly defined, and we couldn't do it here in a few minutes, but the question has been brought up to me, what the Constitution will permit. And I'm not sure this committee has delved into it. They may have. What can we do constitutionally in moving toward local control or local decisionmaking without going across country to the State legisla- tures for a constitutional amendment? And certainly I'd like to, for the record, make it clear at this time, that I didn't become a candidate for Congress so that I could lord it over the people Of the District of Columbia. It is certainly not the intent of this Congress just to keep people en- slaved, or under rule, anything of the kind. It is Our capital city, and people don't necessarily have to go to Sioux City, Iowa, or they don't necessarily have to go to New Orleans to the Mardi Gras, but if you're going to do business with your Federal Government, you've got to come to Washington. And the improvement in law and order here in the last 4 years is due to the actions taken by the U.S. Congress in acting on the various crime bills and other actions that have secured the city, at least to some degree over a period of time. Sowhat would we do, what. would we do if we should provide home rule-and I'm going to lead into this-how do we do it and through what means? But supposing we turned over this power, including the poTice power and authority in this city, and the city became ashambles ag'nn Then Vv h'~t would be our situation Do ~ on think w e can do this without ietiocession, or th~t we can satisfy the loud cries of League of Women Voters and others in Wash- ing~on screaming for home rule, and we can work out something in the framework of the Constitution without going to retrocession or to statehood? Is it possible to achieve something that will satisfy the forces that are in conflict here? Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, first let me say that I am unaccustomed to defending the League of Women Voters, but I must say that so long as we don't drop into statehood, which I would say is~ oh one end of the spectrum here-if you had defined statehood as turning over this entiie area of-well, it's less than 10 squ'tie miles-to `~ State govern ment, thereby relinquishing the cOngressional cOntrol which is man- dated by the Constitution, or the seat of Government, that I think is clearly on one end or the far extreme. . . If that's what you mean by statehood, then I would say we're not going to achieve that, and remain within the concept of the Constitu- tion. But if we can come up with self-determination-I like the word self-determination better because it has, I think, a more precise conno- tation. Home rule has the old favor and implication of just simply turning everything over; whereas self-determination has the-at least in our PAGENO="0134" 130 -viewpoint--a concept that the people who live here, certainly have the ~basic right to determine their own in effect, formal government, and ~have elections and elect their own people to rule them, and to take care of their needs. And so, going back again to your League of Women Voters, I think it's not the question before this committee to please any one group, or to come up with the solution. I think that solution is ahead of us. I think it can be achieved in terms of allocating the functions. We can use different words, and we can redefine "thing" until we'd be here all day. But essentially what I'm trying to say is that these functions can be separated, and those which belong to the local people should be turned over to them; and the Congress, and you, and all the people on this panel shouldn't have to worry about it. Again, I don't think it's a proper function of the Federal Govern- ment to get involved in these local affairs, and there must be a way to solve it. Mr. LANDGREBE. It may not be, Mr. Richardson, but you know in many cities the Federal Government has had to go in at election time with Federal agents to save the people from the self-determination of some of the powerful people in those communities, Gary, md., a shin- ing example, where the local people somehow with the right of deter- mination, have failed to exercise or to keep or abide by the laws that they made themselves on the voting, permitting some people to go, just go, discriminantly from one place to the other voting, while the decent, respectable citizen votes once. Now, what's self-determination about this? And one more comment, self-determination-we had witnesses here yesterday. We've had peo- ple in this community who-their determination and their self-deter- mination-the situation isn't all that bad. They think it's their self- determination to come to the District, to live here, fine peonie and some gentleman from the ghetto, who says my self-determination says that this ain't too bad a situation. So, isn't he entitled to his self-determination, too? How can we ac- commodate the self-determination of ~veryhody and still have a re- publican form of government? And we'd better hang on to that repub- lican form of government because you know, better than I do, that a pure democracy carried to the ultimate end is chaos. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Landgrebe. Unless you want to, Mr. Richardson-If you'd like to comment, certainly. I didn't know whether it was a question or a comment. Please go ahead. Mr. RIChARDSON. I would like to make the comment that I'm un- familiar with Gary, md. That's your home State. But I would re- iterate the testimony of the prior witness, that I wouldn't start out with the assumption tha.t things will get worse* if we go to self- determination. I think that everybody in this country, from East to West, North to South, has got the same capabilities for self-determination. That's one or two, the fact that it may have gone a little bit in an extralegal fashion in the polls is a question of people, not of the concept of self- determination. And three, in regard to the right of the person who wants to have the District the way it is, this is the essence of voting in a Republic. PAGENO="0135" 131 And when it goes to the polls here, if there are enough people who like it the way it is, I'm sure it will stay that way. So Iwould rest con- fident in the enlightened outlook of the people who are actually going into the voting booths to pull the lever. If they want self-determina- tion by staying here, that's fine. If they want to go in a different di- rection, I would say that's fine also. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. - Your statement will be in the record. And thank you for giving it to the committee, and thank you very much for being here today. Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. i\'Ir. ADAMS. The next witness is Mr. George Apperson, president of the Greater Washington Central Labor Council. And I believe that he is to be accompanied by Mr. Raymond Brown and Mr. Martin Bond; Mr. Raymond Brown being president of the Communications Work-, ers of America, Local 2336, and Mr. Martin J. Bond, first vice presi- dent of the Greater Washington Central Labor Council. Is that correct, gentlemen? Mr. APPERSON. That's correct. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. The committee is pleased to receive your testimony. As I stated to the other witnesses, I noticed you have a written statement, which you may either place in the record and summarize, or may pre- sent by reading it. Which do you prefer? Mr. APPERSON. I'd prefer to read it, if you will, Mr. Chairman. `Mr. ADAMS. Fine. Mr. APPERSON. And I'd like to also submit the last page of the testi- mony. I'd like to replace your last page with the page here. Mr. ADAMS. Is that page number five? Mr. APPERSON. Yes. Mr. ADAMS. In other words, page No. 5 has a replacement? Mr. APPERSON. Yes; it should be replaced, and then a copy of the AFL-CIO resolution on home rule, adopted by the 1971 AFL-CIO Convention. Mr. ADAMS. Fine if you want to proceed, Mr. Apperson. STATEMENT OP GEORGE APPERSON, PRESIDENT OP GREATER WASHINGTON CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND P. BROWN, PRESIDENT OF COMMUNICATIONS WORK- ERS OP AMERICA, LOCAL 2336, AND MARTIN J. BOND, FIRST VICB PRESIDENT OF GREATER WASHINGTON CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL Mr. APPERSON. Mr. Chairman, my name is George W. Apperson. I'm president of the Greater Washington CentralS Labor Council, AFL-CTO~ and I am here today to express the strong support of the Central Labor Council for legislation which will give home rule to the~ people of Washington, D.C. The Greater Washington Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, and its predecessor before 1957, the Washington Central Labor Union, has advocated full suffrage for the residents of the District of Columbia since 1900. We have worked closely with the Washington Home Rule PAGENO="0136" 132 Committee, and before that, the Central Suffrage Conference, and any other organizations which were interested and were working on home rule and national representations. Self-government is fundamental in our American democratic life, and it is just as important to the citizens of the District of Columbia as it is to the citizens elsewhere in this great country. Self-government was the guiding principle of the American Revolution. We hope to see effective, genuine self-government here in the Nation's Capital well before the Nation celebrates the Bicentennial of the American Revolution in 1976. Home rule would free a busy Congress from the thousands of man- hours now devoted to the study and debate of legislation important only to the residents of the District of Columbia. The legislative branch of the U.S. Government is too large a body, too hard pressed, and indeed, too well paid to serve as a municipal board of aldermen. We believe that home rule in Washington, D.C., means delegation by Congress of all basic governmental functions to the District of Colum- bia government with an elected Mayor and an elected City Council possessing all the legislative and executive authority they need to oper- ate an effective, responsible, and representative governmental system. Let me say at this point that we realize that there are a variety of approaches to achieving the kind of Mayor-City Council representa- tive, democratic system of government that we seek for the District of Columbia. It is entirely possible that the reasonable people will have their differences on the details of the kind of self-government that the people of the District of Columbia should have and will have. But on the broad principle of home rule, on the broad principle of genuine self-government for the citizens of Washington, D.C., there should be no fundamental disagreement. We are particularly concerned about the need to establish the right of all citizens in the District of Columbia to participate in the politi- cal process. This is a basic political right which should not be denied to citizens in the District of Columbia, whether they work for the District government or for the Federal Government or for private employers. Therefore, we strongly urge that Congress abolish Hatch Act re- strictions on political activity for all Government workers who are citizens of the District of Columbia. Any citizen of the District, includ- ing Government workers, should be free to run for public office or to participate in partisan political activity. We think it would be wrong to prohibit partisan politics in elections in the District of Columbia. Partisan politics helps to focus responsi- bility and that's what we need in the District-responsible politics and responsible government. With these thoughts in mind, I would like to make some comments on the number of problems and issues regarding self-government and government organization. * First of all, we believe that all legislative powers, including fiscal powers, now held by the Congress and now held by the existing City Council should be vested in a unicameral elected City Council. There should be no distinction between the laws normally enacted by munici- palities and laws normally enacted by State legislatures. PAGENO="0137" 133 It has been suggested that the historical and constitutional role of Congress in the affairs of the District of Columbia can be maintained by providing that no act of the City Council may go into effect if either body of Congress disapproves of such act within 30 days of its passage by the City Council. Such a provision was contained in the District of Columbia home rule bill passed by the Senate, October 12, 1971. This appears a reason-~ able protection for the Federal interest in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, as a practical matter, Congress will have a continuing interest in the appropriations required for the Federal contribution to the budget of the District of Columbia. However, we would liketo see the Federal payment tied to some kind of automatic formula so that District government budget-making and program planning can pro~ ceed with some degree of certainty-at least with less uncertainty and less confusion. We envision a City Council with no more than 15 members. Eight of these Council members would be elected from the existing election wards in the city and the remaining Council members would be elected at large. We think there should be sizable at-large representation to make sure that the City Council is representative of the community at large and responsible to the community at large. Council members should be elected simultaneously to 4-year terms at the same time that the Mayor is elected to a 4-year term. We see no benefits and a number of drawbacks to the staggering of terms of of- fice for members of the City Council. Staggering of terms would lead to divided and ineffective govern- ment. `\~\Te believe simultaneous election of all Council members and of the Mayor will help to produce more responsible and more effective government in the District of Columbia. I think it is worth noting that simultaneous election of City Council members to simultaneous 4-year terms follows a pattern that exists now in Washington's neighboring counties of Prince Georges, Mont- gomery, and Fairfax. The Mayor, who will be the chief executive of the District of Colum- bia governmental system, should be elected to a 4-year term coinci- dental with the 4-year terms of the members of the City Council. We envision a strong mayor form of government and this means the Mayor of the District of Columbia must be elected to the office in his own right so that his authority stems from the direct election by the people. We also support direct election of the chairman of the city council. The chairman of the council should run specifically for that office and he should be responsible to the community at large. This means he will be an at-large candidate, seeking support from the community at large and responsible to the community at large. If the Mayor's office becomes vacant for any reason, the chairman of the city council should succeed to that office. We make this recom- mendation because we believe that the chairman of the city council is the elective office second only to the Mayor's office and because we be- lieve it is desirable and necessary to establish a line of succession to the Mayor's office in the event that the Mayor's office becomes vacant. We believe the chief legal officer for the District of Columbia. whether called the Corporation Counsel or the city attorney, should PAGENO="0138" 134 be an elected officer, and he should be elected to a 4-year term in the same general election with the Mayor and city council. Election of the city's chief legal officer is a normal pattern in many State and local jurisdictions and we believe it contributes to the im- pressiveness of government, representative, responsible government. In regard to the judicial system, we urge maximum participation in the selection and appointment of judges by the Mayor and city council with provision for input from private citizens and private organiza- tions, including the local bar. . . To retain the benefits of the recent reorganization of the District's court system, we urge minimum changes at this time in the existing court structure, and we think it may be reasonable for the Senate to retain its authority to confirm judicial appointments to the District of Columbia courts. In a "strong mayor" system of government, the mayor must have full authority to organize or reorganize the executive structure of the government of the District of Columbia. As its chief executive and chief administrator for the District government, the Mayor has the responsibility to make the government work efficiently and effectively. To meet this responsibility, he must also have the authority to do the job. He must have the authority to name department and agency heads who are responsible to him and if they don't perform well, he must have the authority to get rid of them and get people who will do the job properly. In light of the obvious Federal interest in the government of the District of Columbia, we recommend that an Office of Federal Rela- tions be established within the Office of the Mayor. This office of Fed- eral Relations should have specific responsibility for District gov- ernment relations with Congress, with the White House, and with the Federal agencies and departments. Simple justice and the needs of a modern Congress require that home rule be restored to the citizens of our Nation's Capital. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the Greater Washington Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO. We sup- port home rule for the District of Columbia. We urge this committee and we urge the Congress to make possible at long last full, effective, genuine self-government for the people of the District of Columbia. Thank you. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much, and without objection, the reso- lution which you have attached to your statement will be entered in the record at this point. Mr. APPERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [The material referred to follows:] HOME Rm~E FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-ADOPTED BY THE 1971 AFL-CIO CONVENTION RESOLUTION NO. 42 (By Delegate Charles A. Della; Maryland State and D.C. AFL-CIO) WHEREAS, The AFL-CIO has for many years advocated full suffrage for the District of Columbia, and WHEREAS, The Congress of the United States has passed a constitutional amendment which has been ratified by the states granting the right to vote for President and Vice President to the citizens of the District of Columbia, and PAGENO="0139" 135 WHEREAS, The Congress of the United States has approved legislation which now allows the election of one (1) non-voting delegate for the District of Colum- bia, and WHEREAS, The prospects for home rule and national representation are brighter now than for many years; therefore, be it RESOLVED: That the Ninth Constitutional Convention of the AFL-CIO urges all segments of the AFL-CIO to assist the Washington Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO in securing the passage of legislation to achieve these objectives. Mr. ADAMS. I have a question about the selecting of the Chairman of the City Council. My question really is, if we have an election with a Mayor running as the chief executive officer, and we have people running at-large for the Council; is it necessary that that person be elected at-large, too, as opposed to being selected by the Council itself from among the at-large members elected to the Council? Mr. APPERSON. I think the intent for haiiing an election at-large for the City Council head was to keep the continuity of the fact that if he took the place of the Mayor, he would be elected the same way the Mayor was. And we felt that this would be a better policy and a bet- ter way to follow this, then would be of being appointed otherwise. However, we only put that in there as saying that as far as some changes that may be necessary in the wisdom of the Congress, we cer- tainly would consider any method that you might find that could pos- sibly be better. Mr. ADAMS. We also had the suggestion from certain members we've had on panels, that there be an election in the off-years? Do you have a position? As by off-years, I mean the noncongressional or non-Presidential years. 1 have no position either particular way. Does your organiza- tion have a position? I notice you say 4-year terms. Would you have those at the time of the Presidential election, or non-Presidential elec- tion or in some off year? Mr. APPERSON. I don't think we meant to take any particular posi- tion of whether it would be an off year or not. I do know that when you have a Presidential election, you get a lot more people out to the polls and get them to vote. And the activity of voting for others, na- turally creates the desire of those to get out and move. With the off year elections, you know how the voting is down. So I would think to let it coincide with the Presidential election would have to stimulate a great deal of participation in the city, people to vote. And I think it would be better that way. Mr. ADAMS. There was also a recommendation made that elections should b& for staggered terms, simply because it produced an election activity every 2 years, and an opportunity for the people to express their pleasure or displeasure with the manner in which the Govern- ment was operating. Do you have a comment to make on that? I notice you advocate a 4- year term, and I'm not familiar with the surrounding counties. I know many other places they elect every 2 years simply so the voters have an opportunity to express their pleasure or displeasure, more often. Mr. APPERSON. Well, the Congress, of course, gets elected every 2 years. I have always felt, and I think that it is a position that we feel, that in a longer term of the office, the people will be more selective of the people they select to go in these offices, realizing that they- PAGENO="0140" 136 Mr. ADAMS. I agree with that. By staggered terms, I was not suggest- ing that you make one 2 years. In fact, I would like to see the Con- gress with 4-year terms but elected every 2 years, so that you'd have a third rotate every 2 years. But what I was suggesting here was that you have 4-year terms, but the councilmen would be elected one portion in 2 years, and one por- tion in another 2 years. Mr. APPERSON. I have no opinion about that, Mr. Chairman, either way. Mr. ADAMS. My ffi~al question is with regard to the Hatch Act re- strictions, because of the heavy Federal participation or heavy Fed- era~l employment in the District, I certainly can see the reason for hav- ing to remove Hatch Act restrictions for local government elections, or you would disenfranchise-not disenfranchise, but you would re- move from political activity a great many people in the area. But now what about people who are actually in the city or the Dis- trict government itself? So you'll understand that I'm not trying to lead you to any conclusion, I'm very ambivalent about this as to whether or not there should be a civil service system for city govern- ments. I've seen it produce great mediocrity in places. On the other hand, I'm aware of the argument that you should allow a city government to maintain itself by using its city employee to build a machine. So I am asking you now not about the Hatch Act as applied to Federal employees, but should there be any kind of civil service or Hatch Act type of restriction on people who actually work for the government in the District? You don't believe so? Mr. APPERSON. No, I do not. Mr. ADAMS. In other words, they can participate. Fine, thank you very much. I appreciated your statement. Mr. Landgrebe? Mr. LANDGREBE. Mr. Apperson, if we were to carry out what I think is the intent of your statement to give the people of the District, basically, the right of self-determination, to give them the operation or the management of the city; what would happen, and remembering this is our Capital City, if we needed another library building as is being built right here near this complex, and considering that the Dis- trict of Columbia, the city hall downtown has absolute control of the District. Now, what would happen if we would get in a hangup and we couldn't convince them that we needed this new library building, and they just were not interested in our problems? So where does this leave the Federal Government? How are we going to resolve the situation? Mr. APPERSON. Well, I think you've got to look at it in two ways; I think the people have a right to govern themselves in the Nation's Capital as well as any other city or town throughout the Nation. I don't think that the peop1e of Washington are going to be unreason- able in dealing with the Congress of the United States, and I have great faith in our form of government and in the Congress of the United States. And I feel that some imderstanding can be met in reference to doing it. I don't think there's going to be this obstruction as far as the Con- PAGENO="0141" 137 gress wanting to build a new library, or many other things that they may want to undertake. I'm sure they're reasonable people, and can face these things reasonably. Mr. LANDGREBE. If these buildings are built, and taxpaying property is necessary, and sometimes the Government has got to take actions that are not necessarily acceptable to the people, and to everyone con- cerned, but sometimes this is unpleasant. And I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about. But suppose that they are going to be losing tax base, and they are going to, they will have to make an adjustment. It was even suggested here that it would be the District that would make the determination. They would tell us what we would pay. Now, just supposing that there was elected a group of people with this type of feeling; we will tell you, you ask us. what you want, you tell us what you want, and we will tell you what the price is. Doesn't it seem that this being the Capital City, this could.become a little bit, just sort of a struggle for the Capital, for the government to . operate in a situation like this? It could develop, and I could see this developing if we're turning it completely around, where we would then be saying to the city, we need to do this, will you please permit us to do it? And they say sure, we'll permit you to do it. We'll just add another half a billion onto your tax bill. Very simple, no problem. This is an example, and this is only an example of what I can see happening in a capital city, where we have to have some flexibility.. Mr. APPERSON. Well, I think that in that testimony, I mentioned in here that we would establish a liaison between the District govern- ment and the Congress. And I think that these questions that you bring up are not as serious as they might be. I'm sure that there can be differences of opinion. We have that in communities and municipalities all over the country. Right now, right here in Fairfax, you took a stand in the committee yesterday; the Fair- fax County Board, in trying to slow down the development in that county-well, it wasn't a very popular stand for them to take. But nevertheless, they feel that due to the environment and the influx of people and the sewage problems that they've got a problem as to the influx of people; therefore, they feel there must be a slowdown. I can't, Mr. Congressman, I cannot believe that there isn't an under- standing that can't be established between the District government and this Congress that would be so insurmountable; and if you feel that there is such an insurmountable condition that could exist, then I think this is another part of this that you have got to seek out the answer. But I think to just turn our backs on it completely and say that they are not entitled to anything because of this one little coiidi- tion, I would hardly not agree with that. I would think it can be worked out. Mr. LANDGREBE. OK, let us take another angle. Let us approach this from another angle. Assuming that we are going to give these people the authority to run the city they would then have the authority to levy taxes. Suppose that they levy an unreasonable commuter tax. After all, in this city, this Federal Government is in the heart of the city and whether we lift out the Federal-the Federal piece of territory, what PAGENO="0142" 138 do we call this thing? The enclave-we lift that out or whether we leave that in, or how we do that, we still got to get people in here, and supposing there is a group of-and generally speaking, elected people or officials are really kindhearted gentlemen, but once in a while we have seen one that is hardnosed and they might slap on a substantial -commuter tax, an unreasonable commuter tax, then what does the Federal Government do in this situation? Mr. APPERSON. There again, I think that the District government would have a lot to say about it and the people that are in the District would have a lot to say about it; and again, I am not too sure that some type of commuter tax would not be justified. I do not know that this would be the position that it would be, but I am not too sure that somewhere along the line that some considerations in these directions may be possible. But I do not believe that the conditions that would exist because of the Congress and the group of people that you feel would get in office would try to put something on the people that the people would let it go that way. I think that we still have the ballot box. We still have the people who-we have hearings, just like this one, we have people appearing and giving the best possible advice that we an, and I think the fears are not that prominent, really. Mr. LANDGREBE. I make no apology for taking a rather firm stand against home rule at this time. After all, we have a situation, not only the status quo, but by constitutional mandate and sometimes-and next I am going to get to this now-sometimes just efficiency dictates a cer- tain form of government. It dictates even a form of government as we have here. You state you are particularly concerned about the need to estab- lish the right of all citizens and I want to protect the right of all citizens, but have not historically the people who live in the District- and I do live in the District myself; at least our residence out here is in the District-are not the compensating factors for people who live in the District of Columbia, who have come to the city, who work pri- marily for the Government or for people serving people who do work for the Government, they come here knowing-now it has been stated here today that some of them do not know that, that they do not have full voting rights, but are there not compensating factors that sort of smooth this out just a little bit? One man stated how well the people have done here during the depression, better relief programs than other parts of the country, steadier work and better opportunities and so forth. Are there not really some compensating factors even for your building people? Mv goodness, I came here 15 years ago and we were building all over the place, we are building all over the place now. These Federal build- ings are being built with union labor which is not too bad of a deal these days or any day, so really are there not some compensating fac- tors which we can fairly look at and discuss in our deliberations? Mr. APPERSON. I think you would like to have me say that there are some compensating factors for depriving the Nation's capital of self- government, of saying to the people of Washington they are not capable of doing the job that is being done in the communities and cities all over this world and in this Nation. I think it is a little bit of an insult to us to say that we do not have that kind of ability, and I think the fear that has been drawn about by the Congress and the PAGENO="0143" 139 people who say that, for these who do not want home rule and do not want to give the freedom of democracy to these people are taking the position, now look, everything is going to go to pieces, to chaos, because we do this. I have more confidence in the American people, like the people before the revolutionary days had confidence that they could run this country when they split with England, when England said. we do not have that kind of confidence in you. I have more faith in the American people, and the city of Wash- ington, I am sure those people are capable of doing the job. Mr. LANDGREBE. OK. I believe that Mr. Hogan has one question. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Hogan, and then Mr. DePuy. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Apperson, I want to refer to your statement on page 2 where you talk about the Hatch Act restrictions on political activity. Now, are you talking about the Hatch Act provisions as they relate to Federal employment? Mr. APPERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. HOGAN. Why would that affect particularly home rule? Mr. APPERSON. Participation in getting people elected, participating of people in the Washington area. Mr. HOGAN. Excuse me, Mr. Apperson? Mr. APPERSON. Well, because of the fact that they are working in the Federal Government or are afraid or even hesitate to take a step * to try to be active in their community to see to it that the proper people get elected.. Mr. 1-lOGAN. Do you know how many employees there are in the gov- ernment of the District of Columbia? Mr. APPERSON. I do not know exactly, sir. Mr. HOGAN. Well, there are 40,000 District employees-or 42,000, I believe was the statement in the testimony before this, before this committee. I do not know how many Federal employees there are here. Now you live in Arlington County, is that correct? Mr. APPERSON. That is correct. Mr. HOGAN. Do you know how many Federal employees there are in Arlington County? Mr. APPERSON. I do not know the exact number, Congressman, but I can assure you there are quite a lot of them. Mr. HOGAN. I am not a Congressman, Mr. Apperson; I am minority counsel for the committee. Just the, same, don't you have the same problem in Arlington County that you would have in the District of Columbia? In other words, you have a large number of Federal employees in Arlington County, where the Hatch Act applies to local elections, is that correct? Mr. APPERSON. Yes. Mr. HOGAN. And you also have a large number of Federal employees here, and prospectively if you gave them home rule you are saying that the Hatch A~t would need amendment to give them an oppor- tunity to participate in political activity, local political activity, I gather? Is that right? . . Are you concerned for the election of the local officials? PAGENO="0144" 140 Mr. APPERSON. I am concerned for all people elected where the Hatch Act interferes with their participation. Mr. HOGAN. So your comment here and your testimony here goes not necessarily to home rule but to the amendment of the Federal law across th~ country as it relates to the Hatch Act? Mr. APPERSON. Well, you can take it that way. I was meaning that because of the fact that I was speaking for the District government that we were talking about, but I will say yes, I am speaking for them. Mr. HOGAN. I do not wish to take it anywhere. What I am trying to do is clarify the testimony, does it apply across the board, not just to the District of Columbia? Mr. APPERSON. That is right. Mr. HOGAN. And as far as the District employees are concerned, I do not know whether you have had an opportunity to review the Nel- son Commission recommendations, but there is a provision in the Nelson Commission report that there be established a District of Co-. lumbia personnel system that would take the District employees and establish a Civil Service Commission which for them basically the chairman was referring to. Have you had an opportunity to look at that or review it? Mr. APPERSON. No, I have not covered that too well. Mr. HOGAN. Well, if you are interested, Congressman Nelsen was the chairman of the Commission, and if you would contact his office, I am sure that he would be happy to forward a copy of that to you. It establishes a local Civil Service Commission, as it were; and I think that if this committee is to take up the question of the local Civil Service Commission or the independent personnel system for the Dis- trict of Columbia that that would be the time to get into a discussion as to what kind of provisions you want in that local-what would be your local enactment. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Landgrebe, have you got any additional questions? Mr. LANDGREBE. One more question, if you please, Mr. Apperson. As I understand your proposal, you would favor a 15-man govern- ment or council that would really have status equal to a legislature in a State, is that right? It would be the governing body for the District of Columbia? Mr. APPERSON. Yes. Mr. LANDGREBE. And you would have a mayor who would have some- what a relative importance or layers of importance similar to a Gov- ernor of a State? Mr. APPERSON. Yes. Mr. LANDOREBE. And I do not know as it is in here, but it probably would carry through then, that you would favor a substantial, like a guaranteed payment by the Federal Government to this governing board for Federal installations, and so forth in the District. Now, are you telling me that you really believe that the people of the District of Columbia are entitled to more than we permit people in any other place in the United States? Where in Chicago the mayor has to go down to Springfield, in Indianapolis, the mayor has to go over to the State house? We have our layers of government, the coun- cil of the cities and towns in Indiana are at the legislature every year demanding that we change this around and that they do what they PAGENO="0145" 141 * please, and only when the State legislature says "Thou shalt not" that they shalt not? And instead of as it is, they can do only what the legislature permits them to do. So, are you really favoring something for the District of Columbia and with a guaranteed payment, that the people out there in the State have to levy taxes, raise their money? Is this really what you mean and what you are saying to us? Mr. APPERSON. I think,to go back to what I said originally, I have the greatest confidence in the Congress of the United States, and I would like to think that they could establish a Federal payment to the District of which we would not have to, the District people would not have to come begging for the things to run its city any more than any other State body. * However, we are not asking anything that does not happen in any other city, community, State, or county: it is just as simple as that. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Landgrebe. Mr. DePuy? Mr. DEPUY. I have one question, Mr. Apperson. On page 4 of your statement you say that the chief legal officer should be an elected officer whether or not his title is Corporation Counsel or City Attorney. As I am sure you are aware now, the U.S. Attorney provides prose- cutional functions for felonies in the District. Are you also advocating that that function come under a locally elected prosecutor? Mr. APPERSON. There again is a question for which, 1 think, the Congressmen, taken into their wisdom with references to what they decide; in reference to that, I have no particular position as firmed up as to say that that same elected official or person would be in the same position that he has now. Mr. DEPUY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Apper- son, and gentlemen for joining him. We appreciate your testimony. Mr. APPERSON. Thank you very much. Mr. ADAMS~ The final witness for today is Wilma Martin, president of the District of Columbia League of Women Voters. Welcome to the committee. We have your statement before us, and as I have stated to the other witnesses, we would be pleased to receive your statement in full and enter it into the record, or you may read it and summarize, whichever you prefer. Ms. MARTIN. Well, the statement is short, and it is more or less in the nature of a summary, so I think I will read it. STATEMENT OP WILMA MARTIN, PRESIDENT OP THE LEAGUE OP WOMEN VOTERS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA Ms. MARTIN. I am Wilma Martin, president of the District of Co- lumbia League of Women Voters. The League of Women Voters was organized in the District of Columbia in 1920. Ever since, the District of Columbia League has been coming regularly to the Hill to support self-government for the city. 97-527-73-pt. 2-1O PAGENO="0146" 142 We are delighted with this time around, that it is not "if" but "how." And we sincerely hope that with all the expert study and the dedication of many Washington citizens and Members of Congress, we can arrive at a satisfactory solution which will end colonialism in the Capital City of this democracy. The Government Operations Subcommittee has heard the testimony of the Metropolitan Coalition for Self-Determination for the District of Columbia, which was given on April 3. The District League of Women Voters assisted at every stage in the formation of this coali- tion m order that the efforts of many organizations could be coordi- nated to achieve the goals they had been struggling for independently. Members of the league participated in the task forces that studied the issues presented by this committee and their subsequent proposals for a satisfactory home rule bill. In general, we strongly support the recommendations presented by Mr. Sterling Tucker, chairman of the coalition, and by the chairman of the various task forces. However, as some of you may know, the league studies in depth and obtains the views of its members on every issue on which it pro- poses to take a position. Insofar as we have studied the issues which this committee has suggested that it would like to have covered, we agree with the recommendations of the coalition. On some issues, such as the size of the legislative body, terms of office, salaries, judicial functions, and specifics as to the relationship between the executive and the legislative body, we have not adopted positions, but we believe that the recommendations of the coalition should be given serious consideration. Specifically, as to some of the questions the commission has raised, the league believes that all legis- lative power should be transferred to the local government including those normally exercised by State legislatures. We support a legislative body broadly representative of the commu- nity, elected in partisan elections, some by ward and some at large. The chief executive should also be elected in a partisan election and we favor his being given full authority to administer all city agencies and functions. Planning for the coordinated physical, economic, and social development of the city as well as regional planning for dealing with problems which cross jurisdictional boundaries should also be done at the executive level. In order for self-government to be meaningful, it must include control over the District's budget and revenue. The locally elected government should have compTete power to determine its priorities, adopt a budget, reprogram funds, levy taxes, and set fees. It should be able to decide its use of any revenue-sharing funds without prior con- gressional approval. The Federal Government should continue to make an annual pay- ment to the District because it is the Nation's Capital. In setting the amount of the payment, consideration should be given to such factors as the potential tax value of property owned by the Federal Govern- ment and other tax-exempt organizations, the services and facilities which must be provided to governmental and other organizations and their clients and employees, the constitutional limit on the area of the District, which permits no expansion, any congressional limitations which may be put on the District's power to tax and borrow, and the PAGENO="0147" 143 services which the District must provide, which are ordinarily per- formed elsewhere by counties and States. The industry of Washington is government and the Federal Government should be expected to give to the District the kind of support that other major industries do to other cities, as well as special support reflecting the District's special role. The Federal payment should be sure and predictable. If a formula for setting its amount is established, care should be taken to make sure that it is not tied to a shrinking tax base and that it will be ade- quate to meet foreseeable needs. In the absence of a formula, the prac- tice of authorizing the payment a year in advance is most important. The District should continue to participate in Federal grant and revenue-sharing programs as it does now. Such programs, which are available to governmental jurisdictions all across the country, are not in any way related to the Federal payment and should not be con- fused with it. In view of the predictable increases in the cost of personnel services and everything else which the District must buy, we think it is un- realistic even to talk about lessening Federal assistance in the future. Insofar as additional revenue sources are concerned, the local govern- ment should be given unrestricted authority to tap whatever sources it deems necessary and advisable. We urge the separation of Federal functions from those agencies, departments, boards, commissions, and so forth, which now exercise dual roles, the transfer of all local functions to the local government, with further reorganization of the local functions to be vested in the local government. We believe the main objective of a home rule bill should be the delegation of full authority over local affairs to locally elected officials responsible to the citizens who voted them into office and the pro- vision of sufficient flexibility in the bill for changes in structure and functions as time and experience indicate the need without returning to Congress for approval. The transition from colonialism to democracy is not going to be easy and it is not going to be achieved overnight. We urge the com- mittee to expedite it by promptly reporting out as good a bill as you can devise and letting the citizens of Washington strive to perfect their government as experience dictates. Thank you for the opportunity to appear. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. Landgrebe? Mr. LANDOREBE. Mrs. Martin, I can ask you possrnly the same ques- tion I asked the gentleman or the previous speaker. Do you feel that the District of Columbia, assuming that you would have something like 15 people in the governing body of the legislature or the City Council, is that what you had in mind about ~ City Council, 10, 15 or 8, or something? Mrs. MARTIN. We have no position as to the exact amount. However, if the present system of eight wards is continued, it would seem that in view of our position that there should be a councilman or a legisla- tor elected from each ward, that more than one legislator at large would be desirable, whether it's 11, or 13 or 15 we would leave to the discretion of Congress. PAGENO="0148" 144 * Mr. LANDOREBE. Well, have you heard of the Supreme Court ruling that forced the State of Indiana to apportion both of its houses in the State legislature on population basis and eliminated at large districts, and each member of the Indiana House and Senate now represents a certain given area, a certain number of people? Why do you propose at large people in government? Why not divide them up withso many people in each ward? If you've got 15 wards, you've got 15 separate, distinct councilmen, council districts. Why the at large? In fact, the Supreme Court has forbidden it in Indiana. Mrs. MARTIN. Well, I don't know the circumstances under which it was forbidden. However, it is our belief that with representatives from these separate wards who would represent the interests of the people in the ward where they lived, that it would also be desirable to have some at large delegates who then would represent the overall views of the city. Mr. LANDGREBE. Another comparison with dear old Indiana, we have 100 House members. V~,Te have 50 Senators. That's 150 people in the legislature alone. We have in every town, in my own city of Valparaiso, a city of 20,000, there are 8 councilmen and a mayor. So for 750,000 people in Indiana, which would be, say, 20 percent of the State, there would be 30 State legislators and for 75,000, I don't know how many different town and city organizations, cOunty councils, county com- missioners. It seems to me that you people are again proposing, either something that's so simple, it can't possibly work, or you're proposiwr to give the people of the District of Columbia much greater self- determination than is permitted anyone else in the United States. Maybe this is the new way to do it. Maybe we ought to try it. Maybe we could get rid of a lot of overhead down there across the country, if it would work. but it seems to me that you're suggesting an over- simplification. Who's going to do the appointing? You're going to have 15 people and a Mayor. Do you propose that we elect the prosecuting attorney and the chief of police and the tax man? Are we going to have an array of elected officials or are these people going to run the thing and are they going to appoint the different heads? And again, how are the. people having self-determination? Mrs. MARTIN. We feel that the people in the District of Columbia should have the right to vote and to elect the people who govern them and that those people, the chief executive and the legislative body should be given full power to carry out the functions usually assigned to executive and legislative bodies. and I don't believe that the fact that-I don't believe that the District would be given something greater than the people have in the States. There are certain differences which arise out of the fact that the District is a small, compact geographical area and it does not require th.e kind of setup that is necessary in a State, but the people would ~t'1 ~r~t be given any greater power. It is simply the power of self- government which is the right that the citizens of all the States have. Mr. TJANDGREBE. But those 15 men would certainly-outlining the things that you suggest. they do, the power to tax, determine for them- selves what tax they felt they ought to impose, the permission to tap PAGENO="0149" 145 the Federal Government-that you say, never to reduce the payment and never to lessen it, I believe was your words-and the fact that the industry, in your own words, the industry of Washington is govern- ment. This is home base for the greatest government in the world to- day, and you propose that we let 15 men and a Mayor be elected and that they have the authority to tap the Federal Government for what they think is a fair share, even though 535 Congressmen may disagree with this and never reduce the Federal payments, it seems to me to be giving these people something more than even the sultans of old had when they sat on the oil wells over there and it just doesn't seem that-- Mrs. MARTIN. We have not proposed that the District set the Fed- eral payments. This is something which is going to have to be worked out by Congress and we would hope that initially, in the bill which gives the District home rule, that some agreement could be reached, some formula devised. We don't have a formula. We don't feel that we have the expertise to devise the formula, but either a formula or some basis for making a Federal payment which takes into account the cri- teria which we enumerated and this, of course, would be by-it would be done initially by act of Congress. Mr. LANDGREBE. I certainly agree with you on that one line for sure and that is that the industry of Washington is government. It is not only the people who work in the government~ but it is those 20 million people who come here to either do business or just to vacation or to visit their congressional friends and certainly, this city has a great op- portunity to enjoy the prosperity of this tourist travel and frankly, as a member of Congress, not only living in the District, considering this to be our national seat of government, having some concern for the Hoosiers who come here to visit, we're going to have to carry on some dialogue before you convince me that we can carry this local govern- ment to the step that you propose in your statement. Now, I believe you have one question, Mr. Hogan? Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Hogan? Mr. HOGAN. Mrs. Martin, you state here on page 3 that in the absence of a formula for the practice of authorizing payment a year in advance is most important. As you know, the Nelsen Commission addresses this problem also in its report. You realize, of course, that in effect today, the Federal payment is established virtually in perpetuity at a cer- tain level. For instance today, if the Congress did nothing else the Federal payment would always be $190 million, and it would con- tinue on at $190 million unless there were additional needs. It is only for increases where you need this advanced authorization. In other words, let us assume that the needs of the District were to remain relatively static for the next 10 years and that $190 million would take care of it. There would be no need to alter that law as I see it for those 10 years, because that $190 million authorization would always be there, sO I assume that what you mean here, is in the absence of a formula the practice of authorizing a payment a year in advance is only in those instances where there is an increased need in the District. Is that correct, or do you understand my question? PAGENO="0150" 140 Mrs. MARTIN. \Vell the District needs to know at least a year in. advance what it can expect in the way of a Federal payment, and I am not sure that I understood what Mr. Fletcher said initially, and of course, on the basis of his experience in the District government he may have indicated that a little longer time was necessary. We would say that whatever time was necessary to enable the Dis- trict to make its plans, and on the basis of our information, we had thought that if they knew a year in advance what the Federal payment would be that that would be sufficient time. Mr. HOGAN. But what it requires, quite frankly, is that it requires the initiative on the part of the District government to put together its budget and forecast its revenue, and forecast its expenditures about 18 months in advance. Let us assume that now we have the 1974 budget before the Congress, now if the District, according to t.he Nelsen Com- mission report, if the District wished to have an increase in the Federal payment for 1975 they should be initiating that request at this time, were they to accept the recommendation of the Commission, because if there is no increase in the fiscal year 1975 budget, then there is no need to increase the authorization for Federal payment. There was some misunderstanding; I was trying to clarify that. Now as far as establishing the floor for the Federal formula or the Federal payments, that would be a new initiative as I understand as far as you are concerned, a new recommendation. Now the Federal pay- ment is the ceiling and there is no floor; it is whatever the Congress appropriates for it. So ~you want whatever the figure to be an absolute and automatic figure. In other words, if theY Federal payment is set at $190 million, you do not want the District to go through the ap- propriations process with the Congress; you want the payment to be automatic without the appropriations. Mrs. MARTIN. Well, we are not saying specifically what the provi- sions should be. We are thinking now in terms of what the home rule bill might provide, and of course, it could provide something different from what is the current practice. We are simply saying that from our point of view we do not see how the Federal payment could be any less than it is now, and whether that floor, as you call it, is determined by taking the figure $190 mil,- lion and making that a floor or whether that is the same result is arrived at through a formula or some other type of provision, it would not matter. We are just talking about the end result. Mr. HOGAN. Are you familiar with the Federal payment concept as included in the Nelsen Commission report? Mrs. MARTIN. I am not sufficiently familiar with it to discuss it. Mr. HOGAN. Has the League of Women Voters taken a position on that? Mrs.' MARTIN. On the formula? Mr. HOGAN. On the Federal payment recommendation contained in the Nelsen Commission report. Mrs. M~nTIN. Well, we plan to-in about 2 weeks we. are going to be meeting to decide which of the Nelsen Commission recommendations we are able to take a position on. You see, we are somewhat limited in the things `that we can take a position on by the fact that we must consult our members and do it PAGENO="0151" 147 on the basis of within the scope of our position and there are about 450 recommendations in the report and I know we cannot take a position on all of them. Mr. HOGAN. Well, you are talking about one of the most important ones, especially as it relates to home rule, I suspect. Just a further question, here. You talk about a separation of a Fed- eral function. Now the Nelsen Commission got into this separation of Federal and local functions, especially as it related to recommenda- tions transferring authority back between Federal agencies and local agencies and one of the predominant recommendations in this area in the way of planning, were you here when this gentleman-I forgot what his name was who preceeded you, Warren Richardson- he talked about in effect putting a number, as you would in cost accounting, on particular functions performed to determine which were local and which were Federal, and you are talking here in your statement about the separation of Federal functions of those agencies,. departments, boards, and commissions which now exercise dual roles. Are you talking somewhat about the same approach? Mrs. MARTIN. Well, I can give you a couple of examples. The Na- tional Capital Planning Commission would be an example of where the local planning could be separated and given to the local govern- ment and the Federal planning could remain in the NCPC. RLA is another example. I do not know whether you see it as a dual role, whether its role is primarily local, but it should be, I think we would support an abolition of RLA and transferring the functions of RLA to the local government. Mr. HOGAN. Well, where would the predominant authority lie in that particular case? Mrs. MARTIN. I do not believe there would be in that particular instance. Mr. HOGAN. But in the planning function, I am talking about. In other words, would the predominant agency be the National Capital Planning Commission? Mrs. MARTIN. Insofar as it related to Federal planning. Mr. HOGAN. Federal interest planning. Mrs. MARTIN. Yes. Mr. lORAN. Thank you. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Landgrebe, one more question. Mr. LANDGREBB. One more question, I promise, only one. Mrs. Martin, has the thought ever run through your mind that per- haps the people of the District of Columbia are the most over-repre- sented people in the United States. Mrs. MARTIN. No, that never occurred to me. Mr. LANDGREBE. There are 535 Members of Congress. I have never turned one away from my door. I have never had very many people come, but I have had people come from the District and realizing that they lived in the Capital City and that by Constitution, the Congress has the responsibility to see that the people here are served and that they are protected and that they are certainly treated well. I have not turned them away. We have had the fun of taking care of some rather unusual problems with some of these people. We are right here. We are available to PAGENO="0152" 148 them. Certainly, if they go to my office and I turn them away and they go to Mr. Adams' office, I am sure they would get a favorable treatment. Well, in Indiana, it is impossible for people to see their Congress- man. We are out here, they cannot come to see us, but many of them do. When I say there are compensating factors to people who live in this District, I am just not trying to kid myself and I would not try to kid you, so I really think that there is some validity to my question, at least to the idea as to whether we will ever give any serious thought to it. Mrs. MARTIN. Well, the purpose for which the League of Women Voters was formed was to encourage and foster citizen participation in Government, and we believe that there is nothing that can compen- sate a citizen for the loss of his right to vote, to elect his own officials and to hold them responsible. Mr. LANDGREBE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I appreciate it. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Landgrebe. Thank you very much for your testimony, the committee appreciates it and we know of your interest in it. The committee will stand at recess; we will reconvene tomorrow, April 11, at 9:30 in room 1310 of the Longworth Building. The committee will stand at recess until then. ~ [Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m. the hearing in the above-entitled matter were recessed to reconvene Wednesday, April 11, 1973 at 9:30 a.m.1 PAGENO="0153" SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUM- BIA, AND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DIS- TRICT OF COLUMBIA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS OF THE COM~IIrrEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 :55 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Brock Adams presiding. Present : Representative Adams [presiding], Delegate Fauntroy, Representatives Landgrebe and Symms. Also present: James Clark, legal consultant; John Hogan, minority counsel to full committee; Jacques DePuy, counsel to the subcom- mittee; and Anne Darneille, subcommittee staff. Mr. ADAMS. The subcommittee will come to order. Our first witness this morning is Diana Josephson of the Study Group on D.C. Government of Metropolitan Washington Planning and Housing Association. Come forward, please. [The prepared statement of Ms. Diana Josephson follows:] TESTIMONY OF DIANA JOSEPHSON, CHAIRMAN, THE STUDY UNIT ON D.C. GOVERN- MENT, THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON PLANNING & HOUSING ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: My name is Diana Josephson and I am here representing the Metropolitan Washington Planning and Housing Association (MWPHA). The MWPHA is a 40 year old citizens membership orga- nization which serves in particular as an advocate for low- and moderate-income residents of the National Capital Area in the fields of planning and housing. We are here today to give our full support to the immediate enactment of local self- government for the District of Columbia and to present our views as to the specific focus such self-government should take. - In general, MWPHA is in strong support of the position enunciated before this Committee on Tuesday, April 3, 1973, by the Metropolitan Coalition of Self- Determination for D.C. (Congressional Record, Vol. 119, No. 51, April 3, 1973). Specifically, with respect to issues relating to the Federal "function" in the District, MWPHA adopts the position of the Metropolitan Coalition in toto. With respect to issues relating to government form and organization, MWPHA adopts the position of the Metropolitan Coalition with the following additions and exceptions. First, MWPHA is extremely concerned that all resident employees of both the District and Federal Governments be free to participate fully in elec- tions for both the Mayor and District Assemblymen. If the Hatch Act precludes such participation, then we would urge that the elections be non-partisan. Second, we consider that both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Dis- trict Assembly should be elected by the Assembly from amongst its total mem- bership. While we recognize that there might on occasion be conflicts between constituency's demands on ward-elected Assemblymen and the city wide func- (149) PAGENO="0154" 150 tion of Chairman, we feel that maximum flexibility should be given to the Assem- bly to select the best qualified Chairman possible. The Assembly's operating rules and procedures can provide the necessary mechanisms for dealing with any such conflicts. Third, MWPHA urges the Committee to transfer to District Government the functions of the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, authorized by the 92nd Congress, which has removed from local control some of our most vital properties along the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., as far north of P Street, N.W. The Corporation's Board, yet to be appointed by the President, has total control of that area. Iii MWPHA's view, this represents a further fragmentation of the local planning and development authorities which the Nelsen Commission has recommended be overcome. Fourth, and of most significance in our view, MWPHA urges that the Com- mittee consider basing the election of ward Assemblymen on the nine Service Areas rather than on the eight school wards, weighting the number of Assembly- men in accordance with the number of persons residing in each Service Area. As the Committee is aware, District Government has, for the last three years, increasingly been organized for data, planning, operational and budget pur- poses on the basis of the nine Service Areas. (See map.) These Service Areas reflect both administrative needs and community identity. New working rela- tionships between the Executive Branch of government and residents of each Service Area have been established, initially on an informal basis but for the last year on a formal basis through the elected Service Area delegations to the Bicentennial Assembly. To establish the District Assembly, the legisative branch of government, on the same basis would reinforce the progress towards rational and responsive service delivery which has already been achieved and would enable ward Assemblymen immediately to deal with the specific operations of District Government as they affect their constituents. PAGENO="0155" 151 School ward boundaries, on the other hand, are purely arbitrary, reflecting neither the administrative needs of the other major operational agencies nor community identity. MWPHA recognizes that there are difficulties involved in applying the one man-one vote rule to the Service Areas since there are wide variations in size of population from 41,413 in Service Area No. 9 to 126,237 in Service Area No. 4. However, it considers that the concept warrants further exploration and would welcome an opportunity to work with the Committee and its staff of this issue. With respect to issues relating to electoral function and judicial functions, MWPHA adopts the position of the Metropolitan Coalition with the following additions. First, MWPHA specifically recommends that the election of the public prosecutor should not take place at the same time as that for the Mayor. In this way, he will not form part of a Mayor's slate and his independence of District Government will be further enhanced. Second, MWPHA urges that the proposed Judicial Selection Committee should be limited to residents of the District of Columbia, and that, as the proposal is refined, serious consideration be given to both the method of selection of members and to the provision of community representation on the Committee, possibly by Service Area, so that the Committee may be representative of the total D.C. community and also inde- pendent of District Government. With respect to issues relating to local financial authority and Federal-District relationships, MWPHA adopts the posiiton of the Metropolitan Coalition ~n toto. We appreciate the opportunity to have testified here today. STATEMENT OP DIANA ~1OSEPHSON, CHAIRWOMAN, STUDY GROUP ON D.C. GOVERNMENT, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON PLAN- NING AND HOUSING ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY RALPH PERTIG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON PLANNING AND HOUSING ASSOCIATION Ms. JOSEPHSON. Mr. Charman, I would like to introduce our execu- tive director, Mr. Ralph Fertig, on my right, and to apologize for Ms. Marie Barksdale, who is our president, who is unable to be here this morning. My name is Diana Josephson, and I am here representing the Metro- politan Washington Planning and Housing Association, which is a 40- year-old citizens membership organization ~vhich serves in particular as an advocate for low- and moderate-income residents of the National Capital area in the fields of planning and housing. We are here today to give our full support to the immediate enact- ment of local self-government for the District of Columbia and to pre- sent our views as to the specific focus such self-government should take. In general, our organization is in strong support of the position enunciated before this committee on Tuesday, April 3, 1973, by the Metropolitan Coalition for Self-Determination for D.C. Specifically, with respect to the issues relating to the Federal function in the Dis- trict, WPHA adopts the position of the Metropolitan Coalition in toto. With respect to issues related to government form and organization, MWPHA adopts the position of the Metropolitan Coalition with the following additions and exceptions. First, we are extremely concerned that all resident employees of both the District and Federal Govern- ments be free to participate fully in elections of both the Mayor and District Assemblymen. If the Hatch Act precludes such participation, then we would urge that the elections be nonpartisan. PAGENO="0156" L~2 Second, we consider that both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the District Assembly should be elected by the Assembly amongst its total membership. While we recognize that there might on occasion ~be conflicts between constituency's demands on ward-elected As- semblymen and the citywide function of Chairman, we feel that maxi- mum flexibility should be given to the Assembly to select the best- qualified Chairman possible. The Assembly's operating rules and procedures can provide the necessary mechanisms for dealing with any such conflicts. Third, we urge the committee to transfer to District government the function of the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, au- thorized by the 92d Congress, which has removed from local control some of our most valuable properties along the north side ?~ Pennsyl- vania Avenue, NW., as far north as F Street. The Corporation's board, yet to be appointed by the President, has total control of that area. In our review, this represents a further fragmentation of the local plan- fling and development authorities, which the Nelsen Commission has recommended be overcome. Fourth, and I'd like to insert this, since it has just been drawn to our attention-we support the election for Mayor being held in the same year as the Presidential elections, so that the elections should be staggered, you know, in conformance with that timetable. Fourth. and of most significance in our view, MWPHA urges that the committee consider basing the election of ward Assemblymen on the nine service areas rather than on the eight school wards, weighting the number of Assemblymen in accordance with the number of persons residing in each service area. As the committee is aware, District government has, for the last 3 years, increasingly been organized for data, planning, operational, and budget purposes on the basis of the nine service areas. We have attached a map to our testimony for your information. These service areas reflect both administrative needs and community identity. New working relationships between the executive branch of government and the residents of each service area have been estab- lished, initially on an informal basis, but for the last year on a formal basis through the elected service area delegations to the Bicentennial Assembly. To establish the District Assembly, the legislative branch of govern- ment, on the same basis would reinforce the progress toward rational and responsive service delivery which has already been achieved and would enable ward Assemblymen immediately to deal with the specific operations of District government as they affect their constituents. School ward boundaries, on the other hand, are purely arbitrary, reflecting neither the administrative needs of the other major opera- tional aaencies nor community identity. MWPHA recognizes that there are difficulties involved in applying the one-man-one-vote rule to the service areas since there are widé'vai~f ations in size of population from 41,000 in service area ~ to 126,000 in service: area 4. However, it considers that the concept warrants fur- ther exploration and would welcome an opportunity to work with the committee and its staff on this issue. PAGENO="0157" 153 With respect to issues relating to electoral funct~ion and judicial function,' MWP}IA adopts the position of the Metropolitan Coalition with the following additions. First, we specifically recommend that the election of the public prosecutor should not take place at the same time as th'tt for the M'i~ or In this w ay, he w ill not form part of a MayOr's slate and his independence of District government will be further enhanced. Second, we urge that the proposed Judicial Selection' Committee should `be limited to the residents of the District of Columbia, and that, as the proposal is refined, serious consideration be given to both the method of selectiOn of members and to the provision of community représeiltation on the committee, possibly by service area, so that the committee may be representative of the total District of Columbia community and also independent of District government. With respect to issues relating to local financial authority and Fed- eral-District relationships, MWPHA adopts the position of the Metro- politan Coalition in toto. We appreciate the opportunity to have testified here today, and I would be very happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mr. AbAMS. Thank you very much, Ms. Josephson. I have a ques- tion about your service area concept. It is a very intriguing new possibility, but I gather from the great disparity in numbers of people in each service area that certain ones have been made smaller because of greater problems involved. I don't quite know how we can reconcile one man, one vote with the service areas. You indicate that you would be happy to work with the staff with it, and we will be happy to do that, but please give me some idea of how we reconcile those two concepts and in some way move toward your idea, while I think is a good one. I think the purpose of government is the delivery of service. Ms. JOSEPHSON. Well, our thought is that there are two alternative possibilities. One is that you could have one person for each service area with different weightings being given to votes. That is one way of doing it. The other way is to give additional representatives to the larger service areas than the smaller ones. In actual fact, the size of the areas does not reflect problems, per Se, because the smallest area is the downtown' area, and it reflects the fact of a small residential base in that particular part of the city. We were thinking of some such formula-of you know, one per- son for every 30,000, 40,000, 50,000-you know-whichever' would seem appropriate. That' then gets into questions of the size of a Dis- trict assembly, in order to-you know-get near the one man-one vote, you would have to have a much larger body than is currently being considered. These are the kinds of questions which we would want an oppor- tunity to work further on, so we could come up with a more specific recommendation to you. The reason we wanted to raise this for your consideration here is that the way the current proposal-you know, the current form of government is being proposed-we would have city councilmen elected PAGENO="0158" 154 on the population basis, which bears absolutely no relationship to the institution which they are supposed to be setting policy for. Now, you could say, why not reorganize District government again? The problem is that the District government, delivery of service doesn't really follow-you know-exact divisions of population. The school ward boundaries are done in such a way that blocks are cut in half, for example, in order that the exact population split may be achieved. One of the basic problems with the school wards is that the Anacostia area, across east of the river, about one-third of our popu- lation lives east of that Anacostia River, and it was impossible to divide that area in half, which would reflect the actual administrative and community realities. So much so that under the current school ward boundaries, a large portion of that community is placed with the Capitol Hill area across the river. Now, there is no way that, for example, fire services or police serv- ices should really be organized to cross the Anacostia River. It makes no sense from the point of view of delivering any government service, nor are there any community identity, are there any feelings of com- munity identity across the river. So that from an administrative point of view, it would be impossible to use the school wards. Similarly with Rock Creek Park. You know, that's another very major boundary in the city. The B. & 0. RR. right in the center is another major boundary. I might say, in adopting these boundaries, when the District govern- ment did so, only two groups in the city had problems with the bound- arv se'ection, and those were around the H Street, northeast area, which falls between service area 6 and service area 5. This was, this particular boundary, was chosen because of the model cities program, which was synonymous with service area 6. So, I am not clear at this point-our organization is not clear on how you deal with the very problem that we raised, but we think that the advantages would be so obvious that it deserves some very serious consideration. Maybe you have something to add to that. Mr. FERTIG. As you pointed out, the possibility of weighting rep- resentation so that, for example, the small-if you did it on a one tO 50,000 basis, the small service areas would have one representative, the large would have three-it would produce about 14 members elected from the service areas, and we had suggested another five be elected at large. That would increase the size of the projected assem- bly to 19, rather than 13. We think that is still workable and it would be much more rep- resentative and responsive. Another way of doing it, of course, would be to divide the service areas themselves. You see, they do conform to census tract lines, and there would be the possibility of some sub- division, so that some service areas, rather than electing three persons at large, say, would be subdivided into three wards, or three separate constituencies. But again, these are things that could be worked out. Mr. ADAMS. I have no further questions. Mr. Fauntroy? Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes. I would just like to continue for a moment the very useful discussion of this service area concept as a vehicle for representation. PAGENO="0159" 155 You indicate that one possible solution is to provide some of the service areas with more representatives on a one man-one vote basis. I take it you mean, really, subdividing the service so that no one runs at large within a service area? Ms. JOSEPHSON. Yes. You could have them run at large, or you could have them subdivided. This would be something that would have to be explored. Mr. FAUNThOY. Well, you would lose the service area identity if you did it at large. Ms. JOSEPHSON. Right. Mr. FAUNThOY. So I think that is one of the things that we should explore. Mr. FERTIG. I think that we would prefer that, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNThOY. Well, I think it would not serve any useful purpose to go on with this discussion at this point. You have suggested that we, perhaps, sit down and talk with you about it, exploring that pos- sibility. I think it's a very useful one. V Mr. FERTIG. I only want to stress one thing. Having worked with Fauntroy, I am sure he fully appreciates the need for relating that government to the people's own life pattern and consciousness. Ms. Josephson spoke at length about the need re- lated to the administrative units of government. As a sociologist and a social worker. I would say that there is an equally important basis for relating areas of representation to the life patterns and the identi- ties of people in the communities. I think that is just an enormously important factor, in order to be able to have accountability and rela- tionship between elective representatives and persons by whom they were chosen. This was an important factor in the development of the service areas V concepts. It is a more alive concept today, in terms of community or- ganization. Now; the delivery of services from the private sector, as well as the public sector, from the settlement houses and the Health V and Welfare counseling agencies and the Bicentennial assembly, so it has become an important life pattern consideration in our city. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Fauntroy. V V V Mr. Landgrebe? Mr. LANDGREBE. I came in just a little bit late, but I would like to try to probe just a little bit into your thinking on this matter. Do you embrace the Supreme Courts' one-man, one-vote concept of government? V V V Ms. JOSEPHSON. Well, sure. Mr. LANDGREBE. Wouldn't it, then, be necessary, in any way, under any system that the city was divided, that it would in individual areas of responsibility, each electing their one representative-whether you call them councilmen or Senator, whatever he is-wouldn't it be neces- sary to determine the number of people that you would have in the V go'~erning body, whatever it is called, and they would represent cer- tain areas of population, population areas. This would preclude any at- large members. . Ms. JOSEPHSON. WelL we favor having something like five at-large members in our ratio. We are only discussing the basis on which the ward-elected Assemblymen, the concept of the V ward, that concept. Our thouc~ht is that there are advantages to applying-you know, PAGENO="0160" 156 feeling out how to apply the one-man, one-vote rule to the service areas, rather than automatically accepting the school ward boundaries, which, after all, only relate to one agency of District government. There are some 17 or 18 other operational agencies, who are all or- ganized on the basis of the service areas to deliver their services. Now, it is in the mechanics of how this should be applied that the further thought needs to be given. But, for example, if you-in the last 3 years-this will be the third year now-the entire Capital pro- grail-i for the District of Columbia has been taken out for community review by service area. The actual document has been totally reorga- nized, so that the residents of each service area can find out what is proposed for the next 6 years by the entire range of services in the District government in terms of physical construction. Similarly, last year the operating budget went out for community review. This is in the formulation of the Executive budget by the Mayor, so that when he makes his final decisions on the budget he recommends to the City Council, he has the benefit, not only of the professionals inside District government-who, in one sense you can say are special-interest advocates for their own particular depart- mental function-but also of the community at large, you know, who looks at the total impact of these programs, as far as they affect their community. Now, this is a well-established program. It would build very nicely, it seems to me, into a further review by an elected legislative body- you know-which would have the budget material all organized by their-in accordance with their ward boundaries, so that they could easily see what the impact of government services was going to be on their constituents. In case of citywide functions like Blue Plains, you know, many of the programs which cannot be dealt with on a neighborhood level, they should be separated out. They would be dealt with on that basis. Another example is census data. As Mr. Fertig pointed out, the service areas are based on census tracts. Therefore, the 1970 census data, it has been possible to analyze that by service area, identify what the profile of needs is for that particular area, and then begin to analyze how the programs, which are being delivered by government, actually mesh against those needs. Now, school boundaries bear no relationship per se to census tracts. It's also been the thought of District government that if and when its plaiming office really took off, and became a reality, that goals and priorities could be set for the city using a similar concept, and that the plans for the city would be developed both at the citywide level and at an area level. Obviously there are very real differences between the needs of an area, such as Anacostia, and the needs of a downtown, or the needs of west of Bock Creek Park. And the government has to recognize the overall needs as well as the specific differences in each area. Now, from-Mr. Fauntroy's an ex-City Councilman, he can prob- ably appreciate the kind of practical problems which I am talking about, maybe others who have been in municipal government. But if you're dealing with a whole package, a billion dollar budget, a billion dollar operation, it is very difficult to put your finger on specific impli- PAGENO="0161" 157 cations of the total operation to any given neighborhood. And we think there is some very real usefulness to somehow incorporating this work that's already been done to rationalize and improve service delivery in the District government, and to make the benefits of that available .to the new legislative body. I don't know if that- Mr. LANDGREBE. Wouldn't the Mayor run at-large? Wouldn't he have an overall concern? Ms. JosEpHsoN. Well, sure. But you know, your Mayor, elected at- large, when you face a city with wide differences in neighborhoods, and problems, and incomes, you would need to know what the problems are in any given area of the city, and then how your programs meet or do not meet those needs as a rationale basis for then deciding what your policy decisions are going to be, and what new programs you may institute For example, one of the things the analysis of census thta shows is that there's a very high aged population west of Rock Creek Park, which is not affluent, because many of them are living on social secu- rity Yet, to my knowledge, there is no program, you know public pro- gram, for the aged in west of Rock Creek Park Another obvious example is the youth population, ~ ou know, the median age, in service areas 3 and 4 across the Anacostia River is some- `thing like 21 years; the median age of the population of 230,000 people. Whereas, in west of Rock Creek Park, it's something like-it's in the fifties. I forget the precise figure, 51,52. Now, those are gross examples But when we get to problems of drug addiction, you know, you need to be able to pinpoint where the specific localities of your problems are, so that you can then direct your pro- `grams. And I think that the tools which this provides to a mayor should also be provided to ~ legislative body. Our Mayor now has that. An elected mayor would have the. benefit of this system.. ` S Mr. LANDGREBE. What difference would there be from one district to the other as far as government services, the standard services? It would apply that a city normally provides streets, pure water, educa- tion, police protection. Shouldn't these be across the board, or across the city? I don't follow you at all when you talk about particular problems of areas in relation to city hail. S It seems to me that city hail has-whether it is with individual Con- gressmen or councilmen or at-large, the people of the city should ex- pect, wherever they live, basic standard services, and certainly they are entitled to equal services. Now, maybe when we get into the welfare state concept of special social involvements, which I think we are find- ing out in America today, working from the Federal level, are not really the answer to things, perhaps here is where the churches and * private organizations can move where the problems are, and handle it properly.' * This ideal-m~iy I pursue just a second this idea of self-government ~ Now, you do say local self government, and the word local gets you off the hook a little bit because you're talking specifically about the local government problems But we do hear a good bit of talk about 97-52T-73-pt. 2-ii PAGENO="0162" .158 home rule, and do you know of any. place in the world where there really is home rule, any nation, any State, any place where there really shomerule? Ms. JOSEPHSON. Well, I guess you have to define home rule in terms of whatever particular city you are talking about. In my own home town, my original home town of London, when I was being brought up there, we certainly, as a resident of the capital city, we elected our local self-government. And even in the center of the city-well, you know, then it was the London County Council and now it's the Greater London something or other. The Greater London Council has control, total control, of what is being decided on purely local functions. And the division there is somewhat analogous, it would seem to me, to the division between the definition of what is a Federal function in this country, and what is a State function. Now, in this particular instance, we happen to be trying to define what the dividing line should be between the Federal function in this town and the local function. And obviously, to precisely draw the line, it is always difficult. We, in our review of the self-determination, Coalition of Self-De- termination's testimony, we found a definition acceptable, and that's why we endorsed it. But I would like to get back to also what you re- ferred to earlier, which is that obviously we support the concept of an equal level of service to every resident of the city. But, in order to achieve that, even for example in a standard service such as solid waste collection, trash pickup; depending on your popu- tion density of a' given area, there's going to be more trash generated than in other areas. That's one practical thing. Second, since our trash in this town is only picked up by the city from single-family dwellings and apartment units of four units or less, the amount of manpower which has to be assigned to any given area will depend on the type of buildings that exist in that area. Now, if I am responsible for solid.waste collection, therejfore, I may accept the concept of equal level of service, but I have to refine for the achievement of that-what the givens are in any. geographical area, one problem. Second, I also have to relate my service to those services of other agencies. This is something which has been achieved to some degree. ` Let me give you an example, also dealing with the solid wast.e sys- tem. When the service area system was first introduced, one of the first examples which they were called to deal with was the fact that schools had unilaterally decided to use paper plates and cups in all of their cafeterias. This they did with no consultation at all with the then department of sanitation. So, suddenly come September, there are mountains of trash outside all schools in the District. You know, there's no provision for addi- tional manpower for trash pickup, any new service of any kind. Second, of course, there was a loss of jobs for all thOse persons who'd previously worked in cafeterias, you know, doing the washing up, the clearing of tables and so on. Now, if you are a mayor, you're trying to get the most efficient serv- ice in townç you need to know how your services interrelate, and the `fallout effects of the change of one service on, you know, someone else PAGENO="0163" 159 wh&s trying to provide another service; and in many cases, those are going to interrelate on a neighborhood level. I gave you a citywide example. A local example could be high school~ a junior high school, which has a drug addiction problem, which is another case that we had. Well, the problem was there were 23 exits in the school. The fire chief said, you've got to keep them all open under the fire regulations, and the police said, we can't man 23 exits. As a result, the parents were irate. Well, you know, you have to co-~ ordinate all those services on a specific geographic basis in order to deal with that specific problem. So you have to divide your problems and also your service depending on what it is that each of them is supposed to achieve. I am suggesting that, you know. city council will be faced with ex- actly the same kinds of issues as they try to set policy for District government within their arena, legislative and otherwise; and that the tools they need-they need the advantage of the same tools that the executive branch now has. Mr. LANDGREBE. How many people do you consider would be on the ballot, how many elected officials do you envision should this, your local self-government concept be embraced by this Congress, or who- ever is going to make the final determination? 1-low many people would you ~onsider would be elected officials of this city of 750,000 people? Ms. JosEPhsoN. I can only speak personally, because our associa- tion- Mr. LANDGIIEBE. That's all I asked you. Ms. JosEpHsoN. Personally, I would say somewhere up to 25. I think that's a manageable group for city council. Mr. LANDGREBE. And you would suggest we elect 25 people total to handle a billion dollar a year budget? Ms. JOSEPHSON. That's the size of the current House District Com- mittee, is it not? This is- Mr. LANDGREBE. Do you realize at the present time, we have a Dis- trict Committee here, a District Committee in the Senate, we have the White House, and we have the city hail? Now, if you were to live in Indiana in a town of 20,000 people, you'd have eight councilmen, you'd have a mayor, you would have the clerk- treasurer of the city; then you would have a county level, and you would have commissioners, county councilmen. You would have asses- sors and a sheriff and a whole raft of elected people. Then you would have a State level of people. Mv honest opinion is that to give a billion dollar budget to 25 people--wouldn't it develop the most horrible political machine that the world will ever know? And this is my personal opinion. There would be people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get one of those spots, because this thing would be all powerful. And while 1 am not questioning, I am speaking, I can't believe under that system that people of this city would have as fair a consideration as they have go today under the programs of this city, the way it has developed over a period of years. Now, I'm going to ask you one more question, and this is a sincere question: If London has home rule, they have the kind of things you are trying to tell us they have, what brought you to America? PAGENO="0164" 160 Ms. JOSEPHSON. I married an American. Mr. LANDGREBE. You married an American. Ms. JOSEPHSON. It was not a political decision. It was very personal. [General laughter.] Mr. LANDOREBE. Thank you. I will accept that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Landgrebe. Mr. Svmms? Mr. SYMM5. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was a bill introduced here last year by Congresswoman Greene about retrocession to Maryland and cutting out the Federal enclave, and then having a payment for the Federal enclave, plus a retrocession payment to the State of Maryland until it was absorbed; until which time it could become self-sustaining with the State. How do you feel about that? Ms. JosEPHsON. Again, I'm talking personally because our associa- tion has not a position on that. But personally, I am opposed to it. I feel that the District of Columbia has a community identify, which is real, that as the Nation's Capital, it should have, you know, the spe- cific recognition that being a city-State would give it. And I don't think we should just somehow disappear into the larger entity of Maryland. Mr. SYM~is. Yet, now, through your whole discussion you talk about increased services to the people in the District through the local gov- ernment. That's your primary objective. But what's the- Ms. JOSEPHSON. Improved services, I mean I'm not necessarily say- ing there should be a $2 billion budget, that's more for the money and resources that we have. Mr. SYMM5. Well, I was just thinking about that. That was my next question. It's a billion-dollar budget now, and I was wondering if we got it so that it was working like you were hopeful it would, I wonder if it would cost more money, mean more services-you know, you can take a Sears, Roebuck catalog and list all the needs that people have. It takes usually about a half a page to list how much they can pay for. I'm wondering what your plan is on paying for all of the service and so forth. Another appropriation from the Federal Government, or increased taxes to people that live here, or what is it? Ms. JOSEPHSON. I think my experience is-working with the budget review, you know, which has been conducted-is that when, you know, there is sort of a universal rule when.people are faced with the cost of what they want, they then begin to deal with the realities of m~tking choices. This is something this town has not had in any real sense the re- sponsibility of doing, or the luxury of doing. It's all, you know- when somehow there is a very complicated process which results in you going up to the Hill, which to many people in town is a very remote place, and a very remote institution, and fighting for your school or for your library or for your health programs, whatever it Is. Mr. S~rMs. That's not only people that live here that feel that way. PAGENO="0165" 161 Ms. JosEpHsoN. But when we have talked at the neighborhood level about the fact that there isn't an open field day, there are choices to be made and that in the Capital construction area, for example, the loans have to be repaid and the debt service comes out of the operating: budget so you have a choice between increasing your debt service for buildings, then ending up with, you know, decreased operational funds; to pay for the people going to the buildings to deliver the service. Then we have discovered that just as the average person with a house- keeping budget, you know, that there is a totally different level of dis- cussion which ensues and I think that that is exactly what would hap- pen if this process was developed further so that we actually were ourselves dealing with our allocation of resources. There is nothing tougher than a neighborhood on itself in one sense, where there is a certain amount of money to go around and everybody wants to see a particular service adopted. Mr. SYMM5. But you still have no plan as to how to pay for the local government, other than the way it's being paid for now? Ms. JosEpHsoN. Well, that's correct, but we have-you know, a very large portion of our resources, come from our own taxes. We then, you know, we do support, obviously, the concept of the Federal pay- ment being continued because we pay for many of the services which benefit the Federal Government. In addition, much of our real estate is nontaxable so we assume that there will be some provision for continuation of that and then as a city-State, we will presumably be eligible as are other jurisdictions for national funding for programs which the Congress determines are in the national interest. I think it would be-I think we can do more with what we have and this is true of most jurisdictions-and I think we will. Mr. SYMMS. I thought Mr. Landgrebe made a very interesting ob- servation and it had some merit, too, I might add, about the fact of having 25 people having control of a $1 billion budget. Would you, in any way, want any type of a perusal by the Congress, or do you want complete control of the $1 billion budget for those 25 elected officials? Ms. JOSEPHSON. I think the elected officials should have control and if the question before-you know, if you have a problem with there being only 25 and then it seems to me the answer is to increase the number of assemblymen until you reach a ratio which satisfies you. In actual fact, it would make it easier on that basis to adopt the serv- ice area concept which we support. Mr. SYM~1s. You said you agreed with one man, one vote, that you agree with the fact that people pay for something they should have a right to say so and how the government is run, so that the Federal Government makes a payment whether it be here in Washington or in Idaho, that they should be able to tie strings on it. Ms. JOSEPHSON. I can seethe- Mr. SYMM5. Do you see what I'm getting at? Ms. JOSEPHSON. Yes; I see what you're getting at. If you make a Federal payment to the District, you should be able to control what is done with that Federal payment. I would have less problem with that than using that for the rationale for controlling the money we con- tribute, which is the way it works now. But I would hope that rather, PAGENO="0166" `162 you would say, as you do to other States when you make grants, that this is up to the local initiative, and since I assume that there will be some provision-obviously, even without provision, you can over- rule any act of our local jurisdiction, that you would use that way of controlling rather than making us continue to come here because once you do that, then you negate-you keep us exactly where we are now. Mr. SYMMS. Well, I'm simply dealing with the problem here in the District because in my State, 70 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government and we would like to have home rule and espe- cially a Federal payment there, too. But I think that there are some problems here that aren't quite answered to my mmd as to how this is going to be paid for and you know, have a feasible, workable govern- ment that's better than the one we have now. We wouldn't want to change it just for the sake of change, I wouldn't think.. Ms. JosEpHsoN. Well, I don't think the question myself is one of resources. Personally, I think we have a very reasonable level o.f re- sources at this particular point in this town. In my experience in Dis- trict government~ part of the pr01)1em is shifting attitudes and work experiences of civil service, a very large civil service of which many o whom have had their formative years under the `three commissioner system. To give you a practical example, we had one of the first little prob- lems that came up in the service areas when we got t}.ie agencies in these neighborhoods talking to each other was the fact that the rec- reation manager for a building in the same block as the library had never talked to the librarian and did not know that the libraries threw out their books when they reach a certain stage and was horrified be- cause I have kids in my program who have never had a book and so they made the arrangements to wheel the books down one block. * ~T0w~ that's where we were in 1970, as far as interagency communi- cation at the field level. Now, to talk about efficiency obviously, that's an inefficient way of running a government yet you're dealing with people whose work patterns are being established in an institution whe~e there was very little communication at the top and you know, almost zero communication anywhere from down to the lower levels so that. I think, a lot can be achieved by changes in operations, changes in the way things are done, which do not result in an increase in budget but result in a different way of doing what you're doing already. Mr. Svtnis. Thank you very much for your testimony. No more questions. Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAUNTROY. Counsel? Mr. DEPUY. No questions. Mr. FAUNTROY. Counsel? Mr. HOGAN. Yes. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nelsen could not be here and he suggested that I ask some questions, if I may. Ms. Josephson. as ,~ far as your organization is concerned, you are mainly interested in planning and housing? Correct? Ms. JOSEPHSON. That's correct. Mr. HOGAN. Now, are you satisfied with the way the housing and planning are organized in `the District government now? Ms. JosEPHsoN. No, we are not. PAGENO="0167" 163. Mr. HOGAN. Have you had an opportunity to read the Nelsen Cam- mission report? Ms. JOSEPHSON. Yes, we're preparihg a position on housing and community development. Mr HOGA~ Now, as far as recommendations are concerned in that report, don't you think that there should be some changes, legislative and otherwise? Ms. JOSEPHSON. Yes, 1 do. Our position is that the local planning function of NCPC should be transferred to District government, that the RLA and the NCHA should also be transferred to District gov- ernment recognizing that are some important bonding issues against the transfer of the NCHA and we also raise-in other words, we sup- port the Metropolitan Coalition which deals with that as part of its testimony. But in addition, we address your attention to the Pennsylvania Avenue development corporation which is another separate entity which represents to us a further fragmentation and dilution of the ability to really deal in a cohesive way with the problems of the metro- politan downtown. . . Mr. HOGAN. Well, are you suggesting that yOu get home rule first and then correct these things? Ms~ JOSEPHSON. No, I would hope that they would be dealt with as part of the same-either simultaneously. I don't know how your com- mittee plans to handle the Nelsen Commission legislation, whether you're going to have a Nelsen Commission package or whether you're'~ going to mesh those particular things in with your home~ rule legis- lation. . . Mr. HOGAN. Well, do you have a recommendation on that? MS. JOSEPHSON. Well, whichever----I- see home rule without those re- organizations as, you know, giving the locally elected body, no tools to work with in the field of housing and community development so that I feel it should be part of a home rule bill. If it passes that way, it's fine. You don't have to deal with it another way. In either event, we need it. There's no doubt about it. Mr. HOGAN. You indicate that there should be a Federal local inter- est definition. There was a gentleman that testified yesterday on this as-you know, the Nelsen Commission recommended that there be a definition established, especially as it related to planning-now, could this be expanded upon so that this gentleman was suggesting that you earmark, as it were, those functions which are~ principally or totally Federal and earmarking those which are principally or totally local as a cost accountant would do if he were handling the District budget. Do you think that there would be, as far as arriving at a Federal payment, has some value in doing that kind of thing so that Congress would feel a little more comfortable in establishing a payment and the District would feel a little more comfortable, perhaps, if there were totally locally earmarked functions. Maybe Congress wouldn't look at those and they would say, as the Commission report suggested that those are principally local and they should be segregated out and the principal . decisionmaking lies with the local government, as it were, do you think that has some value? . PAGENO="0168" 164 Ms. JOSEPHSON. Well, you've asked a number of questions. I think that if there were some way worked out, if there were some analysis of these specific costs~ to the District of Columbia of Federal opera- tions, for example, the amount of money it takes to clean up after all the parades, you know, demonstrations and so on, the amount of money which is lost from real estate taxes, the amount of money that's lost with all Federal vehicles that do not pay gasoline taxes, you know you could go through an analysis such as that and come up with a figure of some kind, I would assume. I think, personally, I would feel that the advantage of having a fixed, you know a rationale which everyone could live with which resulted in a fixed amount of money which could fluctuate in accordance with that rationale which would * be-which the District Government could then receive and utilize freely. There would be advantage to that. I do have problems with your definition of Federal function as far as-in the Nelsen Commission report-you deal with planning. What you propose is that Na- tional Capital Planning Commission retain the initiating power for physical planning of the old Federal City which goes up to Flor- ida Avenue and include our downtown, you know, the whole core of our city and our association feels and so we will testify later, that that is far too broad a definition. We have no problem with the Fed- eral Triangle, the monumental core. We have no problem with Fed- eral buildings. We think that the local initiative should be allowed in the downtown area or downtown commercial core and so on with any resolution of lOcal/Federal `conflicts; you know, to come through whatever mechanism is set up to do that. Fourth, you have reserved the right to NCPC to reserve the right to planning in the transportation area and sO far as it dealt with Fed- eral facilities. Now, Federal facilities in-town are so scattered all over. What that basically would mean is that transportation policy would still be set by the NCPC and we feel that's far too important a func- tion to the Disti~ict of Columbia to take that away from our local plan- ning. It should remain a local effort rather than a Federal effort. Mr. HOGAN. Well, it's now a regional function; is it not, in. a great sense? Ms. JOsEPHsoN. That's true but also, we have Larnada Grant where we have planners in the District Building who are planning the spe- cific impact of Metro development around all our Federal stops in the District of Columbia. One of th.e implications of what you recom- mended, it would seem to me, is that NCPC should be doing that be- cause it would have impact on Federal establishments rather than the District of Columbia. Mr. HOGAN. Federal-turning back to this Federal/local interest, trying to segregate the matter, are you familiar with the recommenda- tion on the Federal payment that is contained in the Nelsen Commis- sion Report? Ms. JOSEPHSON. No; I don't recollect that specifically, offhand. Mr. HOGAN. Well, what it does~ is require that there be a com- parison, both expense-wise and revenue-wise, of the District of Col- umbia with other similar cities so that hopefully the residents of the PAGENO="0169" 165 District are comfortable with the fact that expenditures and particular areas are not higher nor for that matter, significantly less than they are in other cities. On the other hand, presumably Congress would hopefully be satisfied with this, that expenditures in the revenue effort of the local government is on a par withother general localities similar to the District of Columbia. Having arrived at that determination, using information, some of which is currently available through the Governments division of the Bureau of Census, the difference between that and what it would cost to furnish those services, would presumably be a Federal payment and therefore, the cost, as it were, of the Federal presence, does that have any attraction? Ms. JOSEPHSON. We are in the process-we have not refined our posi- tion on that and I would like to-and I'm sure we'll be back when you * deal with these specific recommendations and have additional hear- ings. There are a couple of immediate thoughts I have with reference to what you say. One is that our local jurisdiction combining both functions of State, county and municipal functions, you know, is not really com- parable to other cities and I would hope that the formula would take that into account. * Mr. HOGAN. It does. Ms. JOSEPHSON. All right. Second, one of our biggest costs-well, probably the biggest cost factor in the District of Columbia government is salaries, you know, which are paid to-Federal salaries which are, as I understand it, con- siderably higher than is the norm in municipal governments across the country. This is obviously essential to District government if it is to compete for any kind of talent in town but it would, it seems to me, maybe throw out the formula, maybe you would deal with that also? Mr. HOGAN. The Commission deals with that in its recommendation for an independent personnel system. It suggests that the District have its own personnel system, its own salary scale so that if I under- stand you correctly, you feel that salary scales here are higher than they are in other similar jurisdictions and this would permit the Dis- trict to bring their salaries,' their employees in line with other jurisdictions. Ms. JosEpHsoN. Yes; that sounds simple. Mr. HOGAN. No; it isn't simple. I'm not suggesting that it's simple, but there is a problem. Ms. JOSEPHSON. One of the real problems with District government is to attract talent, you know, to come' and work for it. When you have'a major employer in~town that is paying better salaries, what you will get is those who cannot get jobs in the Federal Establishment imless they are particularly committed citizens who feel that local government is what they want to do. , * I think, as a practical matter what we would end up with, being in the town where `the major Federal bureaucracy is, is very, very handi- capped by reducing our salaries-and I have very real problems with that concept I think it's one of the hard realities for us, is that we~ can t do that- PAGENO="0170" 166 Mr. HOGAN. Well, the Commission would have an element that would `plug in there also and it has that element to give effect to the uniqueness of the District of Columbia, sitting as it is in the center of a metropolitan area and in a Federal area. So presumably, a factor could be added on that would take care of that. Ms. JOSEPHSON. I hope so, because costs here also reflect the earning level of the majority of their citizens. Mr. HOGAN. Let me ask another question. You say if the Hatch Act precludes participation in elections, would you-do you contemplate the District having its own independent personnel system if a bill were enacted, is that your position? In other words, the only reason the Hatch Act would have to be amended, as I would view it, is if the District employees stayed within the U.S. Civil Service. Ms. JosEpHsoN. What about persons who work for the Federal Gov- ernment who are residents here? Mr. HOGAN. Well, that would call `for an amendment of the Federal Act, would it not? Ms. JOSEPHSON. Well, our position is that-we feel that if an amend- ment to the Federal act is necessary, we will go for that. If it's not possible, and it may not be possible for political reasons, then we feel it is more important for every resident in the District of Columbia freely to be able to participate in local political life. We would have nonpartisan election. Mr. HOGAN. Do you know how many Federal employees there are in the District of Columbia? MS. JOSEPHSON. Resident? Mr. HOGAN. Yes. Ms. JOSEPHSON. I have no figure. I just know personally, I have many friends who are. Mr. HOGAN. Well, I wonder if the number of Federal employees in the District of Columbia who would be precluded from participating in the local elections would be any greater than, let's say, in Arlington County or Fairfax County? Do you happen to know? They are precluded now, just as prospectively you `are suggesting the District of Columbia residents might be affected if the Hatch Act is not amended. Ms. JOSEPHSON. Well, I assume that the proportion here is high be- cause the Federal Government together with District government, are two major employers whereas in surrounding jurisdictions, particu- larly around the beltway, you have many private industrial research and development operations and so on. We also probably have a high proportion of the lower level Federal and District Government em- ployees resident in the District. I'm thinking about people, for example, employed by the Govern- ment Printing Office. I do remember that was one of the problems with the proposed relocation. Mr. HOGAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe we can-I'll speak to Mr. Nelsen. Maybe we can get those figures and insert them in the record at a later time. Ms. JOSEPHSON. Yes, I think it would be good. Mr. HOGAN. Let me just ask a couple of quick questions. PAGENO="0171" 167 The information follOws: FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION District of Columbia National capi- tal region Civilian employment' Military employment2 171, 899 18, 470 295, 385 72, 221 Total employment 190, 369 367, 606 `As of Dec. 31, 1971. Includes only agencies with 2,500 or more employees. These figures exclude CIA, NSA, and tem- porary Christmas d$sistants of the U.S. Postal Service. `As of June 30, 1972. Sources: U.S. Civil Service Commission, Department of Defense. The Nelsen Commission also addressed the question of the service areas. Do you know how the service areas were established in the District of Columbia initially? Ms. JosEPHsoN. Yes. Mr. HOGAN. Are you satisfied that they are-that they were estab- lished in a rational, intelligent, totally satisfactory manner? Ms. JosEPHsoN. I should preface my response by saying that I was part of the office, Community Services, and was the person responsible for implementing that program so that- Mr. HOGAN. Well, maybe we'd better not pursue this. Ms. JOSEPHsON. I can tell you how it wa~s done but a qualitative judgment- Mr. HOGAN. Let me just say, if you read the Commission report that relates to this, there were two members on the staff of the Commission who were instrumental in presumably submitting some of the base data to the District government prior to the time they established their service areas and the Nelsen Commission's recommendations were that these service areas, as established, be given a thorough review at this time to determine whether the Mayor and the District government might not wish to alter them some but at the time the Nelsen Commis- sion was sitting. I believe the city council established the election wards, did they not? Ms. JOSEPHSON. The wards? I don't believe so. There was initial division into four, which was, you know, initially prepared, but to my knowledge, they still have not adopted any method of- Mr. HOGAN. Well, there were hearings down in the District Build- ings, as I recall, and.I can check to see. what action was taken on that. Did you appear at that time to indicate what your position was as related to- Ms. JOSEPHSON. The city council wards? No. No, I did not. Mr. Hoci~N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you and thank you so much, Ms. Josephson and Mr. Fertig, for a very able and specific and helpful testimony. At this time, we will call to the witness stand Mr. Walter McArdle, president of the board of trade, accompanied by Mr. Clarence Arata, executive vice president of the Washington Board of Trade. PAGENO="0172" 168 STATEMENT OP WALTER P. McARDLE, PRESIDENT, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON BOARD OP TRADE, ACCOMPANIED BY CLARENCE AR.ATA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Mr. McARDLE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Waiter F. McArdlle, appearing here today in my capacity as president of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade. As many Members of Congress are aware, the board of trade is an areawide organization composed of some 4,000 business and professional leaders in this corn- inunity representing over 1,300 firms. As the chairman has indicated, Mr. Clarence Arata, who is the executive vice president of the Board, is with me. We appreciate the opportunity that you are giving us today to discuss with you our thinking on the matter of self-determination for the citizens of the District of Columbia. As my predecessor president of the board of trade, Mr. John Stadt- ler, stated in his remarks before the Committee on the District of Co- lumbia last year, more has been said and written about self-determina- tion or home rule than on any other subject affecting the District of Columbia. Out of all this discussion there have been developed many opinions and theories on just what should be the best form of government for the District, varying from no change at all to statehood. Further evidence of the conflicting opinions on this subject became clear in the last session of Congress when there were introduced at least 17 separate pieces of legislation attempting to find the answer to this perplexing problem. Already in this session there are at least seven bills dealing with the same matter. The board of trade has concerned itself with this subject over many years. We recognize now, as you do, that we are discussing a matter of great import to this great Federal City and the ultimate outcome will have a tremendous bearing on the future of this,. the most im~ portant city in the world. We hope that we can share with you some of the thinking of our membership and provide you with the opinions of some of our leading members who have long made a study of this entire subject. Let me say at the outset that we deeply appreciate the time and energy and conscientious consideration which the Committee on the District of Columbia and its various subcommittees give to our local problems. An excellent example of the deep thought Members of Congress put into this subject, this matter of self-determination, is the far-reaching set of questions which you distributed to the board of trade and, we assume, many other organizations and individuals in the District of Columbia. This material is permitting us all the onnortumty to con- shier new concepts and new arrnroaches to solving this problem. Immediatelyunon vece~vin~ those ciuestions from you. I took advan- tage of the opportunity to appoint an extremely strong and capable committee composed of men who have had long background and experience on the subject of home rule for Washington. This committee is currently at work preparing for the board of trade specific answers to the specific questions raised. At this juncture, PAGENO="0173" 169 I would like to request that the record on these hearings be held open for a reasonable period of time in order that a full and approved statement of the board of trade position on these points can be sub- mitted to your~ subcommittee for its consideration. I can assure you that we will not long delay in getting our comments to you, but we do need more time to give you the benefit of our best thinking. Mr. FAUNTROY. Without objection, that will be done. Mr. MCAuDLE. Thank you very much. [The material referred to follows:] EXCERPT FROM STATEMENT OF WALTER F. MOCARDLE, PRESIDENT, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, APRIL 23, 1973 A basic question asks what legislative powers should be transferred from the Congress to the local government. Our response is that all legislative powers of a local nature should be transferred to the local government after reviewing care- fully the recommendations of the Nelsen Commission on this subject. They are worthy of our complete attention and consideration. We acknowledge the authority given Congress by the Constitution to exercise exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. However, we recognize at the same time that the District of Columbia is a mixed jurisdiction legis- latively, being a combination state, county, and muniëipality. Therefore, a city council or similar legislative body is the institutiOn which should enact the Dis- trict's laws and regulations, those not specifically reserved to the United States Congress. In this context we recommend that there be an elected city council-or legis- lative body-of 13 in number, one representing each of the eight wards in the District and five members elected at-large. We recommend that elections be held every fourth year on the day coinciding with the election of the President and Vice President of the United States. These legislators should be elected by partisan ballot and their term of office should be for a period of four years. The next question raised would then concern the chief executive of the city, how he is chosen and the extent of his powers. We support the election of the chief executive of the District of Columbia on a partisan, city-wide ballot and also a term of office for four years, with a maxi- mum of two consecutive terms. The chief executive's powers should be similar to those of a mayor, and he should have the authority to name a competent professional executive who could be designated either as the "city manager" or "city executive" or "deputy mayor." The next logical question, of course, would relate to the judiciary of the city. We recommend that Superior Court Judges be nominated by the Mayor and confirmed by the city council; that the judges who serve on the D.C. Court of Appeals be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate; and, of course, Federal Court Judges be nominated by the President as in all other juris- dictions of the UnitedStates. We recommend further that the term of D.C. Court of Appeals and Superior Court Judges be for a period of 10 years. Of paramount importance to the effective operation of this city is the question of the proper handling of its fiscal affairs. The Board of Trade has always stood for complete financial stability in the operation of the District Government The budgetary process of the District of Columbia should be simplified. The complexity of `baying the myriad budget programs examined at an agency or department level; by the Mayor; by'tbë City Council, by the Office of Management and Budget followed by a re examination in many cases is cumbersome indeed Then the budget is reconsidered by bOth theHouse and the Senate Subcommittees on Appropriations for the District of Columbia As a result of this outdated system it is not possible for the parties in~ olved always to obtain approval of a budget until the District is well into another fiscal year. PAGENO="0174" 170 The Nelsen Commission recognizes this pi~oblem, and we endorse the following ~which appears on Page 451 of the Report: "The very size of the Federal Payment plus the annual funding provided through Federal grants would seem to assure some form of continuing Federal involvement in District Government affairs. Regardless of the extent of Federal involvement, however, the Commission believes the District Government does not have that level of control over the management of its fiscal affairs where all Congressional review could be eliminated and the District cast fiscally apart from the Federal Government. What is clear is that an increasingly active pro- gram of permitting greater freedom in making detailed budgetary decisions at the local level can be undertaken on a planned strengthened budget and fund controls within the District Government and within the various District agencies. The Commission's budetary recommendations support this positive course. "In summary, the Commission feels that a diminution of detailed Congressional ~`line-item" control over the District Government's budget will occur, and, in fact, be accepted by the Congress following a period designed to establish an improved bridge of mutual confidence between the Congressional Committees and their staffs and the District Government." Since time for a study on all the District's budgetary processes was not avail- able to us we recommend consideration of the generalized statement as it appears above. A further corollary question in the fiscal area of course must relate to the Federal Payment. Again the Nelsen Commission Report states "The Fiscal relationship between the District of Columbia and the Federal Government has always been difficult to define yet alone quantify." We concur with this statement. The Board of Trade's position has always been that sufficient Federal Pay- ment to the District of Columbia is imperative to the success of self determina- tion and without a proper formula provision self government will fail in this Nation's Capital. An appropriate procedure would be to refer the amount of the Federal Pay- ment to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget with the following in mind: That it may be based on a percentage of Congressionally-approved financial re- quirements for the District for any fiscal year after a determination that effec- tive revenue-producing efforts have been made to keep the District's income at a reasonable level. We refer once again to the thoughtful comments of the Nelsen Commission RepQrt: "The Commission recommends that the Federal Payment should: be predicta- ble; operate to encourage District efforts to raise more revenues; use the prior year authorization level as a base: operate to avoid wide fluctuations impacting adversely on the District's ability to plan and finance operations; and, to the extent possible, reflect the unusual costs to the District of its role as the Nation's Capital. "The Commission recommends that once the District is granted the authority, subject to Congressional veto, to set the rates for all existing taxes and charges, as recommended by the Commission, it should conform its overall revenue effort as closely as possible to that of comparable metropolitan centers, taking into consideration its relationship with its immediate environs. "The Commission recommends that the Congress continue to authorize the Federal Payment at least one fiscal year in advance. "The Commission recommends that the Office of Management and Budget spe- cifically recommend and. justify the amount of the authorization and appropria- tion for each Federal Payment. In determining such amount, the Office of Management and Budget should consider, among others, the factors bearing on the proposed Payment level as discussed on page 510." (See exhibit attached for in- formation on Page 510 of the Nelsen Commission Report.) In our opinion, practically every local revenue source has been tapped to reach the District of Columbia's annual obligation with the exception of one-sorne form of reciprocal tax. While this latter tax hasbeen a matter of considerable Congressional and local discussion, it is not as unique as some have suggested. As a matter of fact,, it is a relatively common practice in various parts of the country. On the question of the electoral process, we recommend that all public officials wlthin the Executive Branch should be appointed by the Mayor. The legislative and judiciary branches should be empowered to appoint their respective staffs. PAGENO="0175" 171 Of course, the matter of elections raises questions concerning the applicability of the Hatch Act. Without exhaustive study, we are not competent to comment on what changes should be made in the election laws to accomplish the various objec- tives suggested by these questions. However, the peculiar nature of the District of Columbia jurisdiction-the fact that so many of the employees in the District work either for the Federal or the District governments-will require adjust- ments in the Hatch Act to liberalize its provisions to enable more citizens of the District of Columbia to engage in a greater degree of political activity. How- ever, any District of Columbia or Federal employee, running for public office shall resign his position unless serving at such time in an elective position. We have indicated previously that we recommend a mayor/council form of government for the District. The Mayor should have strong and complete author- ity in the executive field and the city council-or legislative body-should have comparably strong authority in the legislative field. We further recommend that the legislative branch be unicameral. We are aware of many questions being raised concerning the necessity of re- taining the multitudinous agencies, departments, boards, etc., within the present structure of the District Government. Our answer is that the Nelsen Commission has researched these situations quite thoroughly, and we recommend strongly that full consideration be given to the recommendations of the Nelsen Report. Finally, we again want to refer to the statement within the United States Constitution which grants Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by the cession of the particular states, and the acceptance of Congress be- come the Seat of Government of the United States." It is within this overall grant of power by the Constitution to the Congress that the relationship between the Federal Government and the District Government must be considered. Any disputed areas as to what constitutes the "federal interest" will be determined, from time to time, by the Congress of the United States, the courts, and the Executive Branch. Accepting that as a basic concept, the "federal interest" is identified as posi- tive, limited only to that degree of autonomy which the Congress is willing to cede to the local government. We repeat what we have said previously, the Board of Trade believes that the first meaningful step towards self government must be to provide the District of Columbia with voting representation in both the House and the Senate. With that as a condition precedent, we reiterate our fositive positions as follows: I. That the Board of Trade is in favor of local self-government; II. That implicit in any form of self government is the safeguard of an appro- priate, adequate and equitable Federal Payment formula with full recognition of existing future obligations; III. That the District government be permitted legislatve authority in those areas ceded by the Congress; IV. That the District government be given such budgetary control as is neces- sary for efficient city management; and V. That a Congressionally-appointed Charter Commission be named promptly to review and recommend the best form of government possible for the District of Columbia. In conclusion, we believe that if the recommendations made by the Metro- politan Washington Board of Trade are followed, the federal and local interests will be reasonably clear and self-government will be successfully served. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen1 we appreciate the time and attention you have given us. Mr. MCARDLE. We recognize that you are not considering local problems in a parochial sense, since Washington is also a Federal city, the Capital of ~ur Nation. Nor can we escape the fact that the Consti-~ tution specifically grants Congress the power "to exercise legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district, not exceeding 10 miles square, as may, be the cession of the particular States, and the accept- ance of Congress become the seat of Government of the United States." PAGENO="0176" 172 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, you gave active and effective support to the efforts of Citizens for the Presidential Vote for the District of Columbia. Through your efforts, and strongly sup- ported by the board of trade, Congress took favorable action on the 23d amendment to the Constitution which~ of course, was subsequently ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the States. We consider this a milestone in District of Columbia history- giving our residents the right to cast their ballots for the President and Vice President of the United States. While this action was a project long endorsed by the board of trade, we have also striven for a corollary and, hopefully, a companion measure-that of full voting representation in the House and Senate. A step towardthe realization of this goal was taken when District residents were permitted the opportunity to elect their own nonvoting delegate in the House of Representatives. We believe having this delegate in the House, as a demonstration of representation effective- ness, is solid proof that complete effectiveness would be achieved by voting representation in both Chambers of Congress. Therefore, gentlemen, we urge that as a first priority appropriate legisl'ttion be enacted which would provide the District of Columbia with voting representation in both the House and the Senate. I would like to reiterate here, in addition to this premise, that the board of trade's position is-and this is as it was presented by Mr. Stadtler (1) that we are in favor of local self-government; (2) that implicit in any form of self-government legislation proposed should be the safeguard of an appropriate and adequate Federal payment formula; and (3) that a congressionally appointed charter commis- sion be named as soon as possible to review and recommend the forms such home rule. should take. We feel that within these dimensions and with the~ comments we will supply you at a later date, an effective form of self-determination can be established for the District of Columbia We would anticipate that any form of government recommended for the District of Columbia would take advantage of the very valuable recommendations made in the Nelsen Commission report. The board of trade applauded the creation of the Nelsen Commission and we also applaud the report as being the soundest and most thoughtful anal ysis of District problems yet produced Its recommendations, aimed at improving the efficiency; economy, and service of the District of Columbia government, should be given proper exposure, extensive implementation, and adequate testing of maior management alterations Our final word about our suggestion for a charter comthission ;. under no circumstances does this imply unwarranted Or unnecéssáry delay in .providinghorne rule. A major congressional and community effort can brine these obiectives into being prOmptly And I assure you that the bo'ird of trade is willing and, I believe, able to supply a maior input mto the community effort We offer the resources of the board of trade to assist in any way possible Thank you Mr FAUNTROY Thank you very much, Mr McArdle, and we will now entertain inquiries from the members. PAGENO="0177" 173 Mr. Landgrebe? Mr. LANDGREBE. Turning quickly, Mr. McArdle, to your fourth page in which you itemize and list your major goals toward home rule, you say we are in favor of local self-government. We have rehashed that. I think you were here when I discussed that with the former speaker. Mr. MCA.RDLE. Yes, I was. Mr. LANDOREBE. And the more I hear about it, the more I hear about it, the more I think it is sort of a myth. But, No. 2, you state that this premise should-your position is that implicit in any form of self- government legislation proposal should be the safeguard of an appro- priate and adequate Federal payment formula. Now, this seems to be one of the real sort of equal interest with self- determination and home rule for almost anyone who has sat in the witness chair or given testimony here. No. 2, this idea of adequate Federal payment, who should deter- mine what that Federal payment would be? Who should have the last wOrd in determining what the Federal payment should be? Mr. MCARDLE. I think the determination of it, Mr. Landgrebe, should be a determination based on understanding recommendations, a study between the Congress and the people of the District, in the form of a government with input, of course, from citizens. But we have, over a period of time, at the board of trade, held that, taking `all of the factors of the Federal Government's operations in Washington and its requirements for the various services that occasional costs for the running of the government, that payment by the Federal Govern- ment ought to be in the nature of 40 percent `of the operating budget of the District of Columbia. Mr. LANDOREBE. Has'the board of trade of'this great `city ever had to determine what the Government, what the proximity of the Govern- ment' in relationship `to the city,, what it means in dollars to the tourist traffic `by 20 million people `a year? Is this city that much dependent on the Government? In direct relationship to the request for the demands for home rule is also a `demand fOr just as strong and `lońd and clear that there be a guaranteed annual payment by the Federal Government based on s~inething, but~ usually providing fOr 40 percent or more of the city' government's budget.' It seems to me that the chamber of commerce, the board of trade or whatever you čall it down here in this commun- ity- Mr. MCARDLE. Board of trade. Mr. LANDGREBE. I have been' a `board' `of trade man thyself for many' y~ars.'i~am' `a' ~trbng' advocate in "keeping cities green. But is' it not possible `for this `city to `thri* and' to exist `with a little less concern, a little less emphasis' on' `what `they are `going to sock the Federal Gov~ ernment 2 After all, the Go~ ernment is the people of the whole United States Does anyone ever think what the Government means to the people out here ~ Mr MCARDLE Yes, indeed we have 97-527-73-pt. 2-12 PAGENO="0178" 174 Mr. LANDGREBE. Other than just a place to tap resources, increasing, spiralling year after year with-in my humble opinion living in the District, driving around the District, with no noticeable improvement in the services to this community. It would seem to. me that the board of trade would be. particularly interested in where this fantastic amount of money is going in this budget that has increased fantastic- ally over a ten year period. Personally. I do not know, I cannot see where it is going, except to more payrolls downtown: 40~000, 42,000, SO I do not know if I am asking a question, or if I am just expressing an honest concern, that. if you wish to try to explain to me why it is that people say, give me freedom, Dad, give me the car for tonight, give me enough money to go to some distant city to spend the money. What is the city's obliga- tion in this whole, overall picture.? Mr. MCARDLE. Congressman, you could not be talking to somebody more interested in rights and obligations, because I believe they can come. and 1 think they can come together at any particular time. The board of trade is very much interested in the effect of the Federal Government, located as it is here, because it is an integral part, and Washington would not be Washington without it. It is a most unique city. We are very interested in seeing that tourist attractions-this is the first part of what you were saying-are moved and are carried on to such a degree, down to the benefits of the treasury of the city, and the individuals who are here, both business and employed because of such trade. There is over $1 million a day that comes in on the average to Washington in the form of monies through conventions and people visiting people here. We are very much interested in seeing that the people who are here are folded into an entire panoramic picture of Federal government, local government, and commerce in general, as well as inhabitants here. Mr. LANDGREBE. All right, we will proceed for a couple of minutes- I have to make a phone call for just a little bit-but trying to finish your statement now- Mr. MCARDLE. Yes, quickly. For instance, the District receives over $26 million in taxes just from people coming intŕ Washington. Now, we have considerable amounts of figures on this kind of thing. We made studies on it; we are very much interested that this be a great city and that our people be able to live well here. The board is dedicated to the proposition that Washington be a city in which we can live, we can do business and we~ can recreate well and in accordance with the general standards. Believe me, Mr. Congressman, we are not the least bit interested in extending what I gather is the far reach of what you say when you say, give me and see where I can go. We are much in dismay that the Federal Government make a proper payment but that that proper~ payment be properly used and it be folded into an entire~ system so that Washington is a better place to live. Mr. LANDGREBE. All right. I will state one more question briefly, and you will have to giveme a brief answer. How will home rule- and I am not talking about emotithialismn; I am not talking about pride; I am talking about real services to peo- PAGENO="0179" 175 pie, quality of life, protection, progress, prosperity, happiness, free- dom-how do you conceive of home rule bringing about an improve- ment in, say, just the safety of the people of this community alone? How will this come about? Mr. MOARDLE. That is a very good questidn; that is a very complex question. In a nutshell, I would say, I would hope that just as the ownership of something gives somebody the responsibility to handle that thing for the good of that community, that utilization of a home rule or self-determination would be used the same way by our people, that they would accept more responsibility than they have to date accepted. Mr. LANDGREBE. That is the optimistic view. Mr. MOARDLE. Of course it is. Mr. LANDGREBE. And the other side, the pessimistic view, which I have continued to take, is that we can develop a political machine here that is so powerful that the people of this city would suffer rather than prosper under this situation. Mr. MOARDLE. You know, Congressman, that there has been home rule in the past and we have had a whole succession of changes over the history of the Republic, and I would think that we have open to us, the possibility, if there were things done that resulted in the things that you are portending that there could be changes made to square it away. But I would hope we feel that the addition of home rule would be .a good thing in the District. Mr. LANDGREBE. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve further questioning until the board of trade comes in with their formal proposal, and I will try to be here loaded with questions. Mr. MOARDLE. Thank you, the questions are good. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Landgrebe, you will be back? Mr. LANDOREBE. Yes. Mr. FAtTNTROY. Now, Mr. McArdle, you-in a specific answer to a specific question which Mr. Landgrebe posed, you said that your assessment of the tax yield of the tourist attractions is $26,000? Mr. MCARDLE. $26 million. Mr. FAIJNTROY. $26 million a year, out of, let us see now-$1 million would be 1 percent of the billion dollar budget, right? Mr. MCARDLE. Yes. 1~1r. FAUNTROY. So that $26 million would be about one-quarter, would be about one- Mr. MCARDLE. You are talking about, something in the neighborhood of $350, $400 million a year that tourists bring in. Mr. FAUNTROY. You are not talking about the tax yield? Mr. MCARDLE. No; I am talking about $26 million direct taxes that are paid. Mr. FAUNTROY. Taxes? Mr. MCARDLE. Yes. Mr. FAUNTROY. So that the contribution to the cost of running the city, which we realize is roughly- Mr. McAiwr~ (continuing). A quarter of 1 percent. Mr. FAUNTh0Y. A quarter of 1 percent, which is what I had figured out. I wanted that to be clearly stated on the record. PAGENO="0180" 176 Mr. MOARDLE. Actually, on that kind of a basis, it would be two- thirds of 1 percent. Mr. FAUNTROY. Two-thirds of 1 percent, that is the accurate figure, two-thirds of 1 percent of what we realize for- Mr. MOARDLE. That is direct taxes only coming in, but in addition to that, there are kinds of other tax yields that are gained from that. Mr. FAUNTROY. Such as? Mr. MCARDLE. WelL such as real estate taxes, by virtue of the fact that you have the hotels and the restaurants, stores, and so on, the whole host of things like this, and we would be happy to supply that if you would like it. Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes; I think it is very important to understand. Now, you do agree, do you not, that the Federal presence here not only brings money in but also requires an enormous amount of public services. Mr. MOARDLE. Of course it does. Mr. FAUNTROY. Delivered by the local government, for which there is not now adequate Federal payment to cover. I do not think there is any question about that, and we must look to businessmen of this community, to the residents of this community for 80 percent of the cost of delivering all the services to both the Federal and the local government. There is no question but that the Federal Government does not con- tribute the share that it should, and thus your recommendation as the board of trade that that be in the neighborhood of 40 percent. Mr. MOARDLE. That is right; you put it very well. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you. I am sorry Mr. Landgrebe is not here to hear it put together. Mr. MCARDLE. I think actually Mr. Landgrebe gets around, in his premises, he gets around to a conclusion that comes to the same point. Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes, well that is wonderful. What would you think a congressionally appointed charter com- mission could come up with that the District Committee, as those designated by the Members of the Congress, to become knowledgeable on the affairs of the District, together with persons like yourself appearing before meetings like this could not come up with? Mr. MOARDLE. Well, I would feel, just as the Nelsen Commission report, that a study would allow a much wider study and a much wider group of information and data to be moved in that I am afraid might not be done on a short hearing with the kinds of questions that are in your 15 basic questions, which really amount to about 100 ques- tions, I guess. I think it is kind of an attempt to oversimplify the thing, and I think that a study commission would have a much better chance to come out with something that would be less to the end, for example, of the point that Mr. Landgrebe was making. V We would be able to get past some of the problems that I am sure he oversimplified, because he did say he was trying to shorten his question, but the question before that was a beauty It covered the waterfront, but it was good, and I think that a commission would have the opportunity to go into all of the intricacies and all of the complexities of a total picture. Thisis: much too big a thirigfór Us to PAGENO="0181" 177 bein a position of moving quickly and then some years later say, no this was a terrible mistake; we ought to redo it, and starting all over again. I just think that it is that kind of thing. I think it would basically have more integrity as a study and very probably would come up with much better reasoning and I would think more sound conclusions than if done in a smaller committee. Mr. FAUNTROY. This has certainly troubled me: I just wondered what now needs to be studied? I am really serious about that. We are grappling with what the Federal formula should be, and how it should be reached, and we have had some very good testimony from a number of groups on- Mr. M0AnrLE. We think what we finally come up with will be very good. Mr. FAUNTROY. That is what I know. I am very confident that what the board of trade is going to come up with in response to those 15 questions is going to be very substantive, and I just wonder what more you might expect of a group; you ~say a congressionally ap- pointed charter commission, I see. I just don't know what more may come up from a group that was appointed, that had the privilege of having been appointed by the Congress to do this. Mr. ARATA. May I interject a thought here, Mr. Fauntroy? Mr. FAUNTROY. Certainly. Mr. ARATA. One of the thoughts we had on that also was that as active participants within this study commission could be some of the best brains and best minds in this whole United States who are familiar and cognizant of municipal problems, such as taking people out of, let us say, the National League of Cities experts, the best brains they have; out of the U.S. Conference of Mayor's group and many of these municipally oriented organizations or associations; famous orga- nizations like Brookings or Council for Studies here in the District could give their input. This is not something that could slow it down. As a matter of fact, it could speed it up, in order to get their best thinking, their best input into this kind of a problem. Mr. FAUNTROY. You understand that we have requested input from these groups and I take it that if we had a Charter Commission, you would think that-of course, they would not be consultants; they would not be paid to do this, would they? The Charter Commission? Mr. ARATA. I would not think so.. I think you could get them to volunteer. Mr. FAtNTROY. That is what we are asking them to do now. They may well come forward-we won't belabor that point. Mr. M0AIWLE. I think you are right, Mr. Fauntroy, I just think that you would have a wider utilization of information and that you would come to a conclusion that probably would be a lot sounder; and I think, as I indicated, we are in no way looking for a delay on this or an unnecessary delay~ unwarranted, or anything. like that, but rather that when we do come to the conclusion; we are most sure that that conclusion is a good conclusion. Mr; FAUNTROY. Thank you. *. . Counsel? Mr. DEPUY. No questions, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0182" 178 Mr. FAUNTROY. Counsel? Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mc.Ardle, Mr. Nelson regrets that he cannot be here, but he suggested that I ask some questions of the witnesses, if I may. Have you had an opportunity to review the Nelsen Commission Report as it relates to Federal payment? Mr. MCARDLE. Only in a sketchy way, but I did hear your explana- tion to the previous witness. Mr. HOGAN. Yes. I think probably the financial stability of a community, looking at the Federal payment, is one of the most important aspects of home rule by and large, would you not agree? Mr. MCARDLE. I would, definitely. Mr. HOGAN. Now, there are some other things that impact on the Federal payment and financial condition of the District, not only as it exists, but as it is projected into the future that came to the attention of the Commission, and I wonder if you are aware of some of these things, and if you might,have some statements to make with respect to them. Mr. MCARDLE. Such as what? Mr. HOGAN. Well, for instance, the Commission, in its report; ad- dressed the question of funding of the retirement costs, especially as it relates to policemen and teachers. Currently, in 1973, the cost of the pay-as-you-go, as the term is used in actuarial parlance, the cost of that currently for calendar year 1973 runs approximately $25 million. Unless there is some action taken to change this, that is projected within about 15 years to run up to $50 million-per year, this is-and if unchecked, it will run up to approxi- mately $90 million by the year 2000. If the retirement funding of just one segment of District employees is going to fight for funds, as it were, with all of these services that this prior witness talked about, do you not have a serious financial prob- lem? I wonder if it relates to the Federal payment, or however you are going to finance this thing in the future. Mr. McAiwn~. I think you are likely to have a very serious financial problem, and more particularly, as Al Smith used to say, when you talk in terms of baloney dollars because the dollar becomes worthless and requires that many more dollars all the way along the line-and when you are talking about something that gets up into figures such as you are talking about, in over 27 years, all right, you have got a problem that is a monumenta.l one; and that, if I may, Mr. Fauntroy, is part of the reason that I think a commission study would be far better, be- cause we could get farther into that kind of thing. Mr. FATJNTROY. Well, would the Commission study change the fact? Mr. MCAIULE. That wouldn't change the fact. Mr. FAuN1'I~oY. Nor would it change if we did nothing, if we con- tinued the same form of government until 19-whatever-it-is. The fact would be that that built in rise of cost. would be there, so that I don't kiiow what we can study away the fact. Mr. McAuni~. I don't know that you can either, and I don't pro- pose to do that. PAGENO="0183" 179 What I am saying is that, with a charter commission study, that you would be able to get into the intricacies of such a question as that. It is a big one. Mr. FAUNTROY. You could establish the fact that the fact exists, and I understand that. Mr. McAI~nLE. More than that, you could bring the expertise more than a witness such as myself to bear as the people have far more ability in that area,'more actual ability, people with more basic knowl- edge of all this to work out. You only have to go to the fact that not too long ago we had 3,200 policemen. Now we have got 5,000. So that those things, arithmetically, and geometrically, are growing. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, for-perhaps for the record, the re- tirement funding picture is covered in chapter 7, volume 2 of the Nelsen Commission Report, for the purposes of the record. The District itself, at the insistence of the Commission, took this up as one of their issue analysis projects, and they address this in their Issue Analysis, An Aid To Program Decisionmaking in Urban Gov- ernmént under November 1972 date; and it is extensively covered, and the figures that I was quoting earlier are contained in this District Government report. There is an $865 million unfunded liability. Now, turning then to the debt financing of the District Government, again, I turn to the report of the Commission. This is covered on page 466, volume 2, of the report. It projects an increase in the total debt of the District Government, from 1973, going from approximately $600 million to a total debt of approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 1977. The current financing of this-the annual loan repayment require- ments currently, in the current Mayor's budget which he has sub- mitted to the Congress, that figure is carried as approximately $28 million. The interest payments alone projected for 1977 are approximately $100 million, or an increase presumably based on the statistics con- tained in the report, an increase of almost 4 times what it is today for debt financing. un `other words,, we have here, it appears, an increase of approxi- mately $75 million, perhaps, over `the next 4 years in just the debt financiiig for the District of Columbia. Now, certainly in addressing the question of home rule so that you have a viable local government, and~ so that they don't get into difficult financial straights, certainly this would have to be taken into consideration, it would appear to me, "in addressing the question of hom''e rule. Do you not agree ~ Mr. MOARDLE. Surely, of course. Mr. HOGAN. Well, we talked earlier-excuse me, Mr. Chairman- Mr. FAUNTROY. Counsel, the next witness has to be out at noon for another meeting. I wonder `if Mr. McArdle, could you remain a little while? " ` Mr. MCARDLE. I am sorry-of course I will have to, if you want me to, but I have `some people coming from New York. I am currently ,chairman of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, and we have them coming at noon up at Brookings Institute PAGENO="0184" 180 ~fr* Ho N.~i have just one:further question.. Mr. FAUNTROY. OK, if you could then submit these~other questions relating to the evidence of the inefficiency of the of the formof govern- mont .we~havč had so long, that it has resulted in all of these higher cost projections-if you submit those questions to the; board of trade, I * am sure they would be willing to submit the~n backfor the record as evidence for the need for change. Mr. HOGAN. Well; Mr. Chairman. I am not suggesting that this reflects inefficiency at all. I am just reciting some facts of what the costs are, after having discussed it with Congressman Nelsen, he suggested that I present this. Mr. FAUNTROY. I certainly understand, and appreciate that. But the whole Nelsen Commission report is a document of inefficiency. Mr. HOGAN. May I just ask one further question, Mr. Chairman? The Senate committee's report in the 92d Congress, Report No. 92- 844, which accompanied H.R. 15259, and is dated June 12, 1972, indi- cates that the Federal payment as the percentage; of tax receipts for 1972, was 401/2 percent. Were you aware of that? Mr. MOARDLE. No. I didn't think it was anything like that. I thought it was more-closer to-for the total operating budget, I thought it was closer to 32 percent. Mr. HOGAN. The factor here is the Federal payment as a percentage of tax receipts, and that is reflected in the Senate; Committee report as 401/2 percent. Mr. MOARDLE. Yes, but that is different. Forty percent then, that's 40 percent of tax receipts, and not 40 percent of the operating budget. Mr. HOGAN. That is correct. Mr. MOARDLE. So it would come closer to the 30 that I have indicated. Mr. HOGAN. So you would have it be 40 percent of the total operating budget? Mr. M0ARDLE. Right, right. Mr. HOGAN. So for this year it would be-if the total operating budget is $800 million, you would want a $320 million Federal payment? Mr. McAi~nLE. Yes. Mr. HOGAN. Then, Mr. Chairman, the Treasury Department has issued a Federal aid to States fiscal 1972 report, and in that, it lists the District of Columbia as having received a grand total of Federal aid to States including Federal payment of $563 million, and Mr. Nel- sen noted that his State of Minnesota had received only $636 million total. Mr. MCARDLE. Now you see now, this is part of the reason why I say you need a charter study, because this kind of question is really a loaded question. It doesn't state precisely what the facts are, because the Government operating budget is a billion-closer to a billion. So you are talking about not $536 million, was it, or $537 million- Mr. HOGAN. The; total grant, the Federal aid to the District of Co- lumbia-and that would include the Federal payment for 1972 is listed by the Treasury Department in their report as $563,693,000. Mr. MOARDLE. Let me say when I say Federal payment, in the form of 40 percent, that that would do it as far as the moneys that were sent to the District, but there are other payments that are made, and PAGENO="0185" 181 those other payments, in the forms of* grants and so on are included in the figures of the tax. Mr. FAUNTROY. Which every other State in the union is entitled to, which we get. * Mr. McAI~nLE. That's right. Mr. FAUNTROY. In spite of the fact that other States are not as heav- ily impacted with demand upon local resources for delivery of serv- ices to the Federal establishment. Mr. MCARDLE. Of course not. This is a Federal city, sure. Mr. FAUNTROY. That's right. Now, thank you Mr. McArdle, I didn't, want to get into a discussion of the whole question. We certainly appreciate the quality of your testimony, and really look forward `to the results that you might con- tribute. Mr. McARDLE. Thank you very much. Mr. FAUNTROY. Now, I must call at this time upon Ms. Martha V. Pennino, Chairwoman of the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. STATEMENT OP MARTHA V. PENNINO, CHAIRMAN OP THE BOARD, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OP GOVERNMENTS Ms. PENNIN0. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you have stated for the record, my name is Martha V. Pennino, and I am Chair- man of the Board of the Metropolitan Council of Governments; and I am also a member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. I am pleased to appear today in my capacity as Chairman of the Washington Council of Governments to express to this subcommittee the unanimous support of the COG Board of Directors for local self- government for the citizens of the District of Columbia. The Council of Governments-COG-is the areawide association of the region's 15 major cities and counties. Its membership covers the entire Washington standard metropolitan statistical area and all of its 3 million citizens. COG works `toward solutions to such regional problems as traffic congestion, inadequate housing, air pollution, water supply, crime and many others. In addition, COG is the regional planning organization for Metropolitan Washington. The District of Columbia Government has always been a vigorous participant in this coordination and cooperation. It is ironic that the Council of Governments should be appearing here today to endorse self-government for the District, because 16 years ago tonight the District hosted the meeting which ,established this Council of Gov- ernments. Last year the COG Board of Directors unanimously endorsed local self-government for the citizens of the District of Columbia, includ- ing control over their own fiscal affairs. Members of the COG Board, which includes representatives from each of our 15 cities and counties in COG and two State legislatures as well, were emphatic in stating the need for an elected local , governing body in the District of Columbia. PAGENO="0186" 182 It was the sentiment of the~ COG Board in that discussion that the central city in a metropolitan area of 15 major local governments, two State governments and the Federal Government must have the strong- est possible form of government for the sake of the entire metropoli- tan area, as well as for its own sake. In another touch of irony, Mr. Chairman, in our regional organization of 194 local government offi- cials, only those of the central city are not elected to their local office. Nowhere else in the United States does this apply, and the Council of Governments, through its Board of Directors, feels it should not apply here either. Yet, because of the vision and efforts of all of our governing officials, including those in the District, we have combined through COG to achieve encouraging progress in seeking to réducč the' problems which confront America's urban centers today. Even without home rule, the' District has developed the capacity to work effectively with its suburban neighbors. By working together during the last 16 years through the COuncil of Governments, the District and its neighbors have established: radio and teletype net-~ works linking area police and fire departments; a distribution formula to help allocate federally subsidized low- and moderate-income housing unit~s throughout the area on a "fair share" basis; a scientific labora- tory, set up through the District government, to analyze our air on a 24- hour-a-day basis; a guide ordinance which is the basis for air pollution laws ~tdopted in e~ erv m'Iior jurisdiction ~tnd a iegional air pollution alert system, also prepared through COG ~mutual aid agreements so police and fire departments can aid each other~ in large-scale' emergencies; express bus experiments in Maryland, `Virginia, and the District to help both city residents and suburbanites `to get' to work more easily. Many other major projects are underway, including a complete up- dating of the year 2000 plan. This is the document intended to guide the development of our region for the rest of the century. In our opinion, any home rule plan gives the District an immense op- portunity to take even greater steps forward in the future if Congress gives the District citizens their own elected government. Because of these convictions above the need for so-called home rule in the District, and in view of such progress as these examples which I have just mentioned, the Board of Directors of the Council of Governments unanimously approved ~ resolution on May 10, 19'T2, supporting local self-government for the District of Columbia. Our Board pointed out that the development of the entire Wash- ington area is directly linked to the vitality and well being of the District. Our resolution also supported the District's right to deter- mine its fiscal priorities and to raise and allocate revenues. I am pleased to submit a copy of the resolution as part of the record. The Council of Governments feels it would be presumptuous of us to support one plan of home' rule in preference to others, For that reason, Mr. Chairman, we take no position among the various plans' pending before this subcommittee. Our position is simply that the District of Columbia needs local self-government, including the right to determine its own fiscal prior- ities and to raise and allocate revenues. PAGENO="0187" 183 It is also our position that such a decision by the Congress will be a major stride forward in the affairs of our suburbs as well as in the District of Columbia. For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we local governing officials in the Council of Governments urge this subcommittee and the Congress to enact legislation establishing local self-government for the District of Columbia. * Thank you. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so very much, Ms. Pennino, for a very clear and lucid statement. We certainly appreciate the concern and interest of the Washington Council of Governments for the District of Columbia, and I want to commend you for the fine work that you are doing representing the people in your county on the county board (of supervisors. Ms. PENNINO. Thank you. Well, we sincerely feel that by taking the regional approach that we strengthen our own suburban governments, and we recognize the need for the District to have self-determination, and we feel that this not only has-as I have stated-not only helps the District, but will be beneficial to the region. We would like for this to be a strong region. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so very much. I will turn to Mr. Landgrebe for questions. Mr. LANDGREBE. Ms. Pennino, where do you reside? Where is your home? Ms. PENNINO. I live in Vienna, Va., which is a small town of about 17,000 inhabitants~ in the County of Fairfax. Va. Mr. LANDGREBE. And where is your office, of this Metropolitan Coun- cil of Governments? Ms. PENNINO. My office for the ~Metropolitan Council of Govern- ments, I am chairman of the Board of Directors, this is a position I am elected to by all of the members of the Council of Governments. The Council of Governments is made up of all of the elected officials of this region, the Metropolitan statistical region, which encom- passes- Mr. LANDGREBE. 294 members, I understand. Do they have an office, or do you operate from your home? Ms. PENNINO. The office is on Connecticut Avenue. Mr. LANDGREBE. Connecticut Avenue-that is your place of business, or of employment? Ms. PENNIN0. No. my place of employment-I am an elected official to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, and I have an office in f lie town of \Tjei~na. Mr. LANDGREBE. I see. But as a-you do not commute into Washington, then, to carry on your business particularly. Ms. PENNINO. No. I come to Washington, I would say, on the aver- age of one time a week to represent the point of view of the Council of Governments; today is the regular meeting day of the board of direc- tors of that council, and I will be presiding over the board, in about a half hour. Mr. LANDGREBE. Do you feel that this right of determination that you so strongly foster, that the people who would be elected to run the government ought to have control over raising the money outside of PAGENO="0188" 184 what the Federal Government-should they have a right to levy taxes On what they feel t.hey ought to levy taxes on? Ms. PENNINO. Yes. We feel that no citizen of the United States should be denied the right of self-determination in electing his elected officials, and that the elected officials should be representative of the people. It could hardly be direct representation if the elected official did not have the right of taxation, because it is through the raising of funds and the expenditure of those funds that you carry out the programs that the people sup- port. Mr. LANDOREBE. Well, wouldn't it seem reasonable to finance a city- now, there has been sort of an equal discussion here, self-determina- tion and Federal funding. I represent 475,000 people in Indiana. Some of them come here to visit, to do business. But they do not, are not directly employed in the District of Columbia Wouldn't it seem reasonable then that we-that this group should be sort of mandated to put on a commuter tax, so that the people who live in your com- munity, Fairfax, Prince Georges and other communities and sur- rounding areas who come into Washington who really reap the bene- fits of employment or business in this town, wouldn't it seem reason- able that as we say-now we are going `to talk about 40 percent. Wouldn't it be reasonable that if we talk about cutting it to 30 per- cent, and making up the difference with commuter taxes from you people around the fringes~ of the city, who come here and express such a deep concern for the welfare and the prosperity of this corn- munity? Ms. PENNINO. Well, that issue has been discussed a number of times and the phantom of commuter tax, I think has been raised time and time again. I would like to point out to you that there is always a possibility of reciprocal taxation. I hope that such would not occur. Also, with the dispersal of the Federal Establishment out into the suburbs, in the Geodetic Survey has established their main function, or will be functioning in the Virginia suburbs in the new town of Reston; and I believe something like 30 percent of the employees of the National Geodetic Survey are residents of the District. They will be commuting to Virginia to work. We find that there' is a two-way commuter effort in the morning. All of the rush isn't into the innercity. There is a rush developing out to the suburbs; not to Virginia, but to many of the establishments in Maryland. It appears as time goes on, there is going to be more employment in the suburbs for the innercity residents, and I don't think that the commuter tax is a real threat. Mr. LANDOREBE. What county do you live in? Fairfax? ~ Ms. PENNIN0. I live in Fairfax County. I am an elected official to the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County. Mr. LANDGREBE. There are a number of Federal installations out there in the county. Ms. PENNINO. Right. Mr. LANDOREBE. Do you have Government, Federal payments other than impacted aid for the schools? Ms. PENNINO. We have a number of Federal payments in the way of categorical grants. We are looking toward revenue sharing. We have PAGENO="0189" 185 been told, however, that the aid for educational aid, impacted funds, are going to be cut back if not completely denied. We know that funds that have already been allocated for sewer and water and for housing, have been impounded. We recognize that we get many benefits in the way of Federal funds. These are taxes that come from the local level and go to the Federal level, and then are returned, based on a formula, and based on need. We also have the right to tax and raise money locally. Now, I heard part of the, discussion about the Federal grants that the innercity receives; but with the innercity, with the lack of the right to decide its financial affairs and to set its own budget, and to raise funds, there are many areas of taxation that are denied to it. Mr. LANDGREBE. You have Federal Government employees, Federal Government officials living in Maryland who are members of your or- ganization, don't you? Ms. PENNINO. Yes, I do. Mr. LANDGREBE. What is their feeling on retrocession? Are they strongly- Ms. PENNIN0. I don't know what you mean by retrocession. Mr. LANDGREBE. Do you-simply for this city to become part of the State of Maryland. Ms. PENNINO. This is an issue that- Mr. LANDGREBE. Subject to the State laws, such as the people of Indiana are subject to the State laws of Indiana, do you think this city should be set out as being unique, having just self-determination with no layers of government above? - Ms. PEN~INO. This is an issue that our board of directors has not discussed. Mr. LANDGREBE. And should we subject the people of this community to a situation such as that, where they do not have the protection of layers of government other than just their city government? Ms. PENNINO. I could not present to you a position for the COG Board of `Directors, because it has not taken a position on that issue. I could only give you my own personal opinion. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, all right, let's have it. -Ms. PENNINO. My own personal opinion, I do not endorse the concept.. Mr. LANDGIIEBE. Well, one more question. Have you ever traveled to, say, Gary, md., where people have the right to vote? And there are people who are elected to office and have responsibilities of managing a city, have really created sort of a wasteland out there. It is not all that far out there. If you want to see what happens when elected officials under certain ,circumstances get hold of the power- and I am telling you, it's not only white people that suffer in these cir- cumstances. There are black people, there are people of all race, creeds, and colors-vtre suffering in Gary, md., today, because of real home rule. . So I am going to insist as these hearings go on, that we maintain a balance, and that we look toward the results and that we try to deter- mine whether' the people generally speaking in this community are going to be happier, more `prosperous; they are going to be safer, and freer, if we move to some other government, considering particularly in this city, where there is a 7"to 1 political party registration. PAGENO="0190" 186 It would seem to me that as. we turn this city over to the 7 to 1, certainly that 1 out of 7-he can go and vote two or three times if he could, and he still will have absolutely, totally no vote in the operation of the city-totally no weight at all. . Mr. FAuxmoY. Ms. Pennino, before you answer the question, let the record show that the gentleman from Indiana. should know, if he doesn't know, th~ the problem in Gary is a problem of major indus- tries pulling out. ~ust as there are some at this table, in this Congress, who would have the major industry pull out of the District of Co- lumbia, and not pay its fair share of the cost of running Government. I don't know if he means by the 1 in 7, the white in 7, or the 1 Republican in 7. Mr. LAXDGREBE. I was referring to political parties. Mr. FAUNTROY. Neither of those have any reference whatever to the question of what it takes to run the community and that is money,. and when U.S. Steel pulls back into Gary, and becomes involved in the paying its share for the running of that community, Gary will be viable whether it has a black mayor or not; whether it has a black city council or not. The District of Columbia, if the Federal Government will pay its fair share of the cost of the services required by the presence of the Federal Government, we will survive also. The question was asked to you, whether or not you had much Fed- eral impactment in your area. I wonder how many embassies you have in your area which are the guests of this Nation, by virtue of the fact that they are invited to the Nation's Capital, which embassies pay no taxes for the water that is purified that they drink, or the lights that are on the streets outside, or the streets on which they ride. How many such Federal conveniences are made available in your- Ms. PENNIN0. Well, compared to the District, very few; but we do feel the impact of Federal establishments that `are not taxable, and that was' the whole theory behind the impacted aid for education. I think one of the fallacies of-behind the impounded funds at this time, this is not an industry that is tax producing. It is governmental service, and it is just that. It is great to have the Federal establish- ment relocating out into the suburbs to take congestion off of the highways, but with the relocation come many problems, not only prob- lems of revenue from the land that otherwise would be taxable, and I know this is a tremendous problem as far as taxation in the District goes. But the employment for those persons in the inner city, and the' lack of transportation for them to get out to their jobs, and as far' as home rule goes, Congressman Landgrebe, I am a strong advocate' of home rule for my own county.. I am sure you are fully aware of the forms of county government under which we operate, where all of the powers we have'are delegated to us by the State, to carry out State rights and State responsibilities. In rapidly growing areas, I assume. such as your Gary, md., as well as our Washington, D.C., and our Fairfax County, we feel that we are on the frontiers of change, and we do not know what the prob-. lems of tomoi row will be, so therefore we cannot ask for a specific legislation. PAGENO="0191" 1S7 I think it reafl~ behooves those in power to give us local determina- tion, so that we can face up to and solve our problems as they occur, and we would ask nothing less for the District of Columbia than we ask for ourselves. Mr. FATJNTROY. Thank you for answering the gentleman's questions. Ms. PENNINO. You are very~ welcome. Mr. FATJXTROY. Counsel? Mr. DEPUY. I will pass. The witness has to go to a meetmg I believe, at noon, isn't it? Mr. FAUNTROY. Counsel? Mr. HOGAN. May I ask just one question? Ms. Pennino, Congressman Nelsen regrets that he cannot be here. Ms. PENNINO. I also regret not having the opportunity to meet him. Mr. HOGAN. Did you also indicate to Mr. Landgrebe that there are other sources of taxation and revenue that the District could generate? Ms. PENNINO. Well, I am not, and I don't want to pretend to be the expert on what types of taxation the District should consider, but there have been a number of proposals made recently, not only com- muter tax, but parking tax, things of this sort. .1 know that the District does have a s~tles tax. As one who shops here fairly often, I pay that tax. But I believe the District should have all rights of taxations that other local governments have, that they should not be denied them. Mr. HOGAN. The only reason I asked that question, Ms. Pennino, is that the Nelsen Commission had a study of this, and the principal source that the staff assistant came up with for additional tax revenue, as I recall, it was the commuter tax, was the principal source. I just thought perhaps you had some other sources, that you might enlighten us. Ms. PENNIN0. No. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FATJNTROY. Thank you, and thank you so much for a very able testimony. Ms. PENNINO. Thank you very much. It was my pleasure. Mr. FAUNTROY. Our next witness is Mr. William Lucy, chairman of the Democratic Central Committee. If you will come forward now. I also want to submit for the record petitions signed by some 200 members-200 citizens of the District of Columbia, who are respond- ing to a statement at one of our previous hearings, that a room that could accommodate 200 was just about empty, and petitioned our com- mittee saying: "We, the undersigned, would like to express our concern about the District of Columbia home rule hearings presently being held by the House District Committee. "We are dissatisfied with the time that the hearings are being held, because so many residents of the District of Columbia must work or attend school during the day." I think that's just an indication from some 200 citizens at least of their desire to be here inasmuch as recent studies have indicated that at least one-third. of those residents work full-time jobs with part-time pay. Their positions are quite involved. PAGENO="0192" 188 (The material referred to follows:) We, the undersigned, would like to express our concern about the D.C. Home Rule Hearings presently being held by the House District Committee. We are dissatisfied with the time that the hearings are being held because so many residents of the District of Columbia must work or attend school during the day. Anthony Williams, 624 MortOn PL N.E. Brenda Chase, K St. N.E. Brenda Griffin, 570 St. N.W. Waters, 518 D St. N.E. Isaac Harris, 1009 Fla. Ave. N.E. Darlene Washington, 835 Fifth St. N.E. Barbara Dukes, #12 New york Ave. N.E. O'Shelya S. Brown, 1407 Trinidad Ave. N.E. Barbara Street, 65 W St. N.W. Derrick N. Holloman, 45 Q St. N.W. Ronnie Thomas, 658 G St. N.E. Donald Cheatham, 640 L St. N.E. Beverly Gray, 1222 I Street S.E. Apt. 22 MeShaw, 8504 16th St., Silver Spring, Md. 20910 Eric Eddings, 1215 Meigs PL N.E. Reginald , 1236 New Jersey Ave. N.W. Theresa Stevenson, 1411 West Va. Ave. N.E. Thelma Jackson, 901 F St. N.E. ~eanita Pa , 1121 7th $t. N.E. 20002 Cheryl Miller, 611 7th St. N.E. 20002 Lelia Dunmore, 1504 E St. S.E. 20003 Floyd Bryan, 1760 Lang PL N.E. Fee W. Lee, 1305 H St. N.E. Sheila Carpenter, 423 6th St., N.E. Mary Parker, 705 4th St. N.W. Judy Shepkerd, 1403 Ori~en St. N.E. Frances Johnson, 222 Que St. N.W. Celestine Moore, 1007 16th St. N.E. #1 Audrey Edwards, 1234 A Simms P1. N.E. Darryl Blackwell, 1157 Neal St. N.E. Curtis Adamson, 68 Bates St. N.W. David Murray, 1134 7th St. N.E. Deborah Galery, 1127 Morse Street N.E. Isaac Harris, 1009 Fla. Ave. N.E. Phyllis R. Beckweth, Wash., D.C. Richard A. Browner, 4022 Ely P1. S.E. Frank Williams, 1108 3rd St. S.W. Bruce Cole, 101 Ridge Rd. S.E. Clayton Wood, 308 Oneida St. N.E. Sadie White, 517 K. St. N.E. Paula Noble, 1007 Mc. Ave. N.E. Nena Roberson, 819 4th St. N.E. Clauciene L. Mitchell, First & N Streets N.W. Rickey P. Peay, 1411 N.J. Ave. N.W. Michael Bolden, 1267 Owen P1. N.E. Patricia Minor, 429 3rd~ St. N.E. Dorothy Strong, 530 4th St. N.E. Penis Taippins, 1109 Montello Ave. N.E. Richard H. Boyd, 1235 16th Street N.E. Gloria Summers, 114 Const. Ave. N.E. Wayne Brown, 1240 Wylie St. N.E. Benid Stowes, 1447 Bolints St. D.C. Elvira Williamson, Wash., D.C. Charles A. Skinner, 1755 Harvard St., N.W. Gary J. Spencer, 1233 Oates st., N.E. Eric Smith, 517 5th St. N.E. Onita P. Alexander, Wash., D.C. Michele Wilson, 741 Kenyon St. N.W. PAGENO="0193" 189 Michael Bush, 709 I. St. N.E. Donna Loekson, 3437 Oakwood Terr. N.W. Evelyn Grimes, 1228 Neal St. N.E. Deborah Tabron, 1240 Neal St. N.E. Jimmy Whiting, 138 A Ave St. N.W. Linda Johnson, 130 A Ave St N.W. Mae F. Wilson, 3724 30th P1 N.E. 20018. Elaine Holland, 1212 Eye St. N.E. Albert S. Fortson III, 507 M. St. N.E. S. V. Williams, Dunbar High School. Ronald Rivers, 617 7th St. N.E. Eishel Donaldson, Dunbar Sr. High. Dennis Lanham, 1629 U. St. S.E. John EIwell, 3818 W. St., N.W. Vance Pitts, 1235 Kthden St. N.E. Leon A. Porter, 1546 3rd St. N.W. Donald B. Porter. 1238 Crittenden St. N.W. Darrell Tibbs, 4173 St. N.E. Darlene Skipwith, 520 E. St. N.E. No 301. Alberta Washington, 424 Evart N.E. No. 2 Bernard Pys, 322017 St. N.W. No. 301 Willie M. Buie, 1405 Montana Ave N.E. Ruth 0. Morris, 2317 No. Cap. St. N.E. Nora Tysinger, 653 10th St. N.E. Jackie Jones, 65 North Capt. St. N.W. Eva M. Elinkscaler, 604 7th St. N.E. B. McWhylies, 1714 Lyman P1., N.E. A. Znaught, Ave 1141 5th St. N.E. Wanda Brown, 703 K. St. N.E. Dione Harmond, 1806 L. St. N.E. Glendora Hanson, 32 0 St. N.W. 1,\Tanda Neal, 1630 Fuller St. N.W. Apt. No. 504 Maysta Truchi, 3548 Minn. Ave. S.E. Janella W. Martin, 5506 North Capitol Street, N.W. James E. Steadman, 718 K. St. N.E. Robert Ruffin, 712 7th St. N.E. Michael Alner, 1758 Lyman P1. Catherine Fortson, 507 M. St. N.E. John W. Tresciat, 1718 M Street, NE. Marion Lyles, 129 11 Street, NE. Arnell Douglas, 1268 16th Street A NE. Manya Sullivan, 1229-18th Street NE. #2. Sylvia Wright, 1228 Monte 110 Ave. NE. Sheryl Graham, 1158 Neal St. NE. Maxine Jackson, 1300 Orren St. NE. #1. Charles Kelly, 215 Florida Ave. NW. Janet Rivers, 617-7th St. NE. Beverley Ward, 1150 1st Place NW. Oidric Fensisck, 1150 1st Place NE. Lerinard Hamlett, Wash, D.C. Pinckney McCoy, 68 New York Ave. NE. Harvey Jackson, 901 F St. NE. Timothy Smith, 933 L St. NW. #503. Liptra Baird, 643 Morton P1. NE. Bernard Willey, 190.5 Lincoln Road NE. Elbert Monroe, 230 Bates St. NW. Cary Jeffers, 1193 1st Terrace NW. Donald Malley, 100 W St. NW. S Tyrone Whting, 138 D St. NW. Daphne Draughon, 231 P St. NW. Kenneth Chase, 1635 First Street NW. Miles Holcoman, 45 Q St. NW. Melvin Goochwin, 500 K NE. Hubert Johnson, 738 Harvard St. NW. 97-521---73-pt. 2-----13 PAGENO="0194" 190 James Taylor, 609 L St. NE. Wendy Smith, 62 K St. NW. Evelyn Wallace, 716 G Street, NE. Therem Pearson, 236 G St. NE. Jane A. Rivers, 617-7 St. NE. Shirley Clawson, 1434 Montello Ave. NE. Purnell Newman, 1201 Trinidad Ave. NE. Annie James, 65 M St NW. Rodney G. Dunn, 707 13th St. NE. Munzie Wooden, 1805 16th St. SE. Brenda Taylor, 1112 Rena St. NE. Mary Hamillian, 1018 K St. NE. Doris Hoskins, 1010 K St. NE. Diane Clayborne, 72 L Place NW. Yvonne Young, 2601 30th St. NE. Nick Robinson, 923 5th St. NE. Denise Herring, 473 Ridge St. NW~ Anthony Johnson, No. 13 P St. NE. Kathy Crass, 4025 St. NE. Dwight Harris, 1108 H St. NE. Darlene Byrd, 80A M St. NE. Beatrice McWhirter, 1714 Lyman P1. NE. Ophelia Jacobs, 434 13th St. NE. Wayne A. Stroman, 1410 Kennedy St. NW. Deira Seals, 1116 Orren St. NE. Glenda V. Sims, 1422 Trinidad Ave. Robinette Thurston, 633 F St. NE. S. Harley, 1750 Harvard St. NW. R. Slaughter, 632 Chaplin St. SE. Robert Reid, 1357 Childress St. NE. James Brown, 113 Pen St. NW. James Means, 1236 I St. NE. Gerald Means, 916 C St. NE. Clarence Green, 821 11th St. NE. William Wilson, 4117 Alabama Ave. SE. Rosido Black, 1321 Valley P1. SE. Carolyn Smith, 1214 Neal St. NE. John Ward, 1402 Orren St. NE. Deborah Reese, 1122 K St. NE. Gregory White, 80 P St. NW. Edward Luster 1133 3rd St. NE. Valerie Randolph, 1908 M St. NE. Michael Green, 1403 Morse St. NE. Carolyn Ford, 1641 L St. NE. Donna Brent, 1311 Oates St. NE. Bennett Dixon, 1110 Oates St. NE. Theadosia Green, 1238 Neal St. NE. Wanda Pitcher, 1418 Trinidad Ave. NE. Benee Maten, 1415 Adren St. NE. Donna Warfield, 518 6th St. NE. Darlene Padgett, 1212 Staples St. NE. Rolanda Broads, 1300 Staples St. NE. Joseph Bryant, 1406 Trinidad Ave. NE. Marlene Halley, 2208 Rand P1. NE. Ivory Murray, 2615 Sherman Ave. NW. `Joyce Bolden, 1247 Owen P1. NE. Venice Walter, 1228 Holbrook St. NE. Kathy Boyd, 603 Acker St. NE. Nancy Reed, 1300 Holbrook St. NE. No.4 Sandra Anthony, 1206 Bladensburg Rd. NE. Dorothy Barber, 1310 Queen St. NE. Clara Barksdale, 624 19th St. NE. Gloria Highstraw, 34 K St. NW. Chester Thompson, 930 14th St. SE Sheila Person, 1166 Mc~rse St. NE. PAGENO="0195" 191 Mr. FAUNTROY. Welcome, Mr. Lucy. [The prepared statement of Mr. William Lucy follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM Lucy, CHAIRMAN, D.C. DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTTEE Mr. Chairman and members of the District of Columbia Committee, I appear today as chairman of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of the District of Columbia. I am authorized by that Committee to represent, in the strongest of terms, support for Congressional enactment of meaningful legisla- tion to grant self-determination for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Appearing with me are the officers of the D.C. Democratic Central Committee and I would like to introduce them-Kenneth Kennedy, Vice-chairman; Barbara Morgan, Treasurer; and Fred Wegner, Secretary. The movement to fully enfranchise all of the citizens of this nation has been one of the high priorities for the Congress during the last decade. And the D.C. Democratic Central Committee now urges this Congress to make self- determination its number one priority. There is the dramatic evidence of the changing political life in many commu- nities and states following the enactment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The 26th Amendment brought full responsibilities and rights of citizenship to our 18-year-old citizens. We, in the District, would like those same rights ex- tended to all of our citizens. Significant barriers to voting imposed by registration laws were eliminated in the 1970 amendments to the Voting Rights Act. The barrier to real political participation by citizens of the District is the U.S. Congress. Clearly in these years of changing political awareness and instant mass com- munication, the Congress has responded with historic steps to encourage involve- ment, participation and the fullest exercise of the rights of every citizen in the complex and compelling process of democratic government. Even this week, the United States Senate is considering further ways to remove the impediments of archaic registration laws with consideration of the McGee Bill authorizing voter registration by mail. Beginning in 1956, with the election of officers of political parties, Congress has inched toward providing citizens of the District a small measure of political com- parability with the citizens of the rest of the nation. This now extends to participation in the election of the President and Vice President, the District's School Board, and in 1971, the election of a Delegate to the Congress with his limited right to participation in the House. Paralleling these developments has been a fuller participation by the District citizens in the organization of responsible political parties capable of fully sup- porting not only their role in the nominating and election processes, but equally important, their role as responsible institutions for formulating and affecting opinion on vital public issues in the community. To me, this growth and maturing of our District's political parties is another compelling reason for now authorizing full and responsible self-government to our citizens. Through participation and registration and voting, our citizens clearly indi- cated their readiness as an informed electorate to assum~e full political responsi- bilities. Like voters everywhere in our nation, there is always higher involve- ment and participation when the stakes are for real, and the elections meaning- ful. The steady rise in the number of registered voters, and the involvement we see demonstrated in the business of politics-even when it is frustrated by the lack of ultimate responsibility of presently elected officials-are clear signs that point to the political maturity of our citizens. The District of Columbia's Demo- cratic Central Committee urges this Committee to act now-this session-on legislation that will be in the tradition of the significant Congressional actions of this past decade which have expanded the door of full citizenship rights. We do not believe that there today exists any insurmountable barriers or rea- sonable objections to an orderly assumption of full rights for District citizens, including full Congressional representation and elected local government machin- ery, capable of exercising all powers essential to government of the non-federal responsibilities in the District. The following is the position of the Self-Determination Coalition which the D.C. Democratic Central Committee strongly endorse and supports. PAGENO="0196" 192 LOCAL FINANCIAL AUTHORITY Local taaing authority The new District of Columbia Government should have complete authority to establish local taxes and engage in any other revenue-raising activities which it deems necessary. The local taxing authority should include the power to set not only those taxes now established by Congress, such as the District's income tax and the sales tax, but also any new taxes, charges, or fees. The District should also be authorized to establish other income-raising methods determined appropriate. The local taxing authority for the District should be analogous to that now generally possessed by State and local jurisdictions. This comprehensive local revenue-raising authority is essential if the new District Government is to have the flexibility necessary to meet the current and future needs of tire city. Pur- suant to such authority, the new District Government would carefully review at the outset, and on an annual basis thereafter, the level and applicability of exist- ing local taxes and the desirability of any additional taxes or fees and charges. With respect to other revenue-raising authority, the District would presumably wish to examine such potential revenue items as lotteries and off4rack betting. Experience in other jurisdictions indicates that these types of revenue-producing activities should be fully explored. The local taxing authority we envision is one unhampered by any restric- tions in the enabling legislation. Recognizing that there might he certain areas -of disagreement at this point, in terms of the extent of the District's authority as it might affect individuals, activities, or organizations within the city, we would propose that any restrictions on the District's ability to raise revenue from local sources be fully recognized and accounted for in the computation of the Federal financial commitment to the District. Absent either complete local taxing authority, or appropriate recognition of a reduced local taxing base in Federal financing for the city, the District could find itself seriously hamstrung in its effort to rationally fulfill its repsonsibilities to both the local citizenry and the obligations resulting from the presence of the Federal Government. - Local borrowing authority The new District Government should be authorized to engage in public bor- rowing for the capital construction expenditures of the city. The borrowing authority should be flexible to the extent necessary to allow the city to either pledge specific revenues to a particular bond issue or to provide general borrow- ing with principal and interest paid through the use of operating funds. The District's borrowing authority, in a manner analogousto nrost state and local jurisdictions, ~hould consist of the power to issue tax-exempt bonds. In the event that Congress, through the enabling legislation, should determine that a Federal guarantee of local District bonds is preferable to tax-exempt bonding authority, then that Federal guarantee should be tied to an automttic interest- subsidy payment by the Federal Government. This interest-subsidy feature would be necessary to insure that the District be able to borrow at effective rates com- parable to those available in the tax exempt market. The District's current outstanding capital debt, which consists of long-term borrowing directly from the Federal Government, should be repayable either according to the existing payment schedules or through refinancing by the Dis- trict Government, utilizing its new borrowing authority. Speciflc provision should be made for the exclusion from the District's local debt of any outstanding oh- ligations of the Federal Government. such as the indebtedness of the National Capital Housing Authority. Those obligations are likewise "Federal obligations" within state and local jurisdictions and should not be considered local borrowing. The District's borrowing authority should be subject to a debt ceiling es- tablished by the local legislative body. The initial debt ceiling and any future changes in the ceiling should he determined by two-thirds concurrence of the full local legislative body. The District's borrowing authority should be subject to the annual budget process of the city. Local budget authority The new District Government should have complete authority to establish the local budget. This authority should be divided between the executive branch, through submission of an executive budget, and the legislative branch, through PAGENO="0197" 193 the approval process. The District budget should be balanced on the basis of all funds available to the city, with authority to engage in short-term borrow- ing in anticipation of revenue receipts. FEDERAL-DISTRICT FINANCIAL RELATIONShIP Federal payment An annual Federal pa~ment should continue to be made to the District Gov- ernment. Historically, this payment has been made in recognition of the presence of the Federal Government and its significant impact on the city. That impact was recently reviewed in detail by the Commission on the Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia. The Commission, quite correctly in our view, concluded that it is difficult if not impossible to quantify the impact of the Federal Government in the District. Rather, the Commission outlined numerous factors which underlie the Federal financial commitment to the city. Those factors include the significant amount of land, and land value, in the city exempt by virtue of Federal ow-nership, the unique limitations on the local tax base due to the relative lack of revenue- producing commercial and industrial enterprises; limitations on the District's tax base due to height limitations and other zoning restrictions; and the effect of Federal agency relocation and leasing decisions. This list of factors is illustrative of the considerations inherent in the Congressional decisions over a period of decades in providing the Federal payment for District Government operations. The Commission viewed the Federal payment as representing an equilibrium on balancing the benefits and costs resulting from the Federal presence. The result of the historical balancing and decision-making on the part of the Congress with respect to the Federal responsibility to the city is reflected today in the existing annual authorized Federal payment of $190 million. The historical perspective which has lead to the establishment of that amount appears to us to be an ap- propriate place to begin the new- Federal-District financial relationship. We would propose that the annual Federal payment be established with two objectives in mind. The first objective is a clear recognition that the payment cannot remain at a static, fixed level as the needs of the city continue to grow. Rather, the payment, as has been the case historically, should be established so as to allow for increases based in a rational manner upon the District's own revenue commitments and resources. Second, the procedure by which the Federal payment is made to the city should be automatic. Payment should be auto- matically appropriated and provided to the city on a timely basis at the beginning of each fiscal year. This feature will allow the local District Government to ac- curately predict the resources it has nvailable and proceed with its budget plan- ning and city operations in an orderly and efficient manner. In recognition of the Congressional determination of the current amount and the historical incremental increases provided by the Congress, we would propose that the enabling legislation provide in the initial year, the current authorized payment of $190 million. For the succeeding five years, that payment would automatically be recomputed to reflect an increase by the same percentage as the increase in the local general fund revenues. At the end of five years, the question of the future Federal-District financial relationship should be examined jointly by the District Government and the Congress to determine the appropriateness of this method of computation in light of the five-year experience. This proposal is designed to build on the wisdom of the prior Congressional decisions on the Federal commitment to the city, and to insure a specific pay- ment to the city for budgetary and planning needs. Eaisting obligations In order to insure that the new District Government is not unreasonably bur- dened with extraordinary expenditures as a result of expanded functions or unique circumstances, a careful review of outstanding and potential obligations should be undertaken with the objective of identifying those obligations originat- ing either in Federal commitments or a transfer of functions to the new govern- ment. These obligations should be accommodated through appropriate funding in legislation authorizing local self-government. Examples of the type of obligations to be considered in this review include the following: Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium: No payments have been made on the approximately $20 million in outstanding debt for construction of the stadium. PAGENO="0198" 194 While the District is responsible for principal and interest payments, the stadium itself is owned by the Federal Government. Recognition should be given to this outstanding obligation, possibly through some shared Federal-District method of retiring the outstanding obligations and transferring title for the stadium to the District. St. Elizabeths Hospital: With the transfer of St. Elizabeths Hospital to become a part of the comprehensive mental health programs of the local District Government, some arrangement should be devised to compensate the District for services of a Federal nature and for the absence, in the short-term, of normal Federal financial assistance for facilities of this nature. Higher Education: States and localities have proceeded with the development of higher education facilities over a lengthy period of time and in many cases with substantial Federal assistance during much of that period. Only recently has recognition been given, through the enactment of legislation, to the need for higher education facilities in the District of Columbia. This fact has resulted in significant requirements for capital outlays to provide higher education facilities in the District and those expenditures should be considered in the review which we are recommending. Personnel Systems: In certain instances the District Government has, through its operating budget, contributed significant amounts to various Federal personnel retirement systems. With the creation of a unified local personnel system and local retirement funds, appropriate reimbursements should be made into those funds in recognition of past District contributions to the Federal retirement system. Similarly, consideration should be given to the funding needs of new retirement funds for District police and firemen. Federal reimbursements Finally, a mechanism should be established to take care of future situations in which the local District Government must obligate itself, because of a request or action by the Federal Government, to expenditures uniquely related to Federal activities. Some of these expenditures may be on a periodic basis such as the local costs associated with inauguration of the President. Others may be associated with unforeseen events involving the Federal Government such as mass deinonstra- tions in the city. Generally, these expenditures are likely to occur as the result of requests by the Federal Government to develop either local programs or local facilities to serve the Federal Interest. Typically, these expenditures have not been included in the annual Federal payment to the city because of their uniqueness arid the fact that they are difficult to anticipate. A reimbursement device will give the Federal Government greater flexibility to utilize District Government resources as may be appropriate to meet specific Federal needs. The determination as to the appropriate amount to be paid by the Federal Government for these types of unique expenditures should, in the first instance, be made by the District Government and then be subject to audit by the Gen- eral Accounting Office. A determination as to actual appropriation and payment should be made through the creation of an advisory body consisting of repre- sentatives from both the Congress and the District Government. Upon a deter- mination by that body as to the appropriate sum, appropriation to the District should be on an automatic basis in the same manner as the annual Federal payment. THE FEDERAL ROLE The Federal government would best be served by adopting legislation dele- gating the full powers of state and local government to the citizens of the District of Columbia. The delegation of legislative, executive, fiscal and budget authority to an elected municipal government is completely consistent with the intent and wishes of the drafters of our Constitution. James Madison in Federal- ist Paper Number 43 supported the logic and validity of a locally elected govern- ment for the Nation's Capital. For the greater part of a century the Congress recognized this intent and established various forms of local government for the city. However, today, we remain the "last colony", disenfranchised citizens in a nation embedded in the principle of the "consent of the governed." Tragically, the citizens of the District have been denied the unalienable right to eIect~ their own representative government, to control their budget and revenues, to par- PAGENO="0199" 195 ticipate in the daily decisions that; effect their lives and to uphold the rights and duties of the U.S. Constitution. Self-government would end the isolation of the people from their government and begin the establishment of a political involvement where the citizens may logically and systematically approach the problems that effect their lives. There exists no justification for the second class citizenship that has been relegated to the citizens of Washington. The buck should no longer be passed between the District Committee and the Mayor and City Council. This divergence of power and authority has unfortunately led to apathy and a lack of concern by too many Washingtonians. It is clearly in the "Federal interest" to free Congress from the burdens of dealing with the District's purely local affairs. A full-time, locally elected gov- ernment held accountable to the citizens of the District will lead to a more prac- tical, efficient and cost effective government. Without question, the Federal role as the Congress chooses to define and exer- cise it is protected by the Constitution which grants the Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. Clearly, the Federal and local interest should be in harmony. One supplementing and embellishing the~ other to en- hance the beauty and operation of our city. The primary question, therefore, is what is the Federal function and to which agency, or Council, should Congress delegate various functions over which it maintains constitutional responsibility. Which functions are best served by a locally elected government and which should be under the control of a Congressional Committee or Federal agency. Therefore, we believe, that the Federal government has three special responsi- bilities within the District. First, the responsibility for the well-being of the diplomatic community. Second, the responsibility for the establishment, care and maintenance of Federally owned buildings, lands and monuments, and thirdly, to maintain the physical operation of the three branches of government to in- sure that the Constitutional rights are guaranteed to the citizens of the District. All other function~ concerning the District should be delegated to a locally elected government. Overlap anci areas of disagreement may arise but the Con- gress has ultimate authority to act if it feels that the actions of the District of Columbia are in conflict with the Federal function. This power would not be inhibited nor infringed upon by the establishment of local self-government. FORM OF GOVERNMENT The D.C. Democratic Central Committee recommends the establishment of a Mayor-Council form of government. This would include a District assembly consisting of 13 members. The proposed assembly, larger than the present nine (9) member Council, would be necessary to meet the increased responsibilities, delegated to the city, that are being generated by self-government. Jurisdiction- ally, the District would perform the functions of a city and county as well as a state. The "Strong Mayor" form of government should be instituted. This would be consistent with most of the large metropolitan jurisdictions in the nation. Eweentive Branch Due to the nature of the District, the Mayor will function in a unique political environment. This is, of course, due to the relationship with the Congress, the Executive Branch and the surrounding states. The powers of the office of Mayor will be a combination of the Mayor, County Executive and Governor as is pres- ently the case. Due to the proximity of Maryland and Virginia, the District will work closely with these states and their counties on Metropolitan problems such as pollution and water supply. The present authority of the Mayor to engage in functional agreements with surrounding jurisdictions should be continued. The Mayor and Vice Mayor should be elected to a four-year term of office in a partisan election. Major appointments would be made by the Mayor with the advise and consent of the Assembly. This could include such offices as the De- partment heads, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Attorney General, Auditor and with some exceptions the Board members of all present local agencies. Such other appointments as have been made by the President of the United States would also follow this procedure. Legislative Branch The D.C. Democratic Central Committee, recommends that the members of the District Assembly be elected on a partisan basis both from Wards and At- PAGENO="0200" 196 large Districts. With both Ward and At-large members, there would be an estab- lished balance between neighborhood concerns as well as individuals taking a broader view of District problems. To afford this balance there should be eight assemblymen elected by Wards and five (5) At-large members. Assemblymen should serve staggered terms of four (4) years, expiring on even numbered years and that the Assembly elect its Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its 13 members every two years following the election of its members. If a vacancy should occur before the expiration of a term, the opening should be filled by the political party of the vacated member. The District Assembly should have full legislative power over local affairs and have all the powers normally vested in state and local government. With an area as small and compact as the District, there is no apparent need for bicameral legislature since all interests can be represented within the Assembly. However, the Assembly should be empowered to alter its size through the use of a referendum. The statute should contain a full disclosure provision requiring for publication of all assets of persons running for public office in the District of Columbia. The new legislative powers are in large part proposed in the Nelsen Commission report. It should include the right to set new taxes and alter existing tax rates and be able to participate in all Federal grant programs. Due to the Constitu- tional authority vested in the Congress, we would require both Houses of Con- gross to veto~ in order to block a city council measure from becoming effective. Government Orgawtzation Any agency or department exercising functions which do not fit into identified categories of Federal functions should be transferred to the District Government. This would include among others the Redevelopment Land Agency as well as the National Capital Housing Authority. Also, agencies that have dual local and Federal responsibilities should relinquish the local funct~ns and concentrate entirely on its Federal authority. This would apply to an agency such as the National Capital Planning Commission which would relinquish local planning responsibilities to the District Government but retain its authority over Federal buildings and lands. In addition, the District should have the authority to reoiga- nize local funcions it deems necessary so that it may more effectively deliver services to the citizens. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LUCY, CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE, ACCOMPANIED BY KENNETH KENNEDY, VICE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OP COLUM- BIA DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE; BARBARA MORGAN, TREASURER, DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE; AND FRED WEGNER, SECRETARY, DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA DE1VtOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE Mr. Lucy. Mr. Chairman, with me here today ~re the principal officers of the Democratic Central Committee of the District of. Colum- bia; on my left is the vice-chairman of the committee, Mr. Ken Ken- nedy; on my right, Mr. Wegner, who is the secretary of the committee. And my name is Mr. William Lucy, and I am chairman of the committee. The movement to fully enfranchise all of the citizens of this Nation has been one of the high priorities for the Congress during the last decade. The District of Columbia Democratic Central Committee now urges this Congress to make self-determination its No. 1 priority. There is sort of dramatic evidence of the changing political life in many communities and States following the enactment of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The 26th amendment brought full responsibilities and rights of citizenship to our 18-year-old citizens. We, in the Dis- PAGENO="0201" 197 trict, would like those same rights extended to all of our citizens. Sig- nificant barriers to voting imposed by registration laws were eliminated in the 1970 amendments to the Voting Bights Act. The barrier to real political participation by citizens of the District lies now in the U.S. Congress. Clearly, in these years of changing political awareness and instant mass communication, the Congress has responded with historic steps to encourage involvement, participation, and the fullest exercise of the rights of every citizen in the complex and compelling process of democratic government. Even this week, the U.S. Senate is considering further ways to remove the impediments of archaic registration laws with consideration of the McGee bill authorizing voter registration by mail. Beginning in 1956, with the election of officers of political parties, Congress had inched toward providing citizens of the District a small measure of political comparability with the citizens of the rest of the Nation. This now extends to participation in the election of the President and Vice President, the District's School Board, and in 1971, the elec- tion of a Delegate to the Congress. Paralleling these developments has been a fuller participation by the District citizens in the organization of responsible political parties capable of full supporting not only their role in the nominating and election processes, but equally important, their role as responsible insti- tutions for formulating and affecting opinion on vital public issues in the community. To me, this growth and maturing of our District's political parties is another compelling reason for now authorizing full and responsible self-government to our citizens. Through participation and registration and voting, our citizens clearly indicated their readiness as an informed electorate to assume full political responsibilities. Like voters everywhere in our Nation, there is always higher involvement and participation when the stakes are for real, and the elections meaningful. The steady rise in the number of registered voters, and the involve- ment we see demonstrated in the business of politics-even when it is frustrated by the lack of ultimate responsibility of presently elected officials-are clear signs that point to the political maturity of our citizens. The District of Columbia's Democratic Central Committee urges this committee to act now-this session-on legislation that will be in the tradition of the significant congressional actions of this past decade which have expanded the door of full citizenship rights. We do not believe that there today exists any insurmountable bar- riers or reasonable objections to an orderly assumption of full rights for District citizens, includirnr full congressional representation and elected local government machinery, capable of exercising all powers essential to government of the non-Federal responsibilities in the District. Now~ as an analysis has been made in terms of other States who~ through their participation in the electoral process has been drawn, I believe the statistics that relate to the participation of the District of Columbia since we've had the limited right that we have, would clearly PAGENO="0202" 198 indicate that we stand on a par with other States and other cominuni- ties around the country in terms of that process. Other organizations have testified before this committee have sub- mitted data of which this committee supports. And I would point out, in the 1964 Presidential election, some 90 percent of the registered voters participated in the election. In the 1968 election, some 84 per- cent participated; in 1972, 54 percent; and certainly in our recent De'egate election, some 44, almost 45, percent of the registered voters participated. I think though this may not be a 100-percent mark, it certainly dem- onstrates that the District of Columbia is as enlightened as any other State or community around the country, in terms of the important issues of the day. In our testimony that is submitted in document form, we go on to point out in several other areas our position on key kinds of matters to the establishment of local government. We talk about financial authority, taxing authority, borrowing authority, and budget-making authority. In addition to the Federal and District financial relationship, the Federal loan, we attempted to find the Federal interest and we speak briefly to the form of government. I would like just to, as an over- view. comment briefly on those six or seven areas. With reference to the local financing authority, the District should have complete authority to set Ic'eal taxes, both new and e~istent tax- ing, that authority that is now jointly possessed by any other State or local government. With regard to the local borrowing authority, it should be authorized to engage in public borrowing for capital con- struction. through tax-exempt. bonds or Federal guarantee of local dis- tr~ct bonds, with the authorized debt ceiling to be established by the District assembly as spelled out in the form of government that we speak to. In the Federal and District financial relationship, obviously the Federal payment to the District must be continued. As now you are aware, it stands at the present time at some $190 million. That should not be reduced, but should be tied in terms of the percentage of the total budget, as the new problems, new factors that the District faces may arise. I would emphas~ ze that that cannot remain, at a fixed and static level inasmuch as we will be facing new kinds of problems in the future that will require certainly the Federal Government to assume its full part- nershin role in offsetting those costs. The procedures by which this is done should be an automatic procedure so that the District would not be subject to the kind of game plan that takes place some 5 or 6 months after we are into a fiscal year and we are still not sure of what the level of Federal support would be. I think the whole matter after some 5 years' period of time could be reviewed. looking forward.to maybe .a new percentage relationship or a new, fixed relationship. Under the force of existing obligations, I believe this legislation comes down, that some extensions and reviews should .be made of the potential obligations so that the city as it changes. its form of government, do not assume burdens for extra- ordina.ry kinds of expenditures. . PAGENO="0203" 199 I would point out one learned example that may well have been mentioned in prior testimony, that of the RFK Stadium which is, in effect, owned by the Federal Government but the District bears the responsibility for it in terms of interest payments. We think these kind of things should be removed as legislation is proposed. With regard to reimbursements from the Federal Government, we see no justification for the District government itself assuming the fi- nancial responsibilities for inaugurations and inauguration parades and special kinds of things that are related more to the Federal pres- ence than they are to the District government's presence itself. In terms of the Federal role and what we see some of those items being, I would point out, I think, as Congressman Fauntroy mentioned before that it is certainly the Federal Government's responsibility to look after the well-being of the diplomatic community inasmuch as they are the ptincipal allies. We talk about the Federal role in terms of the maintenance of the physical properties of the Federal Establishment of buildings, the lands, the monuments. Obviously, there is responsibility to maintain. the physical operations for the thi~ee branches of Government that is located here in the District of Columbia and all other functions that are non-Federal should then be delegated to the District government itself. In terms of the form of government, we would be speaking in terms of a strong Mayor form of government with the Council and the Dis- trict assembly. I believe the numbers have been spoken to and are cer- tainly listed in the document in testimony. In speaking of the legisla- tive branch, I believe we speak of a number of assemblymen to be elected. One by ward and five at large and that body to constitute the District assembly, we speak of the terms of office in recommending that they be expired on a staggered basis. In terms of government organigation, we are simply saying that any agencies which do not have identified Federal functions should be transferred to the District, such as National Capitol Housing Author- ity, the Redevelopment Land Agency, and any agency with split local/ Federal responsibility should relinquish the local responsibilities to the District. Mr. Chairman, essentially what we are saying is that we want no more, no less than exist in any other city, any other State throughout the country in terms of a government that is responsible to the citizens of the District of Columbia, responsible for the extension of services as well as responsible for the electorate in terms of the issues that are faced by that community. I don't believe that the District of Columbia is unique simply be- cause the center of Government is located here and is not unique to any of the other countries of the world where their governments are located there. I think it is sort of ironic when, in fact, the Federal Establishment and even the Congress itself seeks in very extraordinary kinds of ways the rights for people in other countries to have the right to self-determination, yet we find numerous barriers to bring about the same kind of situation here in our own land and I would suggest that money is not the barrier. I would suggest that the ownership of property is not the barrier but it's the will and the desire to extend to citizens of this community the right to self-determination. PAGENO="0204" 200 We would hope that this committee, as we pointed out in our testi mony, would take action now and that the Congress would become as enlightened as shown in other areas in bringing about a form of gov- ernment that at last we would eliminate the last colony from these United States. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, sir, very much, Mr. Lucy, for a very clear, lucid statement on the subject and for following the guidelines laid down by the committee. Mr. LUCY. Mr. Chairman, the other officers may desire to add input into the statement. I would like, if it's possible to give them an op- portunity to do so, either Mr. Wegner or Mr. Kennedy? Mr. FAUNTROY. I was just ready to do that. I'd be very pleased to hear from the vice chairman or from the secretary of the central committee. Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two matters. On page 19 of our testimony submitted for the record is a typographical error in line, I believe, 5. We use the term "Attorney General." Please correctthat. Let the record correct that to U.S. attorney or district attorney. And one other item oIl that same page, Mr. Chairman, the first, sentence, "The Mayor and Vice Mayor should be elected to a 4-year term of office in a partisan election." I just want to suggest that I have some serious concern about the election of a vice or deputy mayor. I believe that he should be a professional technician, accountable to the Mayor. with the authority vested in the Mayor to hire and to fire that person rather than creating a situation with the potential of a two-headed government both being accountable to people with the vice mayor perhaps being a very popular gentleman who could get elected but not-perhaps not being able to serve the Mayor and the city in some technical matters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you. Mr. Wegner? Mr. WEGNER. I would just like to say, particularly to Mr. Land- grebe. I am a fellow Hoosier close to his congressional district. I have been in Indiana politics and I have been in the District of Columbia politics. I am the same person I was when I lived in Indiana. I pay Federal taxes as I did in Indiana. When I was in Indiana, I had two Senators and one Congressman to represent me. Now I have one Delegate who doesn't have a vote. I am still paying my Federal taxes. I am also paying local taxes. And I have no local officials that I can vote for. I just don't understand the discrimination here. Furthermore, I think, as I understand Mr. Landgrebe's point of view on a number of things, I was under the impression that you were more for State and local determination and that is just what we are after here today. I think if there is a problem in Gary, I'm not sure that you are advocating the Federal Government to check in and tell them what to do here but that's what we have to go through heie. Thank you. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman? PAGENO="0205" 201 Mr. ADA1~rs. I would defer my questions. I just wanted to state that I appreciate very much your being here today and in going through your statement, I apologize for being gone. I had to handle another bill on another committee which is now done. I gather you basically support the position that was testified to by the Coalition for Self- Determination. Is that correct? Mr. Lucy. Yes; that is correct. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you. Mr. Landgrebe? Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't remember in my life- time when I had the opportunity to face such an array of Democrats, elected party leaders and here I am with only my Republican attorney sitting beside me but I will switch here and I will say that this is certainly a very scholarly prepared statement and in quite some detail but we will get along with a couple of questions. What percentage of the registered voters are-how does the regis- tration show in the District? V~Tas my estimate right? Or is `it more than 7to 1? Mr. Lucy. I would say it's approximately that. Mr. LANDGREBE. 7 to 1. Again, you expressed quite a bit of concern for the financing in the District, that it should also be authorized to establish income raising methods it determined appropriate and then, again, you indicate that local taxing authorities in the District is one unhampered by any re- strictions in the enabling legislation and another page, the District government should have complete authority to establish local budget and go on into the Federal payments and allowing for increases based on rash demand upon the District's revenue, obviously, a percentage situation, and that the Federal payment should be automatic. Now, what about-what's going to be the benefits of this great elected establishment? Won't there be some efficiency that these great statesmen will bring about that will tend to reduce the cost of the government while still increasing or improving the services to the community? Why do you talk about more and more and more money when you are telling me in the very same program, let's have home rule, let's really get in step here? What's going to be the benefits of this home rule, if in your own statement, in requesting it you say it's obvious that we're going to have a lot more money? Mr. Lucy. Well, Mr. Landgrebe, it is obvious we're going to need more money if we run into additional kinds of situations that require more money. We've talked about a rational method being arrived at by which the Federal p~tyment would be then-I tend to think that the District of Columbia is not different from any other cities around the country that the demands for services are increasing, but the needs for services are increasing but the human needs, in the sense of-the physical needs, in the sense of capital improvements. What we are saying here, is as those needs grow, then obviously, the need for revenue will grow. As we exhaust or find new methods of PAGENO="0206" 202 raising that revenue from the people themselves, it is still the physical presence of the Federal Government that makes them a partner in terms of receiving services as well as receiving delivery of services ~and we're saying that that partnership should be a fixed partnersh1p that we all understand. I doubt we will get to the time when we will need less services than we presently deliver. If that be the case, then obviously, I think the elected leadership of the city as well as the enlightened leadership of. the Federal establishment will deal with that problem at that time. I just don't envision nor do I think you envision in your particular district a lessening in terms of needs of service, be they environmental or what have you and our presentation as well as everyone else that has spoke to this issue is dealing with an uncertainty and I think that uncertainty involves a dollars amount of expenditure. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Landgrebe, may I further respond? I concur with the response of Chairman Lucy to your question and I should like to add one other item, that with the Federal establish- ment possessing or owning more than 50 percent of the taxable land in the District of Columbia, the important tax that is available to other communities is denied us and the Federal payment is justified based on that factor alone with the kinds of services Chairman Lucy spoke to. Mr. Lucy. I think there is another aspect to this thing also and 1 think that so long as we are dealing particularly with taxes in the areas of property taxes and retail sales taxes, obviously that's tied into one's ability to pay those taxes and with the Federal establish- ment not only being the major landowner, they also happen to be the major employer, or one of the major employers. And obviously, unless they're going to take on the attitude of paying greater wages for the employees who reside in the District of Columbia, which would enable them then to pay a higher tax rate, or higher sales tax here, we are faced with sort of an ever-ending circle and what we are saying is that the Federal Government simply by its presence has an obligation. I believe this is the same discussion or the same general trend of thought that the Federal Government uses with reference to the United Na- tions-when it occupies properties on our shores, it has an obligation to pay for its presence. Mr. LANDGREBE. Now, Mr. Lucy, as President of the majority party, and there's hardly any doubt that that situation will remain, in a government that you propose, you would be a very powerful figure in this community. Isn't this true? Wouldn't you as chairman of the party who no doubt would control the various offices? Out in Indiana, the party in power, the county chairman, the city chairman, or in Chicago or anyplace else, we understand this, you really would have a great deal of influence in the community. Now, isn't this true? Mr. Lucy. Well, let me say, I am not aware of the nature of the politics in Indiana. I have heard some comments about the direction that it takes. I would hope that in the District of Columbia, one would not deal in terms of power but one would deal out of concern for the well-being of the city itself. I would certainly hope that we don't PAGENO="0207" 203 go to the system that does do this, at least in some parts of Indiana that I'm aware of but that in terms of the majority party, it would be taking action based upon the needs of the total city. I hope also that the argument, Mr. Landgrebe, that government should oniy exist for the minority party would not be the direction that you are taking. Mr. LANDGREBE. What I was trying to get at is, how-assuming you're the city chairman now-you are undoubtedly a young, aggres- sive young man-you would no doubt be the chairman if there was a group of elected officials in the town belonging to your party, what would you suggest that they do to improve services in the community in relationship to the services that are now being performed in this city by appointed city councilmen, a number of whom are in your party? Mr. Lucy. We are concerned-well, there's actually three parties in the District of Columbia. There's a Statehood Party, which is seeking a little bit stronger form of government than we're repre- senting to you at the present time. But let me say this, and I'm sure~ you're aware of the fact that the needs of the city really are not de- termined by its political allegiances and I am complimented by the fact of your saying that I am a young, energetic fellow and I want to tell you there's some real discussion taking place now about the chairmanship of the party, but in any event, what we would be con- cerned with is that first of all, the District would be moving into a new area, a separation from either the paternal relationship that existed for so long where we are hampered from delivering the basic kinds of services that are necessary. You see, right now, we can make the Board of Education budget but it is the wisdom of Congress that says whether or not that budget gets implemented. We could talk about public maintenance or sanitary-engineering but we really cannot take any kind of positive action until you in your wis- dom give us the ability to do that. What we are saying is that be we Democrats or Republicans, we've got a concern for our city that we hope will not die unlike some of the Republican cities of our country or some of the Democratic cities of our country that you can shove into the river unless somebody becomes concerned about the environment that exists there and the well-being of citizens that reside there. - And I would also point out-and I believe a- discussion took place with reference to one of the other witnesses-that unlike some of the other cities in the country where hard-core politics have been played in the past, in New York City, as well as Philadelphia, Detroit, Cincin- nati, and some others can be shoved right out of sight unless someone begins to relate to the needs of those communities. Now, what we are saying is that the same problems that exist in those cities exist in the District of Columbia and maybe by moving to a new form of government, a sense of self-pride, we can overcome those problems with the help and the wisdom of Congress and certainly the financial support of the Federal Government. Otherwise, you know, we are no different, either better or worse, than any other city through- out the country. It has absolutely nothing to do in my opinion with political party affiliation. Mr. LANDOREBE. Do you think that you would be in a stronger posi- tion-I know you're trying to evade the word power, and let's face PAGENO="0208" 204 it, power is politics and politics is power in the country-do you think that your majority party and the minority party in town, do you think that the party structure would be stronger, would be better financed, would be more able to bring up and get a nominated, really high- quality people and in other words, you would have a better, a more re- sponsible Democratic Party if you had more elected people than you have at this time? Mr. Lucr. `Well, let me-the quality of people is not related to whether there is home rule or not home rule, if you are raising the ques- tion as to whether or not they are qualified, competent people in the District of Columbia to administer the government, obviously the answer is yes. That is with or without home rule. The issue is whether or not we can play that role with any meaning- ful sense and I would think-and I've got to go back to your home constituency, because I see that it is very related. If one, by law, you are restricted from carrying out those basic functions that you know are necessary and you are constantly having to go to the various com- mittees of Congress to get the wherewithal to do it, the questions of efficiency, the question of implementation of programs, are always very nebulous kinds of things. And again, what we are saying is that if the offices are there, 10- like we pointed out in the statement-we're talking about the States being for real, I doubt you would find five good men in your com- munity who would want to participate in a charade in terms of pre- tending to deliver services and pretending to run a government. I do not think that people in the District of Columbia are any different than they are in your district or the district of other Congressmen. Mr. LANDGREBE. The gentleman, my neighbor from Indiana-I have here the Federal aid to States, and I see in 1972, that the District of `Columbia received in grants for the three-quarters of a million people, remember, received $563,693,355. Good old Hoosier Indiana with nearly 5 million people-I don't have the exact figure-but we have-you worked out there, you pay taxes to the Federal Government, State and so forth; that Indiana received $544 million, substantially less than the District of Columbia was paid. That's just for information. Now, I have been talking about compensating factors. People who live in the District, they don't have the right to vote for dogcatcher, -for magistrate, and many other things. But you still come here. `Why did you come here? Why did you give up Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Hartke, and Mr. Madden, and all this great representation that you had to come to Washington, D.C., to live in this city? There must have been some compensating factor, something brought you here. You knew that you were not going to have the right to vote and participate in some elections. You knew that you could be part of the Democratic Party who could have a hot Presidential election, and the Congressmen and the school board. Now, what was the compensating factor that brought you here? Mr. WEGNER. Well, I suppose the easy answer, Mr. Landgrebe, is that Indiana is a good State to be from, but obviously, we have more Federal involvement in the District of Columbia than Indiana does. And I think that explains part of it, the Federal payment. PAGENO="0209" 205 Also, I think perhaps the Indiana Senators and Congressmen could work a little harder to get some Federal money back into Indiana. That's important. On your last question- Mr. LANDGREBE. Where is the money coming from Where is it going to come from? Where is this Federal money going to come from? Mr. WEGNER. It's going to come from my taxes and yours and every- body else's. Mr. LANDGREBE. You want to have your taxes raised? We've been running in debt $20-$30 billion a year for years. Where are we going to get more Federal money to send to Indiana? Where are we going to get more Federal money to send to Washington, D.C., if we don't have a general; across-the-board tax surface? Mr. WEGNER. Well, that raises all sorts of questions about priorities. Mr. LANDGREBE. All right, you may proceed. Mr. Lucy. I'm sorry, Mr. Wegner. There are two issues that may be being confused by a Federal argument. I think there's a very defi- nite trend to say there's-there simply needs to be a reordering of priorities, that Indiana's not getting its fair share. I'm sure that it has adequate representation. Mr. LANDGREBE. Mr. Nixon was working on that. He's reordering priorities. Mr. Lucy. Mr. Nixon was working on us all. My point is that where a reordering has taken place, then obviously an inequity will result. My simple attitude, I think the attitude of a number of people will be that some of the funds to do what we need done should be taken from the Pentagon, it should be taken from the corporate structure that exists. Mr. LANDGREBE. In other words, you feel that we could leave our defense posture- Mr. Lucy. I didn't say that we would or should weaken. I said that- Mr. FAUNTROY. Will the gentleman yield? I might suggest that you read Senator Proxmire's accounting of the facts that we wasted $35 billion on weapons systems. That was waste. That was cost over- run. And perhaps if we had that $35 billion, we could take care of the $12 billion cost of the Agriculture Department plus the $4 billion cost of HTJD, plus the reduced-I've heard $4 billion, they're down to $3 billion now on housing. We could take care of the budget of the Office of Education just as money saved as a result of inefficiency in the administration. Mr. Luo~. I think you'll also find a considerable amount of- Mr. LANDGREBE. Let me respond to my good friend here. I don't want to get into a dogfight here, but even people like Walter Lipp- mann, and others who are not--I don't think they've been closely identified with my philosophies, are somehow coming around in the Washington Post to the idea that some of these welfare programs, give-away programs, have not done the Government any good, but have really demoralized a lot of people in our country. Now, it's possible for the organization in the Pentagon to make mistakes, and it's possib'e to have plain dishonest people there; but 97-527-73-Pt. 2-14 PAGENO="0210" 206 then we must still, in my opinion, we must be sure that we have a strong, responsible military, because we have had people complain, talking before us in these hearings, that people don't have freedom even as much as they do in Russia. But I'm telling you, my friend, the people of the District of Colum- bia do have a lot of freedom that the Russians don't have, and let's be sure th~it we-even though we have some little differences of opin- ion, even little discussions on race matters-let's hang* together on some things, and that is that we maintain a great free America. Let's do that. Mr. FAUNTROY. Believe me, I was not suggesting that we should cut the military budget at all. I was just suggesting that we save the money that's been wasted. Now, if we save the money that's been wasted, we could keep the same level of efficiency on protecting ourselves. Mr. Lucy. I think one important factor, Mr. Landgrebe, if the Dis- trict of Columbia were a foreign country, we would receive more foreign aid than we are receiving as a Federal payment. Mr. LANDGREBE. Mr. Chairman, may I make a humble request here? The next time the Democratic Party caucuses in the District of Co- lumbia, will you invite me over so we can continue our discussions? Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes. That's a very good suggestion. I hope that will be next year. Mr. LANDGREBE. Thank you very kindly. Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the chair to you. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Fauntroy. I appreciate very much your presiding. The committee will stand at recess until Monday at 9:30, and we will meet in the caucus room 345. And I'm sorry Mr. Landgrebe left because we will be starting with the Republican committee on Mon- day at 9:30. The committee will stand adjourned until 9:30 on Monday. [Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was adjourned until Monday, April 16, 1973, at 9:30 a.m.] PAGENO="0211" SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUM- BIA, AND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DIS- TRICT OF COLUMBIA MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1973 HousE OF REIRESENTATIVES, SUBOOMMIrFEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DI5mICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant tonotice, at 9:40 a.m.. in room 345, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Brock Adams presiding. Present: Representative Adams, Delegate Fauntroy, Representa- tive Landgrebe. Also present: John Hogan, minority counsel to full committee; Jac- ques DePuy, counsel to the subcommittee; and Anne Darneille, sub- committee staff. Mr. ADAMS. The subcommittee will be in order. This is a continuation of the hearings on the reorganization of the government of the District of Columbia; and our first witnesses this morning are Mr. Edmond E. Pendleton, Jr., chairman of the Republi- can Central Committee, and Mr. Melvin Burton, cochairman of the Self-Government Committee of the Republican Central Committee. Gentlemen, welcome. We are very pleased to have you with us this morning. As I have indicated to the other witnesses, we would be most pleased to either receive your statement in written form and have you summarize, or you can read it, whichever is your pleasure. Mr. PENDLETON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to be here with you this morning to speak very briefly, and then to turn the matter over to Mr. Melvin Burton, at- torney, on my right, who is cochairman of our Self-Government Com- mittee; Mr. Rick Clark, who is also cochairman. Mr. ADAMS. I'm sorry. Could I have that last name again? Mr. PENDLETON. Richard Clark. Mr. ADAMS. All right, Mr. Clark. [The prepared statements of Mr. Edmond Pendleton, and Mr. Mel- vin Burton follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDMUND PENDLETON, JR., CHAIRMAN, D.C. REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE 1~Ir. Chairman, Members of the Committee: The D.C. Republican Committee appreciates the opportunity to appear before you and present its testimony on the subject of self-government for the District of Columbia. It is my pleasure this morning to introdue to you the Chairman, of our Self-Government Committee, who will present in detail our comments in regard to the subject and many of the points which your staff has suggested we answer. (207) PAGENO="0212" 208 For my part, may I urge this committee to take the opportunity presented by these hearings in this investigation to explore fully all the various avenues open to the granting of an increased self-government to the Washington area. The Republican Party of the District of Columbia and the National Republican Party traditionally have favored increased self-government for the District of Colum- bia. Perhaps the next step at this time would be greater representation in Con- gress including a voting Congressman. Certainly the District of Columbia is entitled to this. On the other hand, if the concept of some type of statehood for the District of Columbia were settled upon as the proper approach, then greater congressional representation would follow as a matter of course. For my part, personally I do not think that the idea of some type of statehood should be dismissed out of hand. For example, the Congress could create a metro- politan state government for the greater Washington area, composed of the Dis- trict of Columbia and the surrounding counties. Maryland and Virginia would not in fact be seceding these counties to any new governmental entity, but each suburb would become, by choice, a zone in this new metropolitan- area govern- ment and be entitled to send zone representatives to a metropolitan state govern- ment council. Each zone, of course, would have its own elected government for local affairs. Its representatives to the central government would exercise in- creasing statehood functions, which although limited to begin, would be expanded as more suburbs join the frame work. Gradually the powers of this new metro- politan state government would be expanded into those analogous to those en- joyed by other state governments. This concept would not depend upon the seceding of sovereiguty of territory by Maryland or Virginia, but of course it would require cooperation of those state governments. Whether full statehood would be granted this greater Wash- ington area would not need to be decided initially. Residual rowers, necessary to the Federal interest, would be retained by the Federal government. There are before this committee bills proposing complete statehood, retroces- sion of the non "Federal" areas of the District, Maryland, Virginia, enlarged Mayor-City Council government, etc. I presume there will be more approaches developed by this committee. We urge careful study by the committee in recom- mending a desirable next step. The Republican Party is proud of the part which it has played in obtaining greater self-government for the District of Columbia, and points in particular to the non-voting delegate bill proposed by President Nixon, which gave us our first Congressional representative in many years. It is my pleasure this morning, Mr. Chairman, to introduce to you Mr. Melvin Burton, Chairman of our Committee on Self-Government, who will present the testimony of the D.C. Republican Committee. STATEMENT OF EDMOND E. PENDLETON, JR., CHAIRMAN, REPUB- LICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE, ACCOMPANIED BY MELVIN BURTON, COCHAIRMAN, SELF-GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE, RE- PUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE; AND RICHARD CLARK, COCHAIRMAN, SELF-GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE, REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE Mr. PENDLETON. The District of Columbia Republican Committee appreciates the opportunity to appear before you and to present its testimony on the subject of self-government for the District of Colum- bia. For my part, may I urge this committee to take the opportunity presented by these hearings to explore fully all the various avenues open to the granting of increased self-government to t.he Washington area. The Republican Party of the District of Columbia and the National Republican Party traditionally favored increased self-government for the District of Columbia. Perhaps the next step at this time would be PAGENO="0213" 209 greater representation in Congress, including a voting Congressman. Certainly the District of Columbia is entitled to this. On the other hand, if the concept of some type of statehood for the District of Columbia were settled upon as the proper approach, then greater congressional representation would follow as a matter of course. Personally, I do not think that the idea of some type of statehood should be dismissed out of hand. For example, the Congress could create a metropolitan state government for the Greater Washington area, composed of the District of Columbia and the surrounding coun- ties. Maryland and Virginia would not in fact be seceding these coun- ties to any new governmental entity, but each suburb would become, by choice, a zone in this new metropolitan government and be entitled to send zone representatives to a metropolitan state government council. Each zone, of course, would have its own elected government for local affairs. Its representatives to the central government would exer- cise increased statehood functions, which although limited to begin, would be expanded as more suburbs join the framework. Gradually, the powers of this new metropolitan state government would be ex- panded into powers analogous to those enjoyed by other state govern- ments. This concept would not depend upon the seceding of sovereignty of territory by Maryland or Virginia, but of course, it would require their cooperation. But if full statehood would be granted, this Greater Washington area would not need to be decided' initially. Residual pow- ers, necessary to the Federal interest, would be retained by the Federal Government. There are before this committee bills proposing complete statehood, retrocession of the non-Federal areas of the District, Maryland, and Virginia, enlarged Mayor-City Council government, and so forth. I presume there will be more approaches developed of this committee. We urge careful study by the committee in recommending a desir- able next step. The Republican Party is proud of the part which it has played in obtairnng greater seI~f-government for the District of Columbia, and points in particular to the nonvoting delegate bill pro- posed by President Nixon, which gave us our first congressional rep- resentative in many years. It is my pleasure this morning, Mr. Chairman, to introduce to you Mr. Melvin Burton, cochairman of our Self-Government Committee, who will present our testimony. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Burton. Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am Melvin M. Burton, Jr. Present with me is the other cochairman of the Self-Determination Committee for the Dis- trict of Columbia Republican Party. We appreciate the opportunity to appear and speak before you today, and reveal to you our sentiments with reference to the issue of local self-government for the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia Republican Party supports a system of self-government for the District of Columbia which will take into account the interest of all the citizens thereof, as well as the interest of the Federal Government. PAGENO="0214" 210 Further, the committee is in favor of full vocal representation in Congress Now, historically, there is no reason why the District of Columbia should not have some form of self-government. If you would allow. me first of all to refer to the act of Congress dated February 27, 1801, wherein a form of self-government was created. At that time we had a Mayor who was appointed by the President. We also had at that time a City Council that was elected by the people. Subsequently, Febru- ary 2, 1871, the Congress enchartered in the District of Columbia, brought about a territorial form of government; and we had a Gover- nor and several members of the various Boards, like the Board of Public Works, the Board of Health, et cetera. We also had at that time a legislative assembly. We had a Council consisting of 11 in- dividuals, and an Assembly consisting of approximately 22 persons. It was during this time, 1875, when we had our first delegate to Congress from the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, it was not until 1878 when the District of Columbia became the so-called last colony. After some three quarters of a cen- tury of representation and self-government by the citizens of the Dis- trict of Columbia, this was taken away from us. The question that arises this morning is how best can we now achieve self-government, taking into consideration the guidelines adopted by you for guiding the discussions herein. With regard to the governmental form, we feel that the Mayor- Council governmental form is the one, or the form, which we favor. `We feel that the present City CounCil, as it is set up-that is, eleven individuals-with some modification as to the manner in which they are selected or elected, would bring about a very broad citizenry rep- resentation for the District of Columbia. Therefore, we suggest that in lieu of the persent appointed City Councilmen, that the District of Columbia be carved into four sub- divisions, which subdivisions would not necessarily correspond to the present geographical divisions of the city, but four different divisions. We propose that the four subdivisions could be and should be di- vided proportionally by pOpulation. From the four subdivisions, at least two Councilmen should be elected to the central Council. The Chairman of the Council should be elected from among its own mem- bers, with each Councilman having an equal vote. Mr. Chairman, this system that I have just proposed would provide representation for every 100,000 persons within the District of Colum- bia. And then if you consider the adult population, you are talking about an adult population of 70,000 persons. Thus, in this manner every citizen of the District of Columbia would be assured of having an ear to~ which he may turn in order to make his requests or wants known. We feel that through some manner, minority representation on such Councils should be guaranteed. so that there would be a proper or some ratio between the number of Democrats elected, as compared to the number of Republicans. WTe deem it indispensable that the Mayor-Council relationship should be that wherein the Council may, by exercise of a two-thirds vote, veto acts of the Mayor. With regard to the executive function, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the Mayor should be elected in a partisan election. There is no PAGENO="0215" 211 question but the present political parties in the District of Columbia can provide the machinery by which a candidate aspiring to office can best bring his or their views to the electorate. 1~Ve feel that the Mayor's term should be at least a 4-year term, and we would suggest that the election of the Mayor coincide and follow the same date as the election of the legislature. Otherwise, of course, it would result in having one or more lame duck administrations. We propose that the powers of the Mayor be broad enough to man- age the day to day operations of the city government, much along the lines as presently exists. We propose that the Mayor should be allowed to establish a liaison committee between all bodies of Federal Government. To this extent, if~done, we feel that the Federal interest could be properly protected. The Mayor should have the power to appoint all local department heads, including police and fire chiefs, subject to confirmation by the Council. \Ve feel that the Mayor's powers should be just as broad as those of any city Mayor, and broader in most instances than those of a county or a city manager. With regard to the judicial function, the judges of the Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia should be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the Council. The Mayor's nomination process should be limited to that list of nomi- nees recommended by a Judicial Selection Committee, which commit- tee would consist of lawyers, citizens from the community, represent- `atives from the White House. and Congress. All nominees for judgeship, as well as the members of the Judicial Selection Committee, must be-and I underline that-must be resi- dents of the District of Columbia. It is obligatory, Mr. Chairman, that any list of nominees given to the Mayor for selection must be acted upon by the Mayor. I would call your attention to a bill that was offered by Senator Mathias, Senate bill 1626; and Senator Mathias stated that selection of the judges should be done by a city council. We have no real ob- jection to that particular proposal; however, we feel that a Judicial Selection Committee would be in the best interest of the citizens of the District of Columbia. With regard to the legislative function, we propose that the City Council be granted exclusive legislative powers over all matters local in nature, wherein the dominant theme is that of a local character rather than that vested with a Federal and National interest. Congress, of course, could then retain its lgeislative authority over the District of Columbia to the same extent that it does, for cities where Federal operations and functions are located. Examples of local, as opposed to the Federal interest-fiscal mat- ters of the District of Columbia, zoning, health, et cetera. Examples of the Federal interest-Federal buildings and property, the diplo- matic corps, national tourist attractions. And fiscal affairs, all fiscal affairs, should be solely determined by the local government, whether it be the Council or an assembly. The Federal payment contribution should be flexible enough to account for the rising costs of providing additional services to the community. PAGENO="0216" 212 The formula we propose should be based upon at least three major factors. Those factors being the amount of revenue raised by the Dis- trict of Columbia itself; srevices rendered to supplement Federal serv- ices and to aid in the protection of the Federal interest; and the loss of revenues from Federal lands, Federal institutions and buildings, in- cluding embassies chanceries. We see no reason why the District of Columbia should not be able to issue taxable bonds with a Federal subsidy. We feel in this way, then of course, the big question, or the hard question, how much money should Congress appropriate to the District of Columbia, could by and large be resolved. The Federal interest, Mr. Chairman, we deem to be that interest which requires preservation of the District of Columbia as the Nation's Capital. Because the Federal Government is centered in this city, it is necessary that the Federal Government be able to efficiently oper- ate and carry out its mandates. It is axiomatic that Federal property such as parks, buildings, and vehicles are of paramount Federal interest. Congress is best able to protect this interest, which in no way should or would conflict with those of the citizens of the District of Columbia. In fact, the establishment of two forms of governmental control, Federal and local, in the District of Columbia is unavoidable and, in- deed~ is to be welcome. Now, you have heard alluded to the metropolitan state government for the greater Washington area. This form of government based upon the English system is being given more consideration by our committee. After careful study, if you desire, we shall be happy to present to you our thoughts on this concept of government. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and we will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Burton. The chairman would first like to state that I think your statement is excellent, because you have gone through the points we have re- quested; and I am particularly interested in your comment as to how you have broken the functions apart. I think that is helpful. And I hope that you will send copies of your statement to all mem- bers of this Full District of Columbia Committee, so that they will have the benefit of what you have stated to us this morning for those that were not here. I just want to make one comment~ then I'm going to turn the Chair over to Mr. Fraser; and I will be back in a moment because I have to be before another committee. But with regard to the granting of full voting representation in the House and the Senate, the reason that this committee has not been discussing that is that the jurisdiction for that idea would be prob- ably before the Judiciary Committee. And as you know, Mr. Fauntroy and others have presented that matter. Now, this might be different if we were considering retrocession for that type of purposeS as was mentioned in the first part of your testi- mony where you might have retrocession for, sat, the purpose of PAGENO="0217" 213 Federal elections; so that you would vote in Maryland or in Virginia for that purpose. But that concept has been one that we just-what I'm trying to say is the committee is not trying to say that that is right or wrong at this point. We are trying to do the thing over which we have direct and primary jurisdiction. Finally, with regard to your metropolitan concept, I know Mr. Fra- ser and others-I am, too, very interested in the potential for this; whether this should be done by having the self-government come into existence, and then enter into contracts with the other surrounding counties. We feel that-or at least, I feel that-again, this is a very good con- cept; and we would like to see some method for proposing it. Finally, with regard to statehood we are considering the matters. They have been referred to this committee. If we establish a territorial government, there is again some question as to whether this should be before the Interior Committee if we go into that kind of route. But we have, since the Speaker has referred the original statehood measures here, we have been discussing them here. But a territorial form is one that we will have to think about a little bit. Mr. FRASER. I wonder if you would take the Chair for me for a few minutes; and I will be back just as soon as I can. I thank you very much for being with us. Mr. PENDLETON. If I might respond to one point, we will send copies of this testimony to the Judiciary Committee. Perhaps we can make sure that our thinking on congressional representation will be brought before them. It is our thought to present everything on the subject of self-govern ment. And as far as how the Congress considers it, we will go to what- ever committee will listen to us. Mr. FRASER [presiding]. I assume that the three of you are available to respond as a panel to any questions. Mr. PENDLETON. Yes. That is correct. Mr. FRASER. First, I wanted to inquire about the idea, which I don't think was in your written statement, about the need to protect mi- nority representation on the City Council. I wonder if that might be elaborated on. - Mr. BURTON. Yes. If you take into account, Mr. Chairman, the pre- vailing statistical registration between the two parties-the two major parties, that is-in the District of Columbia, the Democratic and the Republican Party, of course there is no question but that the city is overwhelmingly democratically inclined. Mr. FRASER. Could I- Mr. BURTON. Yes. Mr. FRASER. I want to pursue this at some length, and Mr. Fauntroy has a bill before another subcommittee. He's going to have to leave in a minute. Could I sort of pull my question back for the moment and yield to Mr. Fauntroy, so that he can get a question in there before he has to leave; and then I'll come right back to you. Mr. BURTON. Very well. Mr FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0218" 214 As you indicated, I have a bill before our Subcommittee on Labor, Social Services, and the Diplomatic Community for rent control; and I must testify at 10. I will be slightly late. But I did want to pursue two questions, one of which has been asked by our chairman; and I am sure you will lay that on the record. My other question runs to Mr. Pendleton. You have suggested what seems to me to be the only viable form of State government that could be applicable to us; the only form viable for the reason that we could not raise, from residential taxes and business taxes within the District of Columbia, enough to deliver the services both required of the residents and the Federal Government, without help. And my view has always been that if you could move the tax base out into the surrounding suburban community, which is a functional part of the Federal industry here, which is our main tax base, we would be able to speak in some rather specific terms about statehood. But I am afraid I don't quite understand two things in your pro- posal. One, I take it your judgment is that an expansion of the tax base into the suburban community would provide us sufficient revenues to provide both our local and Federal services in the District of Co- lumbia, without having to request of the Federal Government a unique Federal payment, unique for a State. Mr. PENDLETON.. I'm not sure whether it would be unique, but I think until it were established that the tax base was adequate to pro- vide coverage, both for the local and the national services, I would not want to abandon some sort of Federal payment. I think the District of Columbia at the present time is unique, and that it both lacks a taxable base because of the amount of Federal use within, the District; and also, second, because all of the bedroom suburbs, really, are outside of the District line. So whether we could get adequate revenue for the suburbs, or whether they would be willing to stand still for that to raise it enough so that you could abandon the Federal payment, I think only time could tell. Mr. FAUNTROY. Would the State that you envisage then be unique among the States in the Union, in that it would receive a Federal payment? Mr. PENDLETON. I think there's no question that it is unique, regard- less of that particular feature. I think that we could not create a State here that was exactly like any other State, whichever approach was used. The fact is the Nation's Capital is going to be unique, and any sys- tem that is established is bound to still be different in many, many ways from any other State or territory. Mr. FAUNTROY. The other thing which I didn't understand was you said the concept of that would depend on the seceding of sovereignty of the residents of the area in Maryland and Virginia. Mr. PENDLETON. This concept of the metropolitan government would not involve Montgomery County actually becoming a part of the Dis- trict of Columbia. Mr. FAUNTROY. Just for a State representative? PAGENO="0219" 215 Mr. PEXDLETON. Just for State functions-the election of State government and the exercise of State functions-but local government such as schools or police, these matters would still be under the control of that Council. Mr. FATJNTROY. So these would be dual residents? They would be Marylanders who lived in the county-State of the District of Colum- bia? Mr. PENDLETON. Right. There would be dual residency and dual voting privileges. Mr. FATJNTROY. And they would elect State representatives to the Maryland State House and State- Mr. PENDLETON. No. I think only-oh, State matters. Mr. FATJNTROY. On State matters. Well, I'll have to study this concept. Mr. PENDLETON. Well, yes. May I say also that we will, as well-it was only in a thought here to bring before you that there are other possible ways of solving the need for greater self-government in the Washington area than those that have been introduced. And we feel that this committee is going about it in such a way that it is proper, and let's look at all of the while they're there. Mr. FAtINTROY. Thank you. Mr. PENDLETON. Thank you. Mr. Fm~&s~R. Let me come back now, if I may, to this question ~of minority representation. That is, we're talking now, of course, about essentially a political minority. Let me preface my question by saying that I am sympathetic with what you are trying to do, so I'm more interested in the mechanics that you might have in mind than in the philosophy of it; because I gen- erally feel that legislative bodies function better if there is a vigorous two-party or multiparty representation on it. Flow would you do this? That's what I'm interested in. Mr. BnRTON. I anticipated your question as one dealing with the mechanics of this operation. Now, noticeably lacking from my state- ment is the statement that we should at least have three Councilmen elected at-large. Now, I'm not dealing with those three at-large Councilmen, but now I am dealing, in answer to your question, to the four subdivisions. ~\Thether the number of Councilmen from each subdivision be either two or three-but let's assume for the time being it's three-then there is no reason, and there is not a lack of authority for this Congress, to say as to each subdivision there shall be an election wherein two Democratic candidates and one Republican candidate. That would at least allow four, taking into consideration the four subdivisions, four Republican candidates or Councilmen from the subdivisions, one from each division. And I think the mechanics of it would have to work that way, I'm sure. Mr. FRASER. I am told in the State of Illinois that-this is all sec- ond- or third-hand-that they have legislative districts which elect three. Each party is entitled to nominate two. And in that way, in effect, they guarantee that one or the other of the parties will get at least one. PAGENO="0220" 216 Mr. BURTON. Yes, yes. And I had that in mind, but not with specific reference to the Illinois situation. But I think that's an excellent way in which it could be accomplished here. Mr. FRASER. Because I suppose it would be difficult for us to ordai~n that the Republicans win one in each four districts. It might be they might become majority party in one of the districts. Are there other mechanical ways, other electoral systems, that you have looked at that might produce some modest protection for politi- cal minorities? Mr. BURTON. I can think of none at this particular time. Mr. PENDLETON. May I add, Mr. Congressman, it is not dust a guar- antee----the Republican Party participation in city government. There is another party here, the statehood party, and of course, there may be those candidates that run as independent candidates. We simply think that it is good in a city such as this to create vigorous opposition and we would want to provide, a system that guaranteed that there would be some minority representatives on the Council. Mr. FRASER. No. I appreciate we conventionally think in terms of two parties, but I recognize that other parties will spring up and sometimes survive for a long time. I'm interested, though, in the mechanical systems, electoral systems, th'at would do this, in addition to the one we have already talked about. Now, there are other systems that you looked at? Mr. PENDLETON. May I suggest this, that we prepare a memo on this, if this would be helpful to you, and submit it to the committee. Mr. FRASER. I think it would be. [The information referred to follows:] SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT TO THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE Query: How can minority political representation be assured in city council elections based upon the existing District of Columbia ward structure? The question of minority political representation on the City Council arose as the result of a suggestion made in testimony before the committee on April 16, 1973, that minority political representation be assured on the City Council. The proposal was predicated upon a suggestion that the city be divided into four (4) election areas for purposes of City Council representation, and was based upon the theory of proportional representation. It was further suggested that the four (4) subdivisions should be divided, roughly, Proportionately in population as well as area. The present ward structure presents an inequity in population and area. E.g., the total number of registrants in the ward with the least number of regis- trants is approximately 26,600 (Ward VIII) and the ward with the most regis- trants with approximately 56,200 registrants (Ward Viii). Assuming that the ward boundaries could be re-drawn to achieve equal population, the election of only two (2) councilmen from each ward does not permit for a'system of propor- tional representation. Either the number of councilmen elected from each ward must be increased, which would make the City Council too large a body to be effective, or an arbitrary rule must be proposed so that one (1) councilman would be a majority party member and one (1) would be a minority party mem- ber where that minority party has at least a certain number of registrants within that ward. (This may result in the creation of an unconstitutional scheme which would have the effect of diluting majority vote). Therefore, it is difficult to en- visage minority political representation based upon the present ward structure. PAGENO="0221" 217 *An examination of American cities with populations in excess of 250,000, re- veals, that City Council and assembly elections are held on a non-partisan basis. This not only guarantees that majority vote shall prevail but by and large makes for good government. Accordingly, it is suggested that unless some division other than the present ward structure is used, it is strongly urged that city council- men elections be held on a non-partisan basis. Mr. FRASER. Now, the Europeans have other types of proportional voting, sometimes multimember districts. They'll use a list system in which each party files its list of candidates, and then the party goes down the list in proportion to the votes it got in that district; and then there are different systems for determining priority on a list. Generally, in the United States we have not embraced the propor- tionalities concept in our electoral system. It's been a winner take all; and there is some merit to winner take all. There is some merit to proportionality. And the problem in the District, I gather, is that the Democratic Party is so strong, or apparently is so strong at the moment, that if you had a winner take all, single member district, the Democratic Party might control the Council to such a degree that party opposition would be minimal, which I wouldn't myself judge to be a good thing. Mr. BURTON. Yes. We would be very happy to develop another memo along this line and present it to you for your consideration. Mr. FRASER. What about the size of the Council? We were talking about 11 or 13. Is that the sort of size that you think would be effective? Mr. BURTON. In answer to your question, I would have to say yes. I feel a Council larger than 11 to 13 members would be almost an unmanageable, unworkable body; and I think it would cause more confusion, or just as much confusion-more confusion to have a large group of that type than to have, say, a Council consisting of 11 to 13 individuals. Eleven to thirteen individuals seems to be a working group, as opposed to a much larger group. And I think they would operate far more efficiently and much more could be produced. Mr. FRASER. Let me pose .against that idea-and I agree that a smaller body can work more effectively-but the difficulty of giving the voter a sense that he or she is able to have some influence. Let me rephrase it, if I may. What we are talking about is a con- ventional Mayor-Council system, which is the system used in most of the large cities of the United States. A question can be raised as to whether most of the larger cities are working very well. And another question can be raised whether that's got anything to do with the particular governmental structure which exists. Now, do you have any apprehension that going to the conventional system we find in other large cities may not be any more successful than they have been able to be with their problems? Mr. BURTON. I don't subscribe, Mr. Chairman, to the theory that the governmental form that is presently existent in other cities is in- operative simply because of the largeness of the number of members on their city council, or what have you. I think it depends primarily upon the caliber of individuals; and of course, I think that in the District of Columbia the electorate, of course, would elect to the City PAGENO="0222" 218 Council individuals who would be particularly concerned with the affairs of the citizens of the District of Columbia. You have one other factor that I think is most unique in my pro- posal, and that is that each one of the Councilmen would represent approximately TO~OOO individuals. I think that if you take that situa- tion and look at the situation as it exists perhaps in some of the other cities or even State representation systems, where one representative, of course, represents a larger number of persons, sometimes giving an individual the feeling that he has no one he can turn to. But here, I feel, that the 11 or the 13, of course, would, be truly representative. Not only would they be representative, I think that they would be able to operate very efficiently. Mr. FRASER. Let me just raise one other concept with you that I have injected and others have in the past. In my own community there has been an idea discussed, but not implemented, which in effect points to the various neighborhood activities, many of them federally spon- sored-a.s, for example, a neighborhood health clinic, which has Federal funding; or neighborhood conservation and rehabilitation programs using Federal funds in a large part; or just neighborhood community improvement associations, the kind that worry about plan- ning and city actions within their area-there is an idea in our city that is being discussed, instead of having lots of ad hoc citizen ad- visory boards of various kinds, special purpose-you know, maybe for a poverty agency or poverty activity in that area, or a health clinic, or a neighbodhood activity of some kind-that there'd be some value in formalizing a neighborhood or a community structure that you might have a nelected council for a neighborhood. I don't know the District well enough to talk in terms of neighbor- hoods, except the one that seems clearest to me is, for example, Ana- costia, which has a geographic separateness. In other words, it's an idea that it might be worth having at that level some kind of an election, using formal public election machinery. The council at least would have advisory powers, might have some discretionary money for its own staffing to supplement citywide services in the field of recreation or safety, and which could provide-be a sort of an organized con- stituency for that area in reacting to citywide policies. Would such an idea be of any value, or maybe you've given it some thought already? Mr. BURTON. We did give that some thought, Mr. Chairman, and I think that your suggestion for that idea is well taken. Now, I believe the problem that gave us the greatest difficulty is whether or not this particular neighborhood group would be simply advisory only in capacity, or would they have-perhaps in your own community what you are doing is you are developing a high degree of self-government within the neighborhood structure. Would they have the authority-for example, let's say a street needs to be paved within a particular neighborhood-would that neighbor- hood advisory group then be able to say or call the Highway Depart- ment for the District of Columbia simply because they have taken a vote and have gotten a majority to go along with it, and say to that Department come out and pave our streets? PAGENO="0223" 219 Then, this creates a problem in that each and every neighborhood assembly, of course, would probably want to exercise the same power- not that they should not-but certainly it would cost a great deal more to implement that type system than perhaps your suggestion of a neighborhood assemblage group which would simply be advisory in nature. And I suggest that that is an excellent idea, to have from the three or four subdivisions the various neighborhood assemblies, wherein they would simply be advisory to their Councilman in nature only. Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, might I add this comment? The District of Columbia-and I suppose in this way it's very similar to many jurisdictions throughout the country-doesn't suffer so much from lack of elections as it does from lack of voter interest. In the last 2 years, we have now the right to vote for President, to vote for a Delegate to the Congress, to vote for a School Board. And as witness our problems for Election Board, they have difficulty maintaining their staff and their activity to keep up with the increased tempo of elections; and yet, in few of those elections do we thave any kind of a turnout that really makes us proud as to the concern of citizens of the District of Columbia. So I really think that it is not a panacea just to provide more elec- tions, but I do think that we should look very carefully at the im- portant ones, such as City Council, to make sure that they are con- ducted properly. And then, the major parties work together to achieve a more respectable turnout of the voters to elect those representatives. Mr. FRASER. In my-I keep referring to my own community be- cause that's where I have most of my own experience. The average voter in, let's say a 4-year cycle, I would guess probably votes for 20 or 25 different offices. This ranges from a city councilman to-we have what is called a board of estimates-school board, city treasurer, city comptroller, the mayor, the county judges, district judges, State legis- lator, four or five statewide offices, Governor, members of the supreme court, in addition to the Federal. In the District of Columbia as we are now discussing it, a voter would have a chance, unless we get full congressional representation, to vote for President, nonvoting Delegate, Mayor, and City Council- man. My own view is that a shorter ballot tends to be better because there is more interest developed when the office is more visible; and this isn't diluted or diffused by a large number of offices. But if you had a neighboFhood council in addition, you would only add one more; and it might be at a small enough unit so that there is a good chance that the people would personally know the representa- tive from their area to that neighborhood council, which might add another element in the system that would help to elevate the interest and involvement in the political system. Mr. PENDLETON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that was part of the idea we sketched at the beginning, of a metropolitan area government. In each of the zones within the District of Columbia and in the neighboring counties, you would have elected a council to govern that zone, so this is certainly a concept that I agree with. PAGENO="0224" 220 Mr. FRASER. Let me just ask one last question on the metropolitan idea, if I may. The argument for metropolitan government, as I have seen it, is that there are certain activities that lend themselves to metro- politanwide control; for example, the mass transit system, we now have an operating agency. Water and sewer conceivably should. be another, because obviously, both water and sewer systems shouldn't stop at municipal boundaries. Another would be airports... There is a bill in, I think, to create an airports authority. .1 think Congressman Gude has a bill in to give a transit agency the operating authority with respect to area wide planning and operation of airport facilities. Now, would you go further than that ~ In other words, in your vision of a metropolitanwide government, would you give it authority beyond the sort of more obvious activities that deserve an areawide treatment? Mr. PENDLETON. I think initially we would start with those, but then you would build toward the idea of such powers as you have in a State or territorial government, and then you would be expanding into other areas such as the fiscal control of crime. And I think perhaps now, as you witnessed by the local papers, the issue of crime is one that is no longer controllable within the District or outside of the District. So I think that gradually you would expand beyond those powers, yes. Mr. FRASER. So that your idea is that there would be a revolutionary growth in authority. And if there was no secession of the adjoining areas, then they would have to-so far as Maryland and Virginia parts were concerned-they would have to get sanction for this from their respective State legislatures. Mr. PENDLETON. Yes, certainly, the control of them does remain in their State legislature. Mr. FRASER. The Environmental Protection Agency has come out with a report recommending there be a metropolitan council elected directly by the people, in part in order to provide a policy board to deal with some of the things we have talked about here, particularly, I think, water and sewer because that's one of the major environmental questions they were reviewing. I don't know if you are familiar with that report, but I am not sure whether it is a politically acceptable concept at this point in time. I don't know if you have had a chance to review that or not. Mr. BtTRTON. I have not. Mr. FRASER. Well, if you do, we would jDe interested, I think, in any comment you would have to make about it. Mr. Landgrebe. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, this is a very pleasant occasion for me to wel- come the chairman of the Republican Central Committee to our hearin&rs. Mr. PENIThETON. Thank you. sir. Mr. LANDGREBE. We've had the pleasure of hearing the Democratic Central Committee here last week. We had very interesting discus- sions about this matter. And I am sorry that visitors kept me away from your earlier testimony. PAGENO="0225" 221 I will try to catch up here with just a couple of questions. No. 1, you seem quite interested, as most people who have testified, in having an elected Mayor and legislature, or Council. You seem to feel that you can produce candidates for Mayor who could appoint judges, but you don't seem to feel that the people of the District would be qualified to elect their judges. Now, just how do you really explain this. And being a sort of old Republican myself, don't you think that judges, candidates on bal- lots, both parties-Democrat and Republican-tend to bring a higher level, a more respectable image to the political parties, to the tickets, and generate more interest in politics? And very basically, don't you feel that the people of the District, of the community, are qualified to vote and choose and elect their judges? Mr. BURTON. In our statement we certainly did not intend, nor did we have any intention, to disparage the citizenry of the District of Columbia, and say to them that you cannot elect judges. I think what we, in fact, were trying to do, since the old axiom is that every lawyer tries to be a judge, is to prevent 7,000-and there are approximately 7,000 lawyers in the District of Columbia-from running for judgeship. And of course, we feel that if, of course, the selection of judges were left to this method, then, of course, there would be terrible confusion at each and every election, simply because you would have 200 to 300 lawyers running for judgeships. And basically, that is the reason why we feel that the judges shou'd be appointed by the Mayor upon the recommendation of a Judiciary Advisory Committee, who could best screen out those applicants who are most qualified for this task, as opposed to allowing every lawyer in the city who has the hankering to run for judgeships simply to get his name before the public. And this is the reason that we made that suggestion. Mr. LANDOREBE. I have lived awhile, and I have seen an elective system, and I have seen what has happened to our country under the appointive system. Back in Indiana 25, 30 years ago, the political parties accepted the responsibility and applied the discipline to provide top quality can- didates for judges in the primaries, and I am not sure but what there was a little bit of methods used to discourage some less than highly qualified people from being candidates. Anyway, I can remember the day when we had some very fine judges through the elective system. We won't debate it. I think that I am crying out for something that has been, perhaps, history. But it grieves me to see people who are active in political parties want to give up any of our responsibilities, because the judicial, School Board, and all these kinds of things tend to be related to our two-party system with inde- pendent parties making a play when they think they can win. And I'm not saying we want that either. Mr. CLARK. Mr. Congressman, may I add something to Mr. Burton's statement? Mr. LANDGREBE. Yes. Mr. CLARK. We had seriously considered an alternative plan, in addi- tion to this Judicial Selections Committee. We had considered very strongly the idea, after the appointment of the judge to the Bench, 97-527-73--pt. 2-15 PAGENO="0226" 222 that in order for him to succeed himself upon the expiration of his term, that we would have anelection. I believe this is a planthat has been adopted in the State of Missouri, where the candidates for judgeship is initially appointed; and after he serves his term, or the expiration of his term, in order to be suc- ceeded he has to run. This is a plan, although it's not included in this particular report, it is worth consideration. Mr. LANDGREBE. I understand that you had heard suggestions on Missouri; and as a matter of fact, Indiana has something like that, rather similar. However, that doesn't mandate if we are going to create a new government here, that we have to follow Missouri or anyone else; that we cannot explore the possibilities of coming up with good, responsible government through the elective system. I still insist that when we had the judicial candidates on dur ballots in Indiana, it brought a level of quality and of responsibility to our political parties that I though was real important in the scheme of things. Everyone who comes in here to propose a plan for home rule or self- determination have on the first line we want. self-determination, on the second line we want flexible Federal payments. Usually they want to guarantee that these continue to spiral upward. If we are going to talk about selfdetermination, home rule, why don't we talk about being truly responsible people and either suggest plans for levying an income tax against those people who work in the Federal Government, a housing tax, hotel room tax, and a visitors' tax, develop some new industries, and so forth for the city? * Why doesn't somebody come in here once and say give us an appor- * tunity to have selfdetermination, and we will show you that we really can run this city without a great, huge guaranteed ever-increasing Federal payment to the city? Now, isn't there anyone that can conceive of the city having self- rule or home rule and also having self-payments of your, costs here? Mr. BURTON. Mr. Congressman, first of all, of course, I can under- sta.nd your concern with this. This is a matter of concern to all indivi- duals in the District of Columbia. We, of course. not to be disrespectful, feel, however, that there is no reason why the Federal Government should not pay to the District of Columbia some funds for the use of lands in the District of Columbia. Now, of course, the argument to that is that all of it is Federal lands,' but certainly, buildings occupy lands on which we could build indus- tries that you' are talking about. And we feel that, of course, as a result, the Federal Government should make some contribution. Now, you did not hear, unfortunately, because you were not here, my testimony that is not included within the statement on fiscal affairs that I submitted to you. I suggested that there is no reason why the District of Columbia, in order to raise these needed revenues thai you are now talking about, and in order to become more responsible, be allowed to issue taxable bonds. And I suggested further that these taxable bonds be in some manner subsidized by the Federal Government. PAGENO="0227" 223 Now, I think this may be a reasonthle alternative to what you are now suggesting. And I think in this way we can produce much of the revenue that is needed to operate the District of Columbia in an effi- cient manner. Mr. LANDGREBE. I fail to grasp the method by which you sell bonds, or float bonds, or issue bonds to carry out the function of this city, that will enrich the city. It seems to me that this is a way of going: into debt. All bonds, they either have to be repaid, or some of the bonds that are interest free-but it seems to me that this city will have to think about a pay-as-you-go basis some place along the line. I don't see any reason for talking about bond issues to provide for services. Maybe we're not thinking along the same lines. Maybe we're not even on the same subject. Mr. BURTON. Well, I think we are. You know, there has been sug- gested on several occasions a commuters' tax; and of course, con- sistent with your thought, maybe this is one of the things that cer- tainly should be adopted. Mr. LANDOREBE. Commutei tax, you say? Mr. BURTON. Commuter tax, yes. Of course, I can hear the screams and the yells now. Omie of the other things-maybe what we should do is charge a toll for the 14th Street Bridge. Let's charge a toll. let's say, for the South Capitol Street Bridge. In that way, of course, we can produce the revenue that you are talking about without increas- ing the tax on properties, that is, residential housing in the District of Columbia, and without increasing the income tax level for the Dis- trict of Columbia, which is becoming progressively higher each year it seems to me. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, the lady from Fairfax County suggested that if tolls were set up, then they would set up toll gates, and they would collect from people coming out into Fairfax County. And I thought about that over the weekend, and I decided that this sounds like an approach to the Federal payment problem. Why don't we just let you, and Fairfax, and Montgomery Counties collect from each other and pay all your bills; and we would not have this Federal subsidy to pay. I think there's some merit to the idea. What would be your-you didn't spell it out here in your statement. Would you propose that retrocession, statehood, national status-who is this Mayor and this City Council? What other layers of government do you envision in your system of electing people? Mr. BURTON. Well, in the proposal that I submitted I addressed my- self to the Mayor-Council form of government; however, with the suggestion of Congressman Fraser~ I think that it would be a good idea to have from each of the four subdivisions a so-called neighborhood assembly, or a representative group in the neighborhoods, that would be advisory in capacity only. And of course, that could be another layer. Mr. LANDGREBE. But you would like to keep the city as a separate entity, and it would not become part of Maryland, or divided with Virginia and Maryland, you know, for the State responsibilities and PAGENO="0228" 224 State controls? All the rest of the people in the United States live there- Mr. BURTON. All of them-what, sir? I didn't hear you. All the other people of the United States, what? Mr. LANDGREBE. WelL everyone in the United States lives in States where there are townships, cities, county, and State layers of govern- ment. Now, you are proposing a single layer of government, really not even being responsible to the Federal Government in certain areas, you see, for taxing and, oh, the land use, and in many areas you su~.rgest-zoning, public utilities, fiscal matters. In other words, you feel that we can retain the Federal city. We'd move from appointed to elected Council and Mayor. Mr. BURTON. Yes. I feel, first of all, that you talk about retrocession. I do not believe that there should be retrocession, and the reason that I say that is because I think that retrocession is talked about only when you talk about the area smallness of the District of Columbia. But if you look at the population of the District of Columbia, being some 800,000 persons and larger than 10 or 11 of our States, as such; then it seems to me that within the confines of the District of Columbia proper, there is ample opportunity, as well as sufficient number of persons, to maintain and operate a government efficiently. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, Chicago, they've got 5 million people. They've got State, county, local government to protect them; in fact, in Val- paraiso, we have a constable at the local level, the city police; we have the sheriff's department; we have the State police; we have the FBI. Don't you think people of the District should have equal protection? I mean, these different layers of just police power alone intermesh and are not really duplication ; -but it is just an example of what the people of Indiana have and enjoy, compared to a Federal Government with one layer of government. And I have supported the local paper here as being very concerned with what would happen with, say 25 elected officials to run the city of 800,000 people and budgets ranging up into the billions of dollars. Don't you share my fear a little bit that this thing would be such ~a massive responsibility to the people? Assuming that they would all be nice people, and it would work; but supposing there are some people who get in here that have other than the best interests at heart. Mr. BURTON. Well, it seems to me under the present system, where you have the City Council for the District of Columbia i~nuch smaller in number than what we are talking about-li to 13-and a present Mayor who is responsible for the same budget, and he seem~ to be doing a pretty good job as far as managing the budget. I feel that the number of persons that have been suggested-il to 13-of course could manage the budget properly. I don't believe sim- ply because you have a larger number of persons who are City Coun- cilmen or representatives, that this, of course, would provide for a more efficiently operated budget. I think the smaller the number the better controlled and more grasp you have over each dollar that is spent. Mr. LANDGREBE. Do you think that it is possible for us to separate out the Federal interest and the city interest, and have an elected PAGENO="0229" 225 government, and have the Federal interest controlled by the Federal, and work something out that would intermesh, that would work? In other words, you feel this could be done. Mr. BURTON. I feel that that could be done, and I think there has been such a proposal-I believe 1-louse bill-if you indulge me for a moment, please. I believe House bill No. 950 dealt with that concept, except House bill No. 950 talked about creating the Federal enclave, describing the District of Columbia or the Federal Government as being that area surrounded, say; by the river, and it goes north to Florida Avenue; it goes west to the park, and east to 15th Street NW. But then with the rest of the city, H.R. 950 talks about retrocession, to which, of course, I am opposed. I think that the Federal enclave, to speak in that sense, could be carved out of the District of Columbia, and of course. from the rest of the territory of the District of Colum- bia, you could then create your four subdivisions that I am talking about, who could then, of course, govern the particular areas that are left. Mr. LANDGREBE. Just a couple of more questions, please. Don't you think that we arc dealing with something that is going to be awfully unworkable? If we start carving out a Federal enclave, we will have absolute Federal territory; we'll have absolute city territory. Don't you think that there. are interests, there are different things that will make the drawing of the line unworkable or undesirabje in the future? After all, there are millions of people-20 million of them. I understand hotels are filled up in this town right now~ Summer hasn't yet gotten here. The Federal Government must have some interest in things that go on north of the border. Wouldn't it seem moire sensible to work in the way of dividing people interest, or human concerns, rather than trying to divide up on a geographic basis? Can we divide up governmental responsibilities, rather than trying to carve out geography? Mr. BURTON. It may well be, Congressman, that because of the Fed- eral interest, which interest, of course, the Members of Congress guard very jealously, that there is no alternative except the two forms of government that I am talking about; and that is the Federal so-called portion, as well as the local portion. Frankly, I would like to see one government body, and that one gov- ernment body would reign supreme over all of the District of Colum- bia. But I take it from the gist of your question that there is very much concern about what protection will there be for the so-called Federal interest aspect. I think that the District of Columbia with its one form of govern- ment to govern all could certainly consider and give proper respect to the Federal interest as well. Mr. CLARK. And I might add, Mr. Congressman, that we believe that the Federal interest and local self-government could coexist, notwith- standing that from time to time there may be a conflict in jurisdiction; however, we fully recognize that there are certain areas which are ex- clusively Federal. PAGENO="0230" 226 On the other hand, if you will bear. with me, there are certain areas of concern which will be purely local. This is what we are primarily concerned with insofar as home rule, self-determination, and whatever `we call it. Wit;h respect to any matters of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, of course the Federal Government would maintain its interest and have jurisdiction over that particular matter. With respect to pure matters of domestic and local concern, whether we carve out the District of Columbia iii certain geographical bo'undaries or not, as you mentioned the importance of the human aspect of this; so there would be a pos- sible conflict between the Federal interest and our local or domestic interest. Quite naturally, we would yield ground to the Federal. On the other hand. we would hope that the Federal would give us some respect in handling our local matters. Mr. LANDGREBE. One final question. You indicate a determination that zoning should be a local matter. Now. just supposing in the scheme of things that the Federal Gov- ernment decides that it is in the best interest of the United States of America to go into the city area, assuming that we will ever achieve this geographic division. We must go into the city to build a facility, and we get hung up. The city says no, and the Federal says yes, this is an absolute necessity that we do this. Now, how would you envision us going about reconciling this dif- ference? How could this reconciliation come about? Mr. BURTON. Preservation, of course, of the District of Columbia- as I stated in my statement-as the Nation's Capital is of paramount Federal interest; and to allude to the statement made by Mr. Clark, it would seem that the District of Columbia government must then sur- render its authority to that of the Federal Government in the interest of protection of that which is in the Federal interest. Mr. LANDGREBE. Do you think that would come about rather automatically? Mr. BURTON.. I think that it would come about without a lot of hassle. Let's put it that way. Mr. LANDGREBE. I think I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Congressman, if I might add one further point referring to questions that you raised about the fiscal issue. I think regardless of the form of government that is proposed for the District of Columbia-whether it is the form we have today, or any form that is proposed for the future-the tax base of the District of Columbia is not sufficient to support the operations of the local and Federal costs that occur here. The large amount of land used for Federal costs, and the absence of many home dwellers who live in the suburbs, make it impossible that this government can operate without Federal payment. So whether it is this form, or any form of government proposed, I think our feelings would be very strongly that the Federal interest must continue to the point of including some sort of unique, if you `will call it, Federal payment to the District of Columbia budget. Mr. LANDGREBE. Thank you. Mr. FRASER. Does Committee Counsel have any questions? Mr. DEPUY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. two very brief questions. PAGENO="0231" 227 Mr. Burton, on page 2 of your testimony you recommend there be a liaison committee between the local government and the Federal agencies. Have you spelled out what powers or functions these liaison com- mittees, or this liaison committee, ought to have-this advisory body? What kind of body do you see here? Mr~ BURTON. I see a group or a body that would be advisory in nature. The main reason for the creation of such a committee or liaison position is so that within any particular area, for example, like Congressman Landgrebe just talked about, there would be an indi- vidual who, of course, would be able to articulate and know the feel- ings of the District government, and yet at the same time, of course, would try to get some understanding of the interest of the Federal Government, so that he can then go back to the Mayor-Council and make both sides known. And in that way I think there could be a resolution of any dispute which may arise, such as the one suggested. Mr. DEPUY. Thank you. One other question. On the next page you say the Mayor should have the power to appoint the local department heads, including police and fire, subject to confirmation of the Council. Is it your position that the police and fire chiefs should be subject to confirmation, or all department heads? And if you make a distinc- tion, why would you make that distinction, if there are only those two departments? Mr. BURTON. I feel that all of them should be, and I suppose I put that in simply because there is a great deal of thought that is given t~ the concept of the appointment of police and fire chief. There seems to be greater citizenry participation, or at least concern, with those two as opposed, say, to the Department of Human Resources, or one of the other departments. And I simply wanted to spell it out. Mr. DEPUY. But your recommendation, then, would be similar to that of the Federal Cabinet, which would be the entire Cabinet sub- ject to confirmation? Mr. BURTON. Yes. That is correct. Mr. DEPUY. Thank you. Mr. FRASER. Mr. Hogan, do you have any questions? Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, could I make a short statement and then a few questions? Congressman Nelsen was unable to be here this morning, but I am sure if he were here he would compliment you, Mr. Fraser, for getting* into some of the details that you have in your questioning. I think that he has concern, as you have, that some of the details of how the local government would operate, in terms of home rule, apparent concern; and that if there were to be home rule, that it is extremely important that some of these problems be resolved at this time; because if it isn't, then you perhaps could well have consider- able conflict with the result in problems which would be avoided if some of these things were gone into details, I think, as you were tak- ing them up. Which g ts me into the question of whether-I know there have been some testimony earlier that indicated some of the witnesses did PAGENO="0232" 228 not favor the concept of a Charter Commission, which had been rec- ommended at least on one prior occasion, and I think was raised some years ago. Do you have any position on the Charter Commission concept? Mr. BURTON. Since time immemorial, Mr. Hogan, there have been committees; there have been commissions; there have been bills-and I am now referring to H.IR. 2574, which is the one you alluded to, which was introduced by Congressman Broyhill, who wanted to set up a commission or a Charter Commission to study this concept. I think the time for studying is over. I think that if we are ever going to get self-determination or some form of home rule, let's have it now, and let us work out the problems. We-that is, the citizens of the DistHct of Columbia-are aware, and shall always be aware, that the paramount interest in this city would be the protection of the Federal interest, and I see no conflict that could arise as a result of giving us self-government, self-deter- mination now, and let's work together and work out the problems. Mr. HOGAN. The Nelsen Commission had considerable difficulty in arriving at what-how you would divide, let's say, the local interest and the national interest, the Federal interest, as it related to planning. They found this to be a nettlesome problem; and quite frankly, their recommendation as it related to physical planning in general in the District of Columbia was in general terms because of this. In response to questions from various Congressmen here to wit-* nesses as they have appeared before the committee, the subcommittee, there has been this difficulty, as it were, in resolving what would be Federal, what would be local. There is some concern that in one sense it could be defined as geographic, presumably, as Mr. Dellums said, in the Federal enclave area; presuthably the Federal interest is virtu- ally total, I gather, according to his bill. On the other hand, the Congressmen, several of them, and witnesses indicate that in the rest of the community there would be a conflict as it related to the Federal interest. They might be both functioning in the community, as far as transportation and planning, there could be both the Federal and the local interest. But it seems to me that, assuming that you have home rule, you want to, it would seem to me., not have any conflicts between the Con- gress, or the least number of conflicts between the Congress, the Presi- dent, and the local government. That should be maximized or opti- mized, as it were. Because if we do, the District would have relatively slight repre- sentation in the Congress; and what Congress has done, they can put presumably under. And that was why I was complimenting Mr. Fraser for getting into these problems in some detail, so that some of these things could be resolved and should be resolved. Do you not agree? Mr. BURTON. I agree with that. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Fraser. Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much. I do want to say that your testimony this morning has been very helpful and constructive. And we will welcome an additional memo from you on some of the points we discussed earlier. PAGENO="0233" 229 Mr. BURTON. Very well. Thank you. Mr. PENDLETON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and mem- bers of the committee. Mr. FRASER. Our next witnesses are Mr. Richard Clark, chairman of the board of Self-Determination for D.C.; and Elizabeth Karlow, member of the national board of directors, League of Women Voters. [The prepared statements of Mr. Richard Clark and Ms. Eliza- beth R. Karlow follow:] TESTIMONY o:c DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Ho~rE RULE BY RICHARD CLARK, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, COMMON CAUSE Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am submitting this testimony on behalf of Common Cause, a national citizens organization. Our statement to- day is nearly identical to the views which we presented before the House District Coiiirnittee (luring the 92nd Congress. Common Cause membership of over 200000 includes individuals from every state and every Congressional district in the Union. Our concern for borne rule for the District of Columbia evolves from our dedication to the achievement of representative government for all Americans including the thousands of Common Cause iiiembers who reside in the District. Coim~ion Cause strongly supports the concept of home rule for the District of Columbia. We define that concept to minimally include: (a) Bipartisan election of local officials (b) Full legislative authority over local affairs (c) Budgetary authority including the right to determine revenues and allocate the same according to local priorities (d An automatic federal payment Although we are not testifying in support of any specific bill, we generally support the statement Previously submitted to ycur Subcommittee by the Metro- p:)litall SI eering Committee for Seif-T)eterrnination. You will remember that that statement was a more precise commentary on the nature of the proposed local government. Conunon Cause has actively participated in "Self-Determination for D.C.", a Coalition of 51 national and 60 local organizations. The Coalition's efforts have developed a broad-based consensus in support of the four-point definition of home rule outlined above. This consensus was obtained through discussions with bi- partisan representatives of both the local and national organizations and private citizens associated with the National Coalition. Conclusive local citizen support for home rule has been expressed on numerous occasions. This contention is supported by the overwhelmingly favorable returns of home rule referendums conducted by the Democratic and Republican Parties during the past decade. In 1960, 87.4 percent of those voting on the question favored home rule; in 1964, 85 percent voted in favor, and in 1968, 91.7 percent (Democrats only), voted in favor. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE There is a long tradition of advocacy and legal precedent for home rule as well as other rights of citizenship for District residents. In Federalist Paper No. 43, James Madison referred to the necessity of providing for the "rights and consent of the citizens' who were to inhabit the Federal District. In the same passage. he asserted that the inhabitants of the District "will have had their voice in the election of the government which exercises authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from (heir own suifrages, will of course be allowed to them." The relocation of the Federal Government to Washington in 1800 marked the beginning of Congressional debates concerning the nature of the District Govern- nment. These debates have extended to this very day. It is highly significant, and a strong affirmation of support, that the Senate has passed home rule legislation on seven occasions during the last twelve years. In addition, all Presidents since 1955 (and a number of Presidents prior to 1955) have made public pronouncements in support of District self government. Simi- PAGENO="0234" 230 larly, bipartisan support has been dramatized by the inclusion of home rule in Democratic and Republican Party platforms since 1948. During the past decade, Congress gave one of its most concerted responses to the continuing concern for more responsible government in the District. The en- actment of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 which gave District residents eleetoral college representation, the Reorganization Plan of 1967, which provided for the present (Mayor) Commissioner-City Council form of government, the provi- sion for an elected school board in 1968, and the non-voting delegate bill in 1970, were all in recognition of the second class status of the District, and in response to the cry for "homerule". An irrefutable recognition of the need for reform was implicit in each action. Historical occurrence aside, Common Cause believes that good government, es- pecially in a democracy. must not only be constitutional, but it must also be ac- countable, accessible and responsive to the people it is intended to serve. Like- wise, it should be efficient. We believe that the granting of home rule is essential to the achievement of good government as measured by the above criteria. In presenting the case for home rule, documentation of the absence of good govern- ment and the need for reform is in order. LEGAL ARGUMENTS Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reserves to the Congress the power of `exclusive legislation in all matters whatsoever" affecting the District of Colum- bia. Such provision was macic in order to safeguard the federal interest in the Capital City. Accordingly, we do not question the exclusive jurisdiction of Con- gress over the District. However, the argument that Article I prohibits home rule in an absolute sense is refuted by both judicial decision and historical precedent: More specifically, there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits the Congress from dele- gating its authority in a manner similar to that delegation by state legislatures to its local units of government. In Thompson vs. U.S. 346 U.S. 100 1953, the Supreme Court held that the Congress could legally delegate its full legislative power to the District of Columbia ". . . subject . . . to the power of C.ongress at any time to revise, alter, or revoke the authority granted." The first precedent for local self government under authority delegated by time Congress occurred in 1802 with the granting of the first District of Columbia City Charter. Home rule, including elected officials and legislative and budgetary au- thority, existed until 1874.' The loss of home rule in 1874 followed Vice Presideilt of the Board of Public Works and later Governor, "Boss" Shepherd. The withholding of any systematic conveyance of home rule since 1874, like the withdraw-al of home rule at that time, has been based on political circum- stance rather than constitutional proscription. GOOD GOVERNMENT: ACCOUNTABILITY, RESPONSIVENESS, ACCESSIBILITY, AND EFFICIENCY In addition to constitutionality, it is important that government be account- able to (and representative of) the people it is intended to serve. In the sense that w-e use the term, accountability relates to the ability of a constituent body to hold public officials responsible for the determination of legislative priorities and the making of policy. As both a legal and practical matter, major and minor decisions affecting the daily lives of District residents are dictated by nationally elected officials who admit to giving little or no priority to District affairs. This lack of responsibility is substantiated by the appalling attendance record of District Committee mem- bers. It is further substantiated by the frequent, and in some cases virtually permanent, grant of proxy voting authority by some Members of the Committee. It is a typical irony that many members of the Senate and House Committees designated to oversee District affairs represent constituencies geographically situated hundreds or thousands of miles away. In addition, these constituent groups are often in decided contrast to the socio-econonmie character of the Dis- trict. It is also significant to note the inordinate degree of representation by rural `S&f-rovernment hnd been ~erioiislv imnaired In 1571, by the in~titutbm of ~ territorial- like roverument. That government had a bicameral legislature with one House elected and the other appointed. The Governor was alsoappointed. PAGENO="0235" 231 area Congressmen on District Committees in view of the District's highly im- pacted urban character. Similarly, Congressmen have been forced to devote unwarranted time and energy to District matters of the most insignificant nature and having nothing to do with their own political survival or any national interest. Little perspi- cacity is needed to understand the potential problems of morale and incentive which are imposed on even the best intentioned Congressman who is conscripted to serve as advocate-by-default for District interests. In view of these and. other circumstances, logic, rationality, and morality would certainly dictate that local matters be delegated to local officials. Many of the criteria of accountability of government also apply to the re- sponsiveness and accessibility of government. Responsiveness refers to the ability of government to address itself to the social, economic, and other needs of the people it serves. Accessibility, on the other hand, refers to the ability and facility for citizen involvement and input in the decision-making processes of their government. The relative lack of exposure, sensitivity, and aw-areness to urban problems of many District Committee Members, the high level of Committee and Sub- committee absenteeism, the treatment of District Committee assignments as "extra duty", the absence of electoral accountability to District residents, the diffusion of pow-er among the District Committees and the Congress at large- all serve to impede the responsiveness of government to the pressing needs of the city, and also to thwart citizen involvement. There is liti le doubt that a greater degree of responsiveness and accessibility could be achieved through the delegation of authority to local officials responsible to local citizens. Such delegation of authority would he to individuals whose full- time concern as well as political survival w-ould be involved with commitment to the local community. In addition, there is no doubt that respect for the federal interest as well as protection of that same interest could be assured through an adequate provision for Congressional oversight as previously suggested. Efficiency is also a quality which must be maintained if government is to function effectively. On August 17, 1972, the report of the "Commission on the Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia" (the Nelsen Com- mission) was issued. The Commission offered recommendations for improving the administration of District government. In most respects, however, the Com- mission's report was concerned with the symptoms of inefficiency rather than the causes. District government matters are not administrative. They are structural and procedural, and they are in direct relationship to the uninhibited exercise of authority over local affairs by the Congress. The District currently operates under a (Mayor) Commissioner-City Council form of governmental organization. How- ever, the role of the actors in the appointive positions of `Mayor" and "~Jity Councilman" are more ceremonial than real, more form, then substance. Real power and authority over local affairs is both maintained and exercised through four Committees of Congress-the House and Senate District Com- mittees and the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on D.C. Affairs. As a result, much time and effort has been annually wasted in pro forma activity by local officials and attempts to second guess the Congress. As previously indicated, the exercise of undelegated legislative authority, and line item budgetary veto powers by the District Committees have frequently carried the Congress into the time consuming local affairs that are indefensible in terms of any reasonable concept of "federal interest" or any other systematic logic. In the past year, for example, Members of the Congress have spent many hours in deliberation of matters of such vital importance to the Nation as: Authorization of D.C. firemen to play in the Metropolitan Police Band Kite flying Snow and ice removal Dog licensing fees District dump truck fees Ironically, the engagement of the Nation's Congressmen in such frivolity has probably done as much to jeopardize national priorities and federal interests as to safeguard it. By inference then, the Congress has interpreted the "exclusive power" clause of Article I, Section 8 to mean "uninhibited powers" void of restraint from inter- PAGENO="0236" 232 ference in local affairs and void of any apparent concern for the efficient use of the time of national representatives. A typical example of the gross procedural inefficiency in District governance in~olves the budgetary process. Even a brief summary of that procedure would elucidate its absurdity. First the budget is prepared by the Mayor and referred to the City Council. After extensive hearings, the Council forwards the budget to the President (Offiëe of Management and Budget) for review. The President in turn submits `t to the House and Senate District Appropriations Committees where it is again subjected to extensive hearings. Simultaneously, the House and Senate District Committees conduct hearings on the revenue bill. As a result of this unu-ieldly process, morale is decreased, long range planning objectives are thwarted and the time and resources of the local bureaucracy-and its officials are wasted in hours upon hours of hearings and re-hearings. Moreover, this process not only impedes efficiency, but in fact promotes inefficiency. It is significant to note in passing that nearly half of Fiscal Year 1972 had passed * before the FY 1972 budget was approved by the Congress. If we are to continue to proclaim ourselves as leader of the free world, it is incumbent upon us to at least equal the other free world capitals-Bonn, Paris, Tokyo, Berne, Rome, and Greater London-in the extension of democracy to the citizenry of our own capital city. In each of these countries, provision is made for home rule to the extent that each capital city has elected officials, legisiative authority, and budgetary control over local affairs. In the absence of constitutional prohibition and in light of historical and legal precedent, the matter of extending home rule is most precisely a question of the will of Congress. We urge the Committee to act quickly in reporting a bill so that the full House will have opportunity to respond during the first session of the 93rd Congress. - STATEMENT BY ELIZABETH R. KARLoW, DIRECTOR, LEAGUE OF WOMEN ~`OTERS OF THE UNITED STATES ON SELF-GOvERNMENT FOE THE T)IsTEIcT OF COLUMBIA Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: my name is Eizabeth R. Karlow and I am a member of the Board of Directors of the League of Women Voters of the United States. I appear here today to speak for approximately 150,000 League members from 1300 communities in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands-AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-in favor of self-govern- ment for our capital city. You are presently considering several bills providing varying forms of increased self-government for the District of Columbia. As in the past, you have requested the views of interested organizations. We are in a quandary as to how to respond. For the past 35 years the League has supported Home Rule. We have provided facts, and emphasized the practical and legitimate needs of the District's residents as well as the philiosophy, which few care openly to disavow, that democracy falls far short of its promise when a large number of citizens are denied a voice in their government. We have not yet seen action. I propose at this time not to repeat our arguments once again-you've all heard them before-BUT to ask you: Is there material we can produce, or action we can take to help you pass any real Home Rule bill for the District of Columbia? We can present no new data that you have not already received from pre- vious witnesses. What we can state categorically is that the position adopted by the LWVLTS in 1938 is as strong now as it was then: our members support a locally-elected District government. In 1971, the Senate passed legislation au- thorizing a mayor~city council organization whose legislative actions were subject to congressional veto. That bill would have given D.C. citizens their deserved self-determination while adequately protecting the federal interest in the District. Both national party platforms have planks favoring home rule for the District. You, Mr. Chairman, and the Chairman of the full committee co-sponsored a home rule bill with the District's non-voting delegate in 1971. Yet, from my personal experience and from that of other League members, congressional protestations of conviction seem to weaken when the chips are down, and action, NOT TVO1~DS, is required! The past failure of the House District Committee and the Congress to act has only served to feed the frustrations and dissatisfactions of those who hold the PAGENO="0237" 233 legislative branch in low repute; who claim that reason and facts carry no weight; who advocate disruption and disrespect as the only ways to get atten- tion for unredressed grievances. What is contributing to congressional inaction? An honest answer, publicly aired, would perhaps give both sides the opportunity to address these concerns: are they racial; or related to the School Board's performance; or the federal responsibility for city finances? We are all shadow-boxing and these hearings will be an exercise in futility unless we can openly lay to rest the emotional hidden agedas that distort the discussion of legislation to give home rule to the District. In spite of the years of knocking unsuccessfully at congressional doors on this issue, League members hdve not given up. At our national convention in May of 1972, delegates voted support for a progressive, state by state, drive to alert this country's citizens to the second-class status of the District and to arouse grass roots support for a change. Members have brought the message to their com- munities with enthusiasm and conviction. Not surprisingly, the general public reaetion has been one of astonishment. A local League in the Midwest wrote us, "Most of my audiences were amazed and dismayed by the D.C. situation [but] without my . . . [presentation] these people would not have known or cared about the colonial plight of the D.C. citizens." (University City, Missouri). This example points up what we hear from every side: most people outside the District don't even know that there is no self-government here. Therefore, the argument we hear from members of Congress that their constituents don't care about the District doesn't tell the whole story. We all have problems. We afl concentrate on those that are closest to home. But League members know that when voters outside the District are made aware that over 700,000 residents of the capital are disenfranchised, they do care. Evidence of this concern is coming from all across the country: A resolution memorializing Congress to pass legislation authorizing home rule and voting representation in Congress was introduced in the Washington state legislature; The City Council in White Bear Lake, Minnesota, passed a resolution urging self-government and representation for the District; The Governor of Wisconsin issued a proclamation favoring self-government and representation; Petitions are being circulated successfully by League members in a number of communities; Letters of support are being or will be sent to Members of Congress from Alaska in the West to Maine in the East; from Minnesota in the North to Florida in the South; Radio and TV interviews, parades, flyers, editorials, rallies, and speakers have all been part of local League initiatives in bringing the District's plight to the attention of their fellow citizens. In addition, the subject of D.C. home rule was incorporated in a course in high school practical politics given by the League in Lakewood, Ohio; and Leagues in San Diego, California and Simsbury, Con- necticut have used a premiere of the movie "1776" to emphasize "D.C-The Last Colony" and the theme of "taxation without representation." I cite these examples, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, to empha- size our conviction that a constituency favoring self-government for the District does exist in every state of the Union. The League bases its existence on support for representative democracy. We are as dismayed as you that public attitudes appear contemptuous of the ability of legislative bodies to meet current needs. We urge that you demon- strate your dedication to democratic principles and your ability to meet public needs by granting to the District's residents the right to solve their own problems. The exercise of democracy has never demanded-or received-perfect per- formance. Mistakes will be made. But, as the late President Truman said, "The buck stops here." Responsibility and authority will rest where they belong- with locally-elected public officials. It will no longer be possible for "the buck to be perpetually passed around with only nebulous "great white fathers" in the federal government being blamed for all problems. At the same time, locally- elected officials will serve the needs of their constituency here in a way that Mem- bers of Congress, no matter how well-intentioned, can never do. Members of the League do not question the good faith of this Subcommittee. We ask you sincerely, therefore, what can we do to help you draft and ensure House passage of a home rule bill for the District of Columbia? PAGENO="0238" 234 STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. CLARK, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS CF SELF-DETEaMINATION Fon D.C.-Tna \ATIONAL COALITION" Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard W. Clark. I am here today in behalf of the National Coalition. Self-Determination for D.C. The Coalition is comprised of 51 national organizations representing millions of Americans of divergent political opinions and parties, and from many walks of life, and from all parts of the country. `We have united to advocate the return of the iights of our re~~ub- lie to the citizens of the Nations Capital. In addition to this oral testimony, I have brought with inc written testimony from member organizations of the National Coalition. We would like to have this testimony entered into the Record at this time.. Some Coalition member organizations have requested that they be allowed to submit written statements at a later date. Washington, D.C. is a beautiful city ; its monuments. its parks, its iiubiic buildings are a fitting tribute to the worlds oldest and in many ways greatest lemocracy. Yes, it is a national city. The Capitol, the `White House, the Supreme Court and all the other symbols of a working republic situated here belong to all American citizens. But the people of this city do not. Beyond the monu- ments and the mall are ilearly 800,000 human beings who have as much right to participate in their local government as do the citizens of Detroit, Valpa~aiso, Mankato. or any other American city. Columbia is the capital of South Carolina and as such it belongs to the people of South Carolina. But no one would suggest for that reason its citizens should not elect their own Mayor or city government. Neither did the founding fatlier~ `wish to disenfranchise the citizens of the Federal district when they drafted the Constitution. A key author of that document, James Madison, stated without reservation in the Federalist Papers that:. `A municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrage, will of course be allowed . . . Dis- trict citizens." As we approach the 200th anniversary of the founding of this country, it is nppropriate that w-e reflect on why so many men risked their lives and fortunes in declaring their independence and fighting the revolution. Was it not because they believed that the rights of government, any government, do not preclude the rights of the people? Did they not fight and die' because they believed that no people should be taxed without equal representation in the tax-making body? Did they not suffer so that tile people would have their ow-n courts of law' and their own elected lenders? But now we look at the District of Columbia, the free world leader's capital dty-a city without participatory democracy. Here w-e see a people whose local taxes are higher than all but three of the self-governing states. Yet, these same people have no voting representation in the taxation process. We see a people whose rights as citizens are denied in the name of the "federal interest-_an ambiguous concept pursued with vastly unequal fervor among the various pout!- ~al jurisdictions. We see a people whose local courts and high offices are manned not by men they have chosen, directly or even indirectly, but by appointees from an outside power. Whether these judges or officials be just or unjust, black or white, Republican or Democrat, is not the point. The point here, as in the pre- ceding instances, is that in a democracy the institutions and offices of government should belong to the citizens. The denial of accountable self-government to the District of Columbia is a mockery of every democratic principle this country represents. Our Declaration of Independence declares that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," yet the law-s which currently govern the District de- prive more than three-quarters of a million Americans of the fundamental rig1~t to select those who govern them. Three arguments are customarily advanced against reinstating home rule to the District: (1) Congress lacks pow-er to delegate home rule authority to tile District and must by force of the Federal Constitution, govern the capital city itself; (2) The District, seat' of the national government, should be denied home rule in order to protect the federal interest; (3) The people of the District of Columbia are incapable of (or disinterested in) home rule. * The first tw-O of these arguments are frequently and vociferously advanced by home rule opponents. The third, probably the key argument for many home rule opponents, generally exists as an undertone. All three are invalid. PAGENO="0239" 235 Some home rule opponents assert that Congress is constitutionally incapable of delegating authority to a local government to conduct the affairs of the District of Columbia, they base their contention on Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District But the argument that this clause prohibits home rule will not bear analysis. It is refuted by history and by judicial decision. If Congress lacks constitutional authority to delegate legislative responsibility to a District of Columbia home rule government, then it acted uiiconstitutionally in 1802, 1812, 1820, and 1871-each being years in which the Congress provided for populary elected legislatures to rule the District. If Congress cannot delegate its legislative function to the District, then Congress is acting unconstitutionally today, and has been doing so since 1887. In that y~ar the Congress authorized the then existing three-man commissioner government to make and enforce public regulations. Regulatory vower and other quasi-legislative authority is still held by the Commissioner-City Council Government presently in operation in the District. In 1053, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion (District of Uolnmbia vs. John If. Thompson Co.), held that "the Congress had the authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution to delegate its lawmaking authority to the legislative Assembly of the municipal corporation which was created by tho Organic Act of 1871." In reaching its decision, the Court specifically rejected tIme argument that the word "exclusive" renders the legislative function non- delegate. The Court said, `it is clear from the history of the provision that the word "exclusive" was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congre'ss over the District was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states." Moreover, the argument that Congress lacks the authority to delegate its legislative responsibility to a local government in the District, including a popu- larly-elected government, stands refuted by 170 years of delegation. Fifty of these years (1820 to 1870) involved delegation to a local government, whose officials were popularly elected. The barrenness of the attempted legal argument against home rule re-einpha- sizes the fact that the question of home rule for the Nation's Capital is not really a constitutional matter. Rather, it is a political, social, arid moral one. The other two general categories of arguments against home rule previously noted, are that "the federal interest in the District makes home rule unwise," and that "the people of the District are incapable of prudent self-government." What is there about the federal interest in the I)istrict which supposedly makes the restoration of home rule unadvisable? Is it the mere size of the governmental establishment? Or is it that we have been subjected to the effects of some undefinable or mystical principle? Indeed, the headquarters of a great number of federal agencies and their top personnel are located here, but other agencies are headquartered in other jurisdictions (e.g., the. Department of Defenne in Virginia and the Atomic Energy Commission and Social Security Administration in Maryland) without causing the slightest embarrassment to the government of the United States. There are literally scores of government installations and hundreds of govern- ment buildings located in the suburbs of Washington. Likewise, a 1970 govern- ment report ["Annual Report of Federal Civilian Employment by Geographic Area" (U.S. Civil Service Commission; December 31, 1970)] reported federal civilian employment in the District at 192,918 compared to 124,584 for the sur- rounding suburbs. To be sure, the federal administrative and proprietory interest is no less in kind in the suburbs than in the District of Columbia. However, who would even dare to suggest that the rights and protections of local self-government should be denied to the suburban residents because of the federal interest? The truth is that "the federal interest is expressed through no coherent or responsible process, but tends to emerge through accident, whimsy, occasional deliberation, or the design of some unthwarted interest." [From "The Government of Federal Capitals"_WashingtOfl, by Hanson and Ross.] The Chief Executive also lives and works in the District of Columbia. Cer- tainly he has concern for the "federal interest". Yet every President since Frank- lin Roosevelt has supported home rule. In addition, every President from Adams PAGENO="0240" 236 to Grant lived and worked while in office in some form of home-ruled Washington. The notion of the Federal Government being centered in a home-ruled city seems far less humiliating, threatening, or unwise than the thought of the Congress of the United States demeaning itself by serving as a local city council, and wasting its time and energies by debating such "burning issues" as whether or not D.C. firemen can play in the police band, whether kite-flying is a legal pastime in the District, or the setting of taxicab fares. All are issues which have robbed constituents of the valuable time and services of their national representa- tives. Where else in the world could you find the absurdity of a 535 member "national city council". One must look beyond the legal and "federal interest" arguments, however, to find the more basic reason why the District is denied home rule. There is an often unspoken suggestion that the population of the District of Columbia can- not be trusted to govern itself. Some feel that that belief is based. on racial prej- iidice of the kind evidenced by several previous witnesses before the Committee. We find any such allusion to race or the racial composition of the city as totally repugnant to the Constitution and to basic decency. A closely related argument suggests that if the popular government in power during the post-Civil War period so mismanaged its affairs that Congress abol- ished home rule, what assurance is there that such mismanagement will not recur? The fact is that most major cities of Washington's 171-year age have experienced periods of embarrassing mismanagement at some point in their his- tory. What many "it-could-happen-again" critics ignore is that most of the mis- management complained of in the 1870~s occurred after the popularly elected mayor/council system was abolished. Home rule had been virtually eliminated by the Act of 1871. We regard this argument as specious, however, in that (state granted) municipal home rule with delegated authority has a long tradition of success in our country. Moreover, the current home rule proposals supported by the Coalition contain more than adequate provision for Congressional oversight and for protection of the national interest. The argument that the people of the District cannot be trusted to govern them- selves represents what is perhaps the last unbridled expression of autocracy in America. It reflects the last vestiges of the fear of popular government which President Andrew Jackson assailed when he demanded: "Let the people rule !" Since its formation, "Self-Determination for D.C."-the National Coalition, has been actively seeking a broad consensus of member organization and citizen opin- ion regarding restoration of the full rights of suffrage and self-government to the people of Washington. Having obtained that consensus from those groups and individuals identified with us, the Coalition is here today to voice our strong sup- part of the concept of home rule for the District of Columbia. Again, we define that concept to minimally include: 1. Elected local officials; 2. Full legislative authority over local affairs; 3. Budgetary authority including the right to determine revenues and allocate the same according to local priorities; and 4. An automatic annual federal payment. The time is now for bringing these hearings to an end. Home rule debates have been going on since early 1800. Hundreds of hours of debate and scores of hear- ing records and reports have been logged. To the Congressional proponents of home rule, your allies are many-they represent virtually all segments of the political spectrum, are from every state of the Union, and have demonstrated a willingness to rally to your leadership. These hearings have themselves brought forth evidence of the diversity of sup- port. You have heard supportive testimony from conservatives and liberals, Re- publicans and Democrats, inner-city residents and suburbanites, businessmen and union representatives. If such overwhelming support is still not enough, I call your attention to the 1065 Harris Poll (see Congressional Record, September 27, 1965, p. A 5454) in which Americans supported home rule by a 6 to 1 margin. Perhaps you should also be reminded that the Senate has passed seven home rule bills since 1948- most recently in 1971 by a 64 to 8 margin. Likewise, the August 1971 Report of the Congressionally sponsored "Commission on the Organization of the Govern- ment of the District of Columbia" recommended the extension of specific and substantial legislative and fiscal authority to the District Government. The Fore- PAGENO="0241" 237 word of the Commission's Report stated (quote) ". . . that study and implementa- tion of this report should not be used as a substitute for continued debate and action on the issue of elected local officials.. ." To the Congressional opponents of self-determination, we challenge them to exercise their responsibility as national legislators. We ask that they too help to end the charade of years of time-consuming hearings and testimony. With all due respect to their opinion, we ask that they help bring an end to the obstruc- tionist tactics employed in recent years by a handful of self-serving Members. Self-determination is not an ordinary legislative issue. It is a matter which goes to the heart and vitality of a community of nearly 800,000 citizens and in some~ way touches virtually every aspect of their dai]y lives. Along with other indications of support, local citizen fervor for home rule has been overwhelming. Three home rule referendums were conducted by the Repub- lican and Democratic parties in the past decade. In 1960, 87.4 percent of those voting favored home rule; in 1964, 85 percent voted in favor, and in 1968, 97.7 percent (Democrats only), were in support. In 1973, local support is at its highest ever. An indication of this high level support is contained in the favorable testimony of such widely diverse groups as the Board of Trade, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Liberty Lobby, Central Labor Council, and the City Council. The absence of any organized opposition to self-government, contrasted with organized support for the same, e.g., Self-Determination Coali- tion, Statehood Party, Washington Home Rule Committee, is further evidence of the range of local support. In summation. Mr. Chairman, let me say that the 51 national organizations comprising Self-Determination for D.C." are firmly committed to the restoration of full citizenship rights to the residents of the District of Columbia. Furthermore, we believe that as the self-proclaimed leader of the free world, our country must at least match the status of other free world capitals-Bonn, Paris, Tokyo, Berne, Rome, and Greater London-in the extension of democracy to our own capital city. Self-government for D.C. is constitutional and is supported by the weight of historical and legal precedent. All that remains in question is the will of the Congress. We urge the Committee to act quickly in reporting a bill so that the full House will have opportunity to make a determination during the first session of the 93rd Congress. MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS: THE NATIONAL COALITION American Association of University Women, American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; American Federation of Teachers, Americans for Democratic Action, American GI Forum, American Jewish Committee, Ameri- can Jewish Congress, American Veterans Committee, Association of Student Governments, B'nai B'rith Women, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Common Cause, Communication Workers of America, Delta Sigma Theta Sorori- ties, Inc., Democratic National Committee, ECO-Vote of Indiana, General Board of Christian Social Concerns, the United Methodist Church; Improved Benevolent Protective Order of Elks, Jewish Community Council, League of Women Voters, League of United Latin American Citizens, and National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees. Legislative Affairs Project, United Methodist Council on Youth Ministeries; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Associa- tion of Human Rights Workers, National Association of Negro Business and Professional Women, National Council of Churches, National Education Asso- ciation, National Farmers Union, National Council of Negro Women, National League of Cities, National Association of Federal Employees, New Democratic Coalition, Newspaper Guild, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, United Auto Workers; United Church of Christ, Council for Christian Social Action; United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., United States Conference of Mayors; Urban Emergency Action Com- mittee, Christian Church; Washington Research Project Action Council, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, World Federalist Youth, U.S.A.; Young Democratic Clubs of America, National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs, and National Council of Negro Women. 07-527-73-pt. 2-IG PAGENO="0242" 238 SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT Question: how can minority political representation be assuret in city council elections based upon the ejcisting District of Columbia ward structure? The question of minority political representation on the city council arose as the result of a suggestion made in testimony before the committee on April 16, 1073, that minority political representation be assured on the City Council. The proposal was predicated upon a suggestion that the city be divided into four (4) election areas for purposes of city council representation, and was based upon the theory of proportional representation. It was further suggested that the four (4) subdivisions should be divided, roughly, proportionately in population as well as area. The present ward structure presents an inequity in population and area. E.g., the total number of registrants in the ward with the least number of registrants is approximately 26,600 (ward VIII) and the ward with the most registrants with approximately 56.200 registrants (ward VIII). Assuming that the ward boundaries could be re-drawn to achieve equal population, the election of only two (2) councilmen from each ward does not permit for a system of propor- tional representation. Either the number of councilmen elected from each ward must be increased, which would make the city council too large a body to be effective, or aim arbitrary rule must be proposed so that one (1) councilman would be a majority party member and one (1) would be a minority party mem- ber where that minority party has at least a certain number of registrants w-ithin that ward. (This may result in the creation of an unconstitutional scheme which w-ouid have the effect of diluting majority vote.) Therefore, it is difficult to envisage mcnority political representation based upon the present w-ard structure. An examination of American cities with populations in excess of 250,000, re- veals, that city council and assembly elections are held on a non-partisan basis. This not only guarantees that majority vote shall prevail but by and large makes for good government. Accordingly, it is suggested that unless some division other than the present w-ard structure is used, it is strongly urged that city councilmen elections be lieldon a non-partisan basis. STATEMENT OF TilE NATIONAL EDUCATION AssoCIATIoN ON HOME RULE LEGISLATION The 1.2 million members of the National Education Association are apprecia- tive of this opmortunity to submit testimony again in favor of self-government for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Significant first steps have already been taken. The Association applauded the legislation which provided for a popularly-elected School Board for the District. Now further steps are Lefore you. The Association believes that three basic elements essential to the establish- ment of a true and w-orkable form of self-government are: first, locally elected officials, including a mayor and city council; second, control by elected District officials over the District of Columbia's budget; and third, automatic payment of federal funds to compensate for the heavy concentration of nontaxable federal and international buildings withm~n the District. We have noted with interest the testimony presented by Mr. Sterling Tucker and others, represenfing the Metropolitan Coalition for Self-Determination for time District of Columbia before this Subcommittee on April 3, 1973. Although the National Education Association has taken no specific actions which would dictate support or lack of support for any of the details offered in the testimony, we believe that adoption of the suggestions made by the Metropolitan Coalition would satisfy time three basic elements above which we consider essential for meaningful self-government. The Association has long been on record in favor of complete Home Rule for the District of Columbia. Educators across the country, who daily teach the history and development of representative government in the United States, the most durable democracy yet created, consider it ironic that the 800,000 people in the nation's Capital City are denied the basic democratic right to a local gov- ernment responsible to them at the polls. The Declaration of Independence says it well-that in order to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . PAGENO="0243" 239 For the last hundred years residents of the District of Columbia have been governed by powers not derived from their consent, but from the consent of the citizens of the several states. It is basic to the principles set down by Jefferson and the other brave men meeting in Philadelphia that governments at all levels should be elected by, and therefore answerable to, the citizens governed. Only in the District of Columbia is this principle violated, and we urge a speedy and effective remedy. An elected mayor and city council, and indeed an elected school board also, have in fact no powers unless they are able to make decisions concerning the financial affairs of the District. It would be an exercise in futility for a govern- ing body to legislate authority to hire more policemen, for example, or to man- date an innovative reading program in the schools, unless that same body could also legislate the financial means to implement the legislation. Therefore we urge that the District of Columbia's budget be controlled by the elected District officials. And finally, we urge adequate and automatic federal payments to the District government to offset the severe shortage of taxable property within the bound- aries of the District caused by the heavy concentration of nontaxable federal and international buildings. We join with other members of the National Coalition for Self-Determination for D.C. in urging that this Committee take quick and positive action toward granting full rights of citizenship to the residents of our Capital City. STATEMENTS OF RICHARD W. CLARK, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD SELF-DETERMINATION FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-NATIONAL COALITION; AND ELIZABETH R. KARLOW, MEMBER, NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman. Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I am Dick Clark, chairman of the Board of Self-Determination from the District of Columbia. I am accom- panied today by Mrs. Elizabeth Karlow, who is representative of Na- tional Board of League of Women Voters. As you know, their League of Women Voters has been one of the longest participants in the campaign for self-determination. For clarification purposes, the National Board of Self-Determina- tion for the District of Columbia is a counterpart, at the national level, is a counterpart of the Metropolitan Steering Committee of Self-Determination. It is one organization with two expressions. And for the most part, the testimony which we give today will deal with the ~hilosophica1 and some of the rhetorical questions which we felt were overdone with, but we found they had been raised again in testimony, particularly in the last 2 weeks. We would also like to say that the coalition generally supports the statements given by the Metropolitan Steering Committee with respect to the technical questions as to the structure, form, and vari- ous controls and authorities that the potential local government will have. - I would also like to say that we are very appreciative of the position the subcommittee has taken in getting on with the business o-f self- determination. I know personally I am very tired of only being in- volved in the campaign a couple of years but going through this proc- ess has been a very worrisome one. It has been a very expensive one for the Federal Government. It has also been a very time consuming one for the residents of the District of Columbia, some of whom are here today who have been back for as many as 25 years. PAGENO="0244" 240 In addition to this oral testimony that I give today, I have also brought with me testimony from some of the member organizations of the national coalition. Also, some of them have requested to testify or submit testimony for the record rather at a later date. Mr. FRASER. Without objection, we will make a part of the record the statements that you have now for members of the coalition. If you want to submit them, we will incorporate them in the record. Mr. CLARK. The staff assistant has them. Mr. FRASER. We'll expect some further statements as you have indi- cated and without objection, those will be made a part of the record when we receive them. [The information referred to follows:] APRIL 12, 1973. To: Chairman and Members, Government Operations Subcommittee of the House District Committee From: United Presbyterian Washington Office Subject: Home Rule Hearings The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. meeting at the 182nd General Assembly in Chicago, May 22-27, 1970 concurred in the following overture: The 1970 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States answered the following overture regarding Home Rule for the District of Colum- bia from the Presbytery of the Potomac in the affirmative: Whereas, for seventy years the citizens of the District of Columbia enjoyed local Home Rule and whereas this Home Rule was abolished by Congress after the Civil War: Whereas, the District of Columbia has recently acquired a City Council and whereas its members are not elected by the people of the District; Whereas, the District of Columbia remains unrepresented in the Congress of the United States at a time when the malaise of powerlessness is more tiaumati- cally felt in the District, leaving the citizens of the District virtually alone among the people of the United States who are denied any voice in choosing the members of the legislative bodies who rule over them; Be it resolved, the Potomac Presbytery record its affirmation of the principle of representation in Congress for the District of Columbia and that it be com- municated to the news media and the Congressional Committee dealing with the matter. Be it further resolved, that Potomac Presbytery overture the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States to urge the Congress of the United States to adopt and the States to ratify, an amendment to provide for full voting representation in Congress for the* citizens of the District of Columbia. We reaffirm support of this overture. For generations the Presbyterian Church has supported the principles of rep- resentative government and the right of participatory democracy. The citizens of the District of Columbia are responsible people and democracy can work in Washington, D.C. The federal interest and the local interest are synonymous. It is in the "federal interest" to provide for "consent of the governed" in the Capital City of the United States. We advocate this form of government throughout the world and it is essential that we practice it in this city. D.C. residents no more want to allow appointed officials to control their daily lives than do the citizens of any other city, town or county in this republic. We believe that D.C. home rule legislation must contain four basic elements: 1. Locally elected officials. 2. Full legislative authority over local affairs. 3. Budgetary authority, including the right to determine local priorities and to raise arid allocate revenue. 4. An automatic system of financial assistance coming from the federal government to the District of Columbia government to compensate the Dis- trict for its heavy concentration of non-taxable federal, foreign and private non-profit property. We appreciate the opportunity to~ present our views to your committee. PAGENO="0245" 241 STATEMENT ON HOME RULE FOR THE~ DIs'TRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBMITTED BY THE AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS, NATIONAL CAPITAL CHAPTER For many years, the American Jewish Congress, a national organization with 40,000 members, has supported the principle of home rule for the District of Columbia. Once again we urge the Congress to enact legislation that will grant to the residents of the nation's capital the right and responsibility to exercise meaningful control over their local affairs. The bedrock of our constitutional system is the principle that government ex- ists only by the consent of the governed. It follows, therefore, that the people have an obligation to exercise the elementary rights of citizenship, to vote, to participate in the affairs of their community, and to hold their representatives accountable for what is done in their name. We teach this to our children, and we urge it upon ourselves. How ironic, therefore, that the people who live in the nation's capital cannot fully participate in the democratic process. They do not elect their officials, they do not determine the use to which their taxes will be put, and they are barred from meaningful decision making with regard to the policies and programs that will shape the quality of life in their community. We reccgnize that complex issues confront the Congress in its home rule delib- era tions. The presence of the federal government within the Districts boundaries, the various proposals concerning the form of representative government for the District, and the nature of the anticipated fiscal relationship between the gov- ernment of the District of Columbia and the federal government are all matters of grave concern. Yet the Congress must not allow the difficulty of the task to blind it to the rightness of the principle. It has a clear obligation to relieve the citizens of the District of Columbia of the burdens imposed by the denial of full citizenship rights. The American Jewish Congress supports home rule for the District of Colum- bin and urges the Congress of the United States to grant self-determination to the nearly one million Americans who live in the nation's capital. NATIONAL BOARD OF THE YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE U.S.A. New York, N.Y., April 12, 1973. Hon. BROOK ADAMS, Chairman, $ubcoinmittee on Government Operations, District of Columbia Com- mittee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ADAMS: The National Board of the YWCA requests that the follow- ing statement on The Franchise for the District of Columbia be included in the record of the Hearings of this committee: At the 26th triennial National Convention of the YWCA of the USA held in San Diego two weeks ago, the delegates voted overwhelmingly to "place high priority on action this triennium to support measures which will extend the frapchise to residents of the District of Columbia, including full voting repre- sentation in the United States Congress, and providing self-government (Home Rule) for residents of the District of Columbia." This action by our delegates, representing more than 2,200,000 members and participants in community and student associations, is only the most recent ex- pression of long standing YWCA support of the franchise for the District of Columbia. For well over a century our organization has been involved in better- ing the conditions of life and the opportunities open to women. We early dis- cerned the importance of the franchise as an instrument in achieving equal rights for women and declared "the franchise constitutes the basic instrument of effective democracy and should be available to all adult citizens." The YWCA as a women's movement with a membership of diverse racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds has committed itself to work for the elimina- tion of racism in our own organtization and also in the institutions of our society. We view the continued failure to give the franchise to the District of Columbia with its large majority of black citizens as evidence of the racism which still stands in the way of equity for all citizens. Our history has made it abundantly clear that without the franchise and the rights and responsibilities of self-government which accompanies it, citizens are PAGENO="0246" 242 denied access to basic decision-makirg, to individual and group empowerment, arid to the human rights accorded by our constitution. Our nation in recent years has been painfully redressing the inequities in our law as they affect racial minorities in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its implementation. We believe the citizens of the District of Columbia must have the same rights enjoyed by all other citizens. The granting of the franchise and self-government to the District of Columbia is an essential requirement if at the heart of our nation we are to show forth in deeds what we loudly proclaim in our public documents. The YWCA urges this committee to take effective leadership in security Congressional action in response to what we believe is the will of our nation- the granting of full franchise to the District of Columbia. Sincerely, Mas. WILLIAM H. GENNE, President. STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR HOME RULE FOR WASHINGTON, D.C. The Newspaper Guild has supported local self-government for the District of Columbia for many years. Our flies contain a resolution, passed at our 1950 con- vention when we w-ere still known as the American Newspaper Guild. That resolution of 23 years ago reads as follows: `Whereas, the disenfranchised residents of Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, while paying taxes and performing other obligations of regular citizens, have neither voice in affairs of their country or in the government of the District of Columbia, and "Whereas, continual efforts to eradicate this condition have previously failed only for lack of proper and sufficient Congressional support, "Be it resolved: That the American Newspaper Guild hereby urges the Congress of the Tjnited States to grant citizens of Washington the right to home rule and also the right to participate and vote in national elections." The Newspaper Guild at our 1972 convention again adopted a strong resolution in support of home rule and also in support of full voting representation in the Congress for the District of Columbia. That resolution again pointed out that the citizens of the I)istrict have no voice in the choice or operation of the city's municipal government. It stated "This situation flies squarely in the face of the tenet that participation by the citizenry in their government at all levels is the basic principle of responsive governrnen(~." - That resolution w-ent on to point out that the Senate had passed a strong bill to provide home rule for the District arid called upon the House District Coma- mittee to report favorably, without further delay and without change, the home rule bill approved by the Senate. This, of course, is a new Congress and a new- House District Committee. How- ever, w-e ask you to heed our words of 1950 and particularly that portion of our 1972 resolution w-hich calls for House District Committee action on home rule `without further delay." EXCERPT FROM PROCEEDINGS OF THIRTY-NINTH ANNUAL CONVENTION, - THE NEWSPAPER GUILD (AFL-CIO, CLC) Tue District of Columbia The 800,000 U.S. citizens who live in the nation's capital city continue to have no voice in the choice or operation of the city's municipal government and have only token, non-voting representation in Congress. This situation flies squarely in the face of the tenet that participation by the citizenry in their government at all levels is the basic principle of responsive government. The Senate has passed a strong bill to provide home rule for the District. The House of Representatives has yet to act. Home-rule bills there have been tied up in the District of Columbia Committee, chaired by Rep. John L. McMillan. The Congress also has before it a strong bill to provide home rule for the Dis- trict. The House of Representatives has yet to act. Home-rule bills there have been tied up in the District of Columbia Committee, chaired by Rep. John L. McMillan. PAGENO="0247" 243 The Congress also has before it a proposal to give the District full voting representation in Congress. (Eleven 1 of the 50 states have fewer residents than the District and among them elect 22 U.S. Senators and 17 members of the House.) The Newspaper Guild, reaffirming the Guild's support for home rule for the District of Columbia, calls upon the House District Committee to report favor- ably, without further delay and without change, the home-rule bill approved by the Senate (S. 2652), and the IEB further calls upon the House of Representa- tives to enact the measure. TNG also endorses full voting representation in Congress for the District and calls upon the Congress to approve a proposed Constitutional amendment to accomplish this. Mr. CLARK. The Capitol, the White House, the Supreme Court, and all the other symbols of the working republic situated here belong to American citizens, that is for certain but the people of the city do not. Beyond the monuments, the mall, nearly 800,000 human beings who have as much right to participate in local government as the residents of any other city whether that be Detroit, Valparaiso or Mankato. The Founding Fathers apparently did not wish to disenfranchise the citizens of the District of Columbia. Key author of the Federalist papers, James Madison, stated that without reservation the municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own sufferage will of course be allowed to District residents and I defy anyone to challenge the intent of that passage. It has been twisted and manipulated and in some ways, attempted to discredit the fact that the Founding Fathers did say that they expected that this would be so. There are usually three arguments that are advanced against rein- stating home rule to the District of Columbia and I say reinstating because what we are advocating now is no different than what we had in the District of Columbia between the years 1820 and 1871, in which the District had full elected legislative body as well as elected chief executive. The arguments customarily advanced against home rule are one, the Congress lacks the power to delegate home rule authority to the Dis- trict and must, by force of the Federal Constitution, govern the Capitol City itself; second, that the District, the seat of the National Govern- nient, should be denied home rule in order to protect the Federal in- terest and third, the people of the District of Columbia are incapable or disinterested in home rule. These arguments, as I have said, are old and tired and have been repeated time and time again and I really feel a little embarrassed that I've got to go over them again but since they were brought up in testimony last week and were not dealt with, I feel it necessary to re- state them. The first of these arguments usually advanced, is usually adva.nced by horne rule opponents and that is, with regard to the ability of the Congress to delegate authority to a locally elected government. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says, and I quote: "The Con- gress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District." That the argument that this clause pro- hibits home rule or that it will not bear analysis has been refuted by 1 A1-~kn, Pelnware. Hawafi, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, vermont and Wyoming, PAGENO="0248" 244 history and by judicial decision. The fact is, that if Congress lacks the constitutional authority to delegate legislative responsibility to the District of Columbia through a home rule government, that it acted unconstitutionally in 1802, in 1812, 1820, and in 1871 because in each of these years, the Congress provided the properly elected legislators to rule the District. Also, if Congress can not constitutionally delegate its legislative function to the District, then the Congress is acting unconstitutionally today because in fact, it has delegated certain regulatory powers and other quasi-legislative authority to the Commissioner-City Council government presently in operation. In 1953, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, the District of Columbia v. Jo/tn R. ThompsOn Co., held that "the Congress had the authority under article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitu- tion to delegate its lawmaking authority to the legislative assembly of the municipal corporation which was created by the Organic Act of 1871." In reaching its decision, the Court specifically rejected the argument that the word "exclusive" renders the legislative function nondelegable. The Court said, "it is clear from the history of the provision that the word `exclusive' was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District was~ to be concurrent with that of the ceding States." In other words, they are concerned about Virginia and Maryland perhaps interfering with the operation of the Federal Government but they are not talking about the right or power of the Congress to delegate authority to the District. I think the barrenness of the attempted legal argument against home rule just served to reemphasize the fact that the question of home rule for the Nation's Capital is not really a constitutional matter, it is a political one. What is there, if anything, about the Federal interest in the District which makes the restoration of home rule unadvisable? Certainly the headquarters of a great number of Federal agencies and their top personnel are located here but other agencies or head- quarters in other jurisdictions, for example, the Department of De- fense is in Virginia, Atomic Energy Commission and Social Security Administration are in Maryland, without causing the slightest em- barrassment to the Government of the United States. There are literally scores of Government installations and hundreds of Government buildings located in the suburbs of Washington. In addition, a 1970 Government report, that is the "Annual Report of the Federal Civilian Employment by Geographical Area," and that was a Civil Service Commission report, that report stated that Fed- eral civilian employment in the District was a total of 192,918 com- pared to 124,584 for the surrounding suburbs. Obviously then, the Federal administrative and proprietary inter- est is no less in kind in the suburbs than it is in the District of Colum- bia. However, who would even dare to suggest that the rights and protections of local self-government should be denied to the suburban residents because of the Federal interest. The truth is that the Federal interest is expressed through no coherent or responsible process, but tends to emerge through accident, whimsy, occasional deliberation, or the design of some unthwarted interest. PAGENO="0249" 245 The notion of the Federal Government being centered in the home rule city seems far less humiliating than the threat of having the Con- gress of the United States demean itself by serving as a local city council and wasting its time and energies by debating such burning issues as whether or not District of Columbia firemen can play in a police band or the setting of taxicab fares, a more recent example. All are issues whichhave robbed constituents of the valuable time and serv- ices of their national representatives while major problems of national import are crying for attention. Where else in the world can you find the absurdity of 535 national legislators serving as a city council? Some of the people who are opposed to home rule say that we had home rule one time and that it resulted in a mess and that this could happen again but what these critics ignore is that the mismanagement complained of in the 1870's, at the time in which home rule was taken away from the District of Columbia occurred after the popularly elected Mayor-City Council form was abolished and in fact, it was Boss Sheppard, an appointed official, who was the individual chiefly responsible for the so-called alleged fiasco. Moreover, current home rule proposals supported by the coalition at least the approaches to home rule, contain more than adequate provision for congressional oversight and for protection of national interest. The coalition is here today to voice strong support for the concept of home rule for the District of Columbia. We define that concept to minimally include elected local officials; second, full legislative authority over local affairs; third, budgetary authority including the right to determine revenues and allocate the same according to local priorities and fourth, an automatic annual Federal payment. To the proponents of home rule, I would say that your allies are many. They represent virtually all segments of the political spectrum. They are from every State of the Union and they have demonstrated a willingness to rally to your leadership. There are few issues that I would say that have brought forth the diversity of support that you have heard and already given testimony before this subcommittee. We have heard supportive testimony from conservatives and liberals, from Republicans and Democrats, from inner-city residents and suburbanites, from businessmen and union representatives and believe me, that is a rarity when they aie all on the same side. If that isn't evidence enough, I refer you to the 1965 Harris poll which was the only poll that I am aware of that was taken in an attempt to find out what Americans felt in general about the question of home rule. That poll indicated that 6 to 1, Americans support home rule for the District of Columbia. I think, as a side note, it was also interesting as to the reasons why they felt that home rule should be given at that time. One was that they felt that peop1~ in any area have a right to govern themselves; second, they felt that a city should determine its own destiny, and third, they felt that Congres~ has not done a good job in running the city. Perhaps you should also be reminded that the Senate has passed seven home rule bills since 1948 and most recently, in 1971 by a 64-to-8 margin. It is very difficult for me to believe that home rule is really a PAGENO="0250" 246 controversial issue unless at the same time you are indicting not only American citizens at large. but you are also indicting the entire Con- gress or Senate, rather, as being irresponsible. Finally, I would like to mention tha.t the Commission on the Orga- nization of the Government of the District of Columbia, that is, the Nelsen Commission itself, recommended the ektension of specific and substantial legislative and fiscal authority to the District government. The foreword of the Commission report stated, and I quote: Study and implementation of this Report should not be used as a substitute for continued debate and action on the issue of local elected officials. And again, that's coming from the Congress' own Commission study. I would like to say this to the. congressional opponents of self-determi- nation, we challenge you to exercise your responsibility as national legislators, we ask that you help to end the charade Qf years of time- consuming hearings and testimony. With all due respect to the opinio~i of the opponents we ask that they help bring an end to the disgraceful and obstructionist tactics which have been employed in recent years by a handful of self-serving members. Self-determination for the District is not an ordinary legislative issue, it is a matter which goes to the heart and vitality of a community of nearly 800,000 citizens. And it some way touches virtually every aspect of the daily lives. I would say that local citizen support for self-determination too is at its highest. An indication of this level of suport is contained in the favorable testimony of such widely diverse groups as the Board of Trade, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government, the Liberty Lobby, Common Cause. the League of Women Voters, the Central Labor Council, the City Council, and the Black United Front. In fact, the absence of an organized opposition to self-government seems in itself evidence that the issue is now one that should be dealt with very quickly and as most expeditiously as the Congress can see fit. In summation, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the 51 national orga- nizations comprising Self-Determination for the District of Columbia are firmly committed to the restoration of full citizenship rights to the residents of the District of Columbia. Furthermore, we believe that as the self-proclaimed leader of the free world, our country must at least match the status of other free world capitals such as Bonn, Paris, Tokyo, Berne, Rome, aiid Greater London in the extension of democracy to our own Capital City. It is difficult for me to believe that we can't find a way of doing this when other free world capitals have been practicing democracy for many, many years. You may be aware that yesterday, 400 to 500 local citizens working through self-determination proclaimed today, April 16, as official day of mourning and that's the reason why we have these black armbands on. In followup to yesterday's symboiic protest, we decided that today we would like to deliver to Congressman Diggs and to the committee, again as a symbolic protest, the letters which were written either yester- day-or which have been delivered to Self-Determination during the past week. These letters express in many different ways the priority concern that local residents have over self-determination and the need PAGENO="0251" 247 to get on with the business at hand. We are going to ask Congressman Diggs and this committee to establish self-determination as a No. I priority. We are also going to ask that all plans to study home rule further as well as plans to experiment with the District of Columbia be abandoned. We don't feel that we want to be an urban laboratory. We don't want to be experimented with any longer; at least not until an accountability of Government is established. At that time, we feel the District residents would be more than willing to work hand in hand with the Federal Government in establishing Washington, D.C., as a model city for the Nation. I would like to defer to Mrs. Karlow as she has a supplementary statement which she wants to give on behalf of the League of Women Voteis which incidentally, was one of the founding organizations of "Self-Determination for the District of Columbia." As I mentioned earlier, it has been one of the organizations most in- volved in the campaign for many, many years. Mr. FRASER. We're glad to welcome you, Mrs. Karlow. Why don~t you proceed. Mi's. KARLOW. Fm delighted to be here. I'm glad to have this chance to talk. We hav~ made a statement for the record and I would hope that you would enter it into the record from the League of Women Voters. You all can read better than I can and I will therefore make my remarks rather informal and pick it up to round off wh~tt we have already written. The League of Women Voters has 150,000 members in all 50 States including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. It has been working on home rule for some 35 years and I hate to admit that I have been in on it for 17 of those years. I have lived in the District of Columbia most of my adult life, starting in the period when we were worried about not getting budgets passed and time to hire school teachers and we went through the struggle to get funding with the Metro system. I think you all remember the frustrations that came out in these areas. We have lobbied and we have testified. We have written letters for home rule. I moved to St. Louis and it was. quite a revelation to find that if we wanted to have parkiand, we could pass a bond issue or we could arrange for intergovernmental thxing areas to support activities of interest, to a whole area. We could decide ourselves whether or not to elect or have appointed judges and by the way, I think tins is a question but it is one that should be locally decided. Again, from St. Louis. we had many people who were interested in home rule for the District of Columbia and we took part in many national activities to bring the plight of the District's nonvoting resi- dents to the public attention. We worked with our Congressman. We wrote letters. W'e signed petitions. T moved back then to the District of Columbia area and again, we find ourselves here testifying. There has been some change but not enough. I am now living in the immediate District of Columbia area. We are concerned, we have presented testimony, demonstrated that there is a constituency for change throughout the country. As a matter of fact, in Mr. Adams' own State, in Washington, a resolution memo- rializing Congress to pass legislation authorizing home rule and voting PAGENO="0252" 248 representation in Congress was introduced to the Washington State Legislature. Having presented many facts and testimonies, having heard very many able statements made by witnesses here, we find that we are currently not responding to the concerns that most Congressmen seem to have. `We are not getting action and we are concerned that even with presenting all the facts and all the reasoned arguments that somehow we keep coming across, an emotional block and we wonder whether we have the whole reason why Congress seems to be reluctant to get any bill through, let alone worry about some of the differences of detail between the ones that have been presented. So I think we are going to ask you what we can do to help deal with these concerns, what questioiis we can answer that we obviously haven't asked and what can we do to assure some sort of passage of a home rule bill, even with the sympathetic committee which we now seem to have, both party platforms being ill support of it and with many people sayiiig that we are all for it but not willing to go on the line when the chips are down. It does seem to me that if this committee recommends and doesn't pass or doesn't recommend or if we don't get action ~n the home rule field, that we are feeding the fires of those who are very critical of Congress and its ability to do something in response to public pressure. I think it would be a great shame and that we in the league who have really sper~t.oiir lives, convincing people that we should go through the channels, listen to the reasoned arguments, come to a conclusion, bring it to a vote, will be badly let down if this committee and this Congress doesn't bring this set of hearings to some kind of a meaningful conclusion. Thank you very much. [General applause.] ~Ir. FRASER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Karlow and Mr. Clark. I will hold my question for the moment and yield to Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. FAUNTROY. I simply want to commend both of the witnesses for a very clear and strong argument for self-government and I can ask no questions. You have answered all of them. Mr. FRAsER. Mr. Landgrebe. Mr. LANDGREBE. `Well. I'm sorry I missed part of the testimony. If I can read it kind of quickly and catch up, I will refer only to your page 19 of your four requests: elected local officials, full legislative authority over local officials, budgetary authority, and of course, auto- matic annual Federal payment, and I will ask you a couple Of questions. `What do you envision as we move toward what you call self-deter~ mination? Do you envision a State of Columbia or just elected officials under Federal-will this continue to be a Federal city or a retroces- sion to Maryland or Virginia. or a division of the two, or what do you envision as the type of government this city would have? Mr. CLARK. Well, as I said earlier, we support the position as ex- pressed by our counterpart local organization, the Metropolitan Steer- ing Committee for Self-Determination, we have not focused on any particular bill. We, also as did the Steering Committee, feel that we wanted the benefit of this discussion. `We have offered assistance in helping to draft a particular bill. PAGENO="0253" 249 Our position is, again, that we support the fullest form of self- determination of local self-government that is possible to get through this Congress. If you're asking me personally, yes, I think I would be in favor of statehood provided that it included adequate financial underpinning for the city and at least some kind of guarantee that the city had a fighting chance to survive. Last year, as you probably well know, statehood did not-as one proposal-did not have much support in the Congress. As a practical matter, it was unfeasible. Retrocession, on the other hand, we would absolutely reject. We think that the community of Washington has an identity that is unique. We also feel that it would not be, as a practical matter, would not be accepted by Maryland. They have made that relatively clear. We can~t find an elected representative from Mary- land or Virginia who supports retrocession. In fact, last year when retrocession legislation was introduced, on that same day, in the Maryland State Legislature, Resolution 36 was introduced which renounced retrocession to say they are not interested in it and would oppose it. You know, to the greatest extent possible, I think that is pretty clear evidence that they don't want it. District residents obviously don't want it. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, don't you think that in your great concern for the people of this District and the right of self-determination, don't you think they should have the same rights as the people of nil the other States to elect a county commissioner, State representative, State senators? Just all the layers of government that go into what we call the freedom of determination, the right of self-government that the people in the country enjoy? Shouldn't the people of Washington, if we must go to an elected official system, shouldn't the people of this city have the protection of constables, local police, sheriffs, State police and FBI? Shouldn't these people have the same protection as all the other people, the 200 million or more Americans? Mr. CLARK. Absolutely. Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, then how are you going to do it if you-in other words, you propose statehood with the various layers? Mr. CLARIC. No, I didn't propose statehood. I said I think that it is impractical. I would say that, no, I would not be opposed to statehood. I don't think that most residents of the District would be nor would the coalition if it had all the guarantees that the city would be viable. Unfortunately, having seen that indication-in fact, I have been quite concerned that the almost punitive attitude that has tradition- ally been taken and some of it has been evidenced in testimony lately toward the District of Columbia-an extension of rights which it should have been given a long time ago. I am personally disturbed as a District resident, as a taxpayer, that we don't seem to-on the one hand, we are saying yes, we want to make this a model for the world but on the other hand, find thousands of excuses why we can't get on with the business of self-determination. To me, it is just a relatively simple matter and we tend to get hung up on minute details that to my way of thinking could certainly be re- solved in the interest of both the Federal interest and local citizens. PAGENO="0254" 250 Mr. LANDm~EBE. The fourth item, automatic Federal payment. Now, this, the city of Washington, D~C., surrounds one of tire greatest tour- ist attractions in the world. I can see many States that would love to have access to the business that these tourist attractions generate. Don't you feel that if self-determination was permitted, there would be a sufficient increase in efficiency, responsibility to the people-the District levying taxes, income taxes on the people and perhaps some tax on rooms and so forth, a reasonable tax on visitors, that this city could conceivably not only have self-determination but self-support, too? Why must we talk about an automatic annual Federal payn'ient.be- cause you are next dooi' to the-surrounding the greatest tourist at- traction, over 20 million people a year now, with expectation of that doubling in a short period of time. Isn't there some way that this city could actually-maybe it creates those 100,000 on welfare to go to work and maybe sort of become like a self-supporting city? Mr. CLARK. Yes, I hope that Washington, D.C., would become self- supporting at some time in the future. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the District of Columbia has had a very unique evolution. We have gone from 3,000 residents and 18,000, when we were first incorporated, to 700,000 at the present time, 750,000 plus. The city, in as much as this was the Capital, the business was government. Industry never had an opportunity to develop as did certain other types of business activity. As is the case with Alaska and Hawaii when they were admitted to the Union, special compensations were made. I think that there is no question about it. The Federal presence is here. There's no way we can move the Federal Government out of Washington. Therefore, as long as it is there, we have got to take into considera- tion the services which the local community provides to the Federal Government. We can't tax the Federal Government and I don't think that we would even want to suggest that and what's more, it would be unconstituional. We are suggesting that the Federal Government pay is fair share in terms of the services which are granted it by the local community. Mr. LANDGREBE. I guess I have no further questions. Mr. CLARK. I would like to respond to one question I know was raised earlier regarding tourism. I think Congressman Landgrebe, you raised that last week, that there are 20 million tourists coming to Washington annually and that their rights must be protected. I would say that I fully agree with that but tourism, of course, is not unique to the District of Columbia. Tourism also exists in other States but I think what is even more important is that the tourists themselves, particularly those in the metropolitan area who probably most frequent the District of Columbia, seem to be overwhelmingly in support of self-determination, too. This was indicated in a recent survey in the Washington Star News, that has also been indicated by testimony, very supportive testimony; by the Council of Governments and I feel that that question is not one that we should be concerned with in terms of whether or not we should extend the rights of citizenship to the District of Columbia. PAGENO="0255" 251 What's more, the country as a whole from all indications seems to be supportive of local self-government. This was indicated in the Harris poll which I mentioned before; it is also indicated, I think, in the wide diversity of organizations who are members of Self-Deter- mination for D.C., from every State representing every political persuasion. Mr. FRASER. First, Mrs. Karlow, I want you to know that the posi- tion of the League of Women Voters and its work over the years, I think has been one of the most significant forces on the national scene in support of home rule for which I am aware and it represents really, the principal organized constituency as far as home rule and I think this has been enormously important to the effort to get home rule here. As you know, in past years, it has been difficult to get a bill out of the District of Columbia Committee but the prospects, I think, are sub- stantially improved this year. I wanted to comment on your statement, Mr. Clark. It seemed to me the point you made that there are almost as many Federal em- ployees employed outside the District of Columbia as in the District indicates that the Federal interest is not confined to the District boundaries and that the Federal interest seems to be adequately pro- tected within Maryland and within Virginia without some-without any difficulty. I myself have had enormous interest with the so-called Federal interest. I don't understand what people are talking about other than certain very limited interests that the Federal Government has. But I've always assumed the Federal Government represented the Ameri- can people expressed through elections and a part of America is the District of Columbia and they ought to have the same right but I don't see any inherent conflict, any more than there has been between my own State government, which has a capital and a municipality which contains that State government. They have never had any substantial difficulties. It has been a very good working relationship and I am mystified by this repeated refer- ence to some vague-what I almost call mythical Federal interest as though that is something beyond and over the powers of ordinary people to comprehend. I do have, however, some questions along the lines I was asking our friends from the Republican Committee. I dont know if-would you want to try to respond to some of them or should-I notice that the local District of Columbia Home Rule Committee is going to be testi- fying this morning. Mr. CLARK. No, we would respond to those that we can respond to. I say, in general, we do support the Metropolitan Steering Committee statement, with respect to the general organization and hoped for functioning in the local government but we would be happy to respond to any questions you have. Mr. FRASER. I didn't know which hat you wanted to put on. I am interested, for example, in this question of protecting minor- ity, political representation on an elected body. I have the impression that if you just looked at the two parties in the District, the Demo- ~ratic Party is so strong that the likelihood of representation from the Republican Party would be very small oii a one member District basis. PAGENO="0256" 252 Is that a concern? Are there ways to deal with that that you have thought about, that you would find acceptable? Mr. CLARK. Yes. as a matter of fact, I had a discussion with Republi- can member of City Council about 2 weeks ago on this very matter and he said, well, he wasn't personally concerned about it. He felt that if we had self-determination, that would be a beautiful opportunity for the minority party to organize. It would give them some reason to organize which apparently they don't have now. Of course, there was a lot of discussion as to how that might be done including nonpartisan elections and several other approaches as well, one of which was mentioned today, like perhaps having more than one representative from a given political jtirisdiction. However, as far as-I think that again is most properly a matter for local resi- dents to deal with. You have heard testimony from the Republican Party and from the Republicans who are part of the self~deterrnination effort, all in sup- port of partisan elections. And I feel that beyond that point, it is not necessarily something that the Congress has to concern itself with. Mr. FRASER. Well, I wonder if that is true, though? There is a very great prospect that once we-if we sit here and write the charter for the city, once the distribution of political power has been defined by the electoral system we create, whether one will find a sufficient interest to try to make changes in relation to the problem I am now talking about. In other words, if one party is dominant, very dominant, what interest will they find served by switching to a different electoral system that will increase representa- tion from the minority party? Mr. CLARK. Well, I appreciate your concerns but again, I think that the overwhelming weight of testimony from local residents has been in support of partisan elections. The existence of-let's say, a dominant party is true many, many places in the country. In fact, there has been a tradition throughout the South but yet nobody is advocating that we revolutionize that system. I feel that it is something that can be dealt with, you know, in one or two or three ways, if that is a concern. I don't see it coming from local citizens. Therefore, it would be something that the Congress unto itself would have to take up. I see it as being, you know, not as much a substantive question as a pol1tlcal one. It may be involved in deliberations later on. For example, just as a side comment, I grew up a Republican and I came to the District of Columbia and I'm now registered as a Demo- crat. That may be evidence of your concern. I think my ideological persuasions changed somewhat but I also had thought about the ques- tion of, you know, just the nature of the parties in terms of numbers, in terms of activity. But again, I say that if we had local self-government, if there were you know, any kind of viable politics in the city, that the incentiv~ would be much greater for-as the Republican that I mentioned before indicated-for them to organize to try to make Congress. There are a number of people in the District of Columbia who are independents who are members of the Statehood Party, who I'm sure might turn' Republican if given the opportunity. PAGENO="0257" 253 Mr. FRASER. It has been suggested in a report by the Environmental Protection Agency that there should be some kind of a metropolitan authority established to deal with the problems of water, sewage col- lection, treatment. WThat would your view be of that? Mr. CLARK. I think there's already been a direction, a movement in that direction through the Coalition of Government to establish some kind of metropolitan regioiial decisionmaking authority. TJnfortu- nately. at this time, as was pointed out in the testimony, the District of Columbia is not an equal partner in that process. I also say that there is more than just the physical problems to deal with. We should also meet with and be concerned with the social problems in the metro- politan area. One good case in point is Lorton Reformatory. Mrs. Pennino, fol- lowing her testimony last week, indicated that it is very difficult for them to resolve that probem eveii though the Mayor from the District of Columbia has met with Fairfax County officials and they have it within their power, within their grasp to deal with the problem but unfortunately, the District of Columbia has to go back to Congress aiid talk to them and that is a long cirawnout process. The question here is oiie of procedural and structural inefficiency as opposed to adimnistrative inefficiency. But I think that here, as else- where, that regionalism or metropolitan development is something in the future but in no way should hinder a movement toward local self- government now, because in one way oi another, those political juris- dictions will have to be formulated and I am sure that we are not goiiig to do away with Fairfax oi Maryland political jurisdictions in order to form a government, that that decisionmaking process would be one that is joined in by partners of equal political authority. Mr. FRAsER. Well, I think you~re right. In any kind of a metropolitan agency, the participatioli by the I)istiict of Columbia certainly ought to spring from an elected body so that a home rule arrangement for the District would be more compatible. Mr. CLARK. I would say a prerequisite. Mr. FRASER. WTelI, I would say more compatible than what we have now. WTe have already a metropolitan operating agency in the field of transit and if we're going to create similar authorities for the water and sewer. it does seem to me that this acids to the weight of the argu- ment for home rule because otherwise, the people who live in the District have no voice through an elective process and the decisions that these agencies make. Mr. CLARK. I say that with qualification as those representatives kind of serve as administrative representatives and those from the District of Columbia serve as kind of administrative representatives to the Congress. And this isn't what I'm talking about. They really didn't participate as equals in terms of the ultimate decisionmaking authority if it is a question of money or allocation of funds, particularly. Mr. FRASER. Well, there is some thought to, in addition to providing home rule, attempting to deal with other structural problems~ some of which were proposed by the Nelsen Commission and some, for ex- ample, by this report of the Enviromnental Protection Agency so that, 57- ~27-73--it. ~ 7 PAGENO="0258" 254 rather than dealing with each thing piecemeal, we could put them to- gether in one bill and hopefully, soon, and move from that point for- ward to see if we could secure passage. Your principal concern, I gather, would be that these other matters not result in a delay in the home rule part. Mr. CLARK. Yes, the City Council now can not represent the resi- dents of the District of Columbia as they are not accountable to them. They are accountable to the President and to the Congress and if we are talking about responsive responsible government, there is just no way to bypass the extension of anthony or delegation of authority from the Congress to local government officials. Mr. FRASER. Mrs. Karlow, I assume from the point of view of the National League of Women Voters that it is sort of the basic prin- ciples of home rule? Mrs. KARLOW. Yes, we have no detailed position. The District of Columbia league has spoken on the areas in which they have agree- ment but ours is really for a popularly elected, locally elected govern- ment and we have its position on some of the finer points which the coalition has worked up. Mr. FRASER. Fine. I would like to suggest that maybe the majority or minority counsel, if they are willing to hold questions, so we can get onto the next witnesses? Or do you want to- Mr. DEPUY. That's fine, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HOGAN. Could I just ask one question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. FRASER. Sure. Mr. HOGAN. You indicated in your statement-incidentally, Con- gressman Nelsen could not be here, he regrets that he could not be here. I am sure he would praise you for your responses-on page 7 of your statement, Mr. Clark, you indicate that the civilian employment in the District and in the surrounding suburbs is something in the line of 192,000 to 124,000. I assume this doesn't take into account the pro- posed or imminent transfer of the Geological Survey out to Reston, is that correct? I assume not. Mr. CLARK. No, this is a report from 1970 which is the most recent one I could find. It's late 1970. Mr. HOGAN. So that in the Nelsen Commission, there was an evident change, it appeared, in the-where the Federal Government was lo- cated and by that I mean its buildings and its employees. I assume that both of you have addressed this problem in a sense. `What do you picture the future of the District of Columbia to be? Would you want to see it concentrated in Federal employment and Federal activities or would you rather see it have-lets' say, Rich- mond is, or the capital of some the States, such as perhaps St. Paul in Minnesota. Either one you could- Mr. CL~~PK Well, as far as the question of relocation, I think the Thstriët's position has been pretty firm on that and that is that they would like to see the Government to every extent possible remain in the District of Columbia because this is the industrial base for the entire cit. This is the industry the city mttst survive on. This is the ~vay it is involved. PAGENO="0259" 255 Mr. HOGAN. Would that be your position, as an advocate of a par- ticular piece of legislation? Mr. CLAIIK. I think we ought to have some kind of relocation policy. Certainly, I would not like to see the Government relocate to the sub- urbs without making adequate provision for, you know, the loss in either tax base, that is, the Federal payment, or without making some kind of commensurate adjustment to make up the difference for the jobs and income that would be lost. This can be done in a number of ways. It's just a question that you just relocate and they say no hous- ing, for example, in the suburbs for the people that would be displaced. If the jobs are not guaranteed when they are going at relocation, if there is any loss due to whatever cost, that then this burden certainly falls back on the District of Columbia, either in the form of welfare or increased welfare payments or whatever. And I think that the Federal Government can~t turn its back on its responsibility to this city as a result of its pieselice here, judicially and just the evolution of the city-- Mr. HOGAN. But you're talking about the Federal presence, is that correct? The Federal presence in the sense of its employees and its buildings and that kind of thing? `What you are saying as I understand it is that you want to see the Federal presence remain in the sense of employees, buildings, what have you? Is that not correct, or am I mistaken? Mr. CLARK. No, I'm saying if it is to move, that some kind of com- pensation be made for the hardship, for any hardship that the Dis- trict would have to bear as a result of that relocation. Mr. HOGAN. In other words, you would want the Federal payment increased or something, for that? Mr. CLARK. No, it's not just a question of Federal payment. I think there are many other problems that arise as a result of any relocation. In 1969, for example, the proposed relocation of the Government Printing Office raised a whole host of questions and potential prob- lems. Fortunately, they didift have to be dealt with because it stayed here, but I mean ifs more than just a question of Federal payment. Mr. HOGAN. But, if we went back to about 1948, and I don't know whether-I assume the statistics are available, there were probably, relatively speaking, very few Federal employees or Federal buildings that-such as the Atomic Energy Commission, located in the suburbs, would you not agree? So what we have seen, apparently, that's what we found in the Nel- sen Commission report, is that the Federal presence in the city is be- coming much more metropolitan in character and while, you can argue that this may tend to conclude in favor of expanded self-government, doesn't it at the same time raise some questions about exactly what kind of city you are going to have here? In other words, can you keep the Federal presence here? Is that the kind of city you would want in the future? Do you follow me? Mr. CLARK. Yes. Mr. HOGAN. In other words, I think that in fairness to the Congress, when you are addressing the question of home rule, one of the ques- tions they have to answer for themselves when they take this matter up presumably on the floor, is this to be a Federal City, not just a mon- PAGENO="0260" 256 umental area, but is this-is the primary industry here, is the primary function here in the District of Columbia to be Federal office buildings, Federal employees and that type of thing? Now, we are seeing if the Nelsen Commission's conclusions are cor- réct, we're seeing an erosion of that kind of thing and the question I would ask is if you were to have expanded self-government, home rule, here, what would be your position? Would you like to see that reversed? Would you like to see the Federal presence in terms of employees and buildings back in the District of Columbia so that continues to be the main business, as it were, within the District of Columbia? Mr. CLARK. I think the unique character of the District of Columbia is involved as a result of the Federal Government's presence here, it's operations here with respect to its implications for the future. I think that is something that the Congress is going to make a determination about. I would hope that they would look to city residents to get their feelings and sentiments about that. As far as the fiscal underpinning of the city, the Metropolitan rec- ommendation in regard to the Steering Committee indicated that there would be a review process. I think the suggestion was for 5 years and that was to look at the chancing nature of the city and of its needs, to see whether adjustments should be made in that Federal payment and this did not state whether it would be upward or downward, depending on how it evolves. I think the question of relocation policy is part and parcel of, you know. planning for the ftiture of the city but certainly is not anything that should hang us up. As to how quickly we extend self-determina- tion to the local community- Mr. HOGAN. Just one further question, if I may pursue this, the ques- tion was asked about the Federal interest in the course of the Nelsen Commission hearings and Congressman Nelsen vigorously pursued the increase in the Federal payment from $150 million to approximately $190 million, which is what it is now. I wonder if von would agree that the Federal interest to a large ex- tent isn't attached to the Federal payment? Doesn't perhaps the Fed- eral interest follow the Federal payment or appropriations for the District government? Mr. CLARK. Yes, if I understand your question, there's nodoubt about it, it seems to have done that traditionally. Of course, we're going from a time in the Federal District when the Federal payment was 50 per- cent of the District revenues. That's when we first started and it has vacillated between, I guess, 50 percent and 12 percent, or whatever the figures, somewhere in that neighborhood but this has been an adjust- ment that is made to the growth and the changing nature of the city. It is not always something that we can in 1973 determine what is going to happen in 1980, because there are a lot of extraneous factors, in- cluding the one-or contingent factors-including the one that you raised, about just what is going to be the location and/or relocation policy of the Federal Government. That debate unto itself has been going on for a number of years and I think it was touched on in 1963, in a proposed 2000-year plan, as I remember. PAGENO="0261" 257 It was discussed and brought up and laid to rest. It has been re- opened five or six times and I still don't know if there's been any reso~ lution. In fact, I'm sure there hasn't been. - Mr. HOGAN. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FRASER. Mr. Fauntroy ~ Mr. FAUNTROY. I am exhausted, Mr. Chairman. I will not ask the questions, rhetorical questions that I had intended at this time. Mr. FRASER. Thank you both very much for your excellent testimony. You didn't read in either case your full statements but those will ap- pear in full in the record. Mr. CLARK. Thank you. Mr. FRASER. Our next witnesses are Connie Fortune, president of the Washington Home Rule Committee, and Craig Bamberger, legislative chairman of the District of Columbia Home Rule Committee. STATEMENT OF CONNIE FORTUNE, CHAIRMAN, WASHINGTON HOME RULE COMMITTEE, ACCOMPANIED BY CRAIG S. BAM- BERGER, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN Mrs. FORTUNE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Connie Fortune, chairman of the Washington Home Rule Committee,. and I have with me today Craig Bamberger, our legislative chairman. I have submitted for the record a prepared statement but I do not propose to read it. Instead, I intend to limit myself to a discussion of the principal points developed in detail in the prepared statement. Mr. FRASER. Without objection, we will have your prepared state- ment appear in the record. [The information referred to follows:] STATEMENT OF MRS. CONNIE FORTUNE, CHAIRMAN, WASHINGTON HOME RULE COMMITTEE Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am l~Irs. Connie Fortune,. Chairman of the Wahsington Home Rule Committee. With me is Mr. Craig S. Bamberger, our Legislative Chairman. We are grateful to the Committee for this opportunity to testify in support of home rule for the District of Columbia. By way of background, let me explain that the Washington Home Rule Com- mittee came into being in 1947, and since that time has been in the forefront of the effort to gain self-government for the District's citizens. We consist of approxi- mately 400 members, and have an elected Board of Directors of some 100 persons,. including many of the city's best known residents. Attached to my written state- ment is a list of the members of the Executive Committee of our Board of Directors. The Washington Home Rule Committee is a partner in the metropolitan coali- tion of Self-Determination for D.C., and a number of our members are active in the various organizations which make up the coalition. However, we differ in nature from Self-Determination for D.C. in that it is a coalition of local organiza- tior.s, while we are a body of individual citizens concerned over the denial of basic suffrage rights to our fellow citizens and to ourselves. Mr. Chairman, the moral and philosophical justifications for home rule have been stated to the Congress so often that there is something rather poignant about having to appear before this Committee to repeat them. As you know, commenc- ing in 1802 the District of Columbia was entitled to elect its own city council, and from 1820 until 1871 it chose its entire local government. This right was severely diluted in 1871, and denied altogether in 1874, on grounds which President Nixon has characterized as "either factually shaky or morally doubtful." Since that time over fifty home rule bills have been placed before biennial sessions of the Congress. In seven Congresses since then-the 81st, 82d, 84th, 85th, 86th, 89th PAGENO="0262" 258 and 92d-the Senate has passed self-government legislation for the District, only to have it fail of approval in the House. Hearings on home rule have been held by this Committee in each of the last six Congresses. Many times, the Congress has heard regurgitated James Madison's famous assurance, in the Federalist Papers (No. 43), that the political rights of citizens of a Federal District would be amply protected "as a municipal legis- lature for local purposes. derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them." Time and again witnesses have appeared here to invoke the Spirit of `76, or to compare our population and the taxes we pay with those of the States of the Union. Old King Sisyphis, condemned to roll a stone uphill only to have it roll back down whenever he neared the top of the hill, can hardly have repeated himself much more than we. Once again, as the Bicentennial year approaches, the people of the District of Columbia find themselves before the Congress as supplicants, petitioning for the restoration of rights of a kind once thought to be inalienable. The metropolitan coalition of Self-Determination for D.C., after a studious and careful analysis, has proposed a specific, viable, governmental framework which the Washington Home Rule Committee endorses in principle and commends to the attention of this Committee. But it has been our painful experience that the formulation of sound plans for self-government, and the invocation of notions of plain justice, are not sufficient to assure that the rock will not come rolling right back down to the bottom of the hill again. Something has been missing. Mr. Chairman, from these and all past home rule discussions which I can recall, and that missing factor is well illustrated by the happenings with respect to home rule legislation in the last Congress. It will be recalled that in April 1971 the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia held hearings on self-government for D.C., and in October of that year it re- ported out a home rule bill, S. 2652, which quickly passed the Senate by a wide margin. Next, hearings were held by this Committee during February, March and April of 1972. Then, late in the summer of 1972, well over a year after the legislative process began, and while home rule supporters were valiantly strug- gling to report a bill our of this Committee before the 92d Congress came to a close, the Justice Department quietly began to oppose certain provisions of the Senate-passed bill pertaining to the judicial institutions of the District of Colum- bia. It appears that this intervention by the Justice Department at the eleventh hour may have contributed to this Committee's failure to report a bill. Had the Department's views been stated publicly at an earlier stage, it is possible that a bill alleviating its concern could have been drafted in time for enactment in the last Congress. Thus in testimony before this Committee on April 3, the metro- politan coalition endeavored to accommodate this concern by proposing that except for a new system by which judges would be appointed, no changes should be made in the District's judicial institutions at this time. The point is this: unless those Members of both the Legislative and the Execu- tive Branch who have specific doubts or reservations about granting full home rule to the District will come forward and articulate them, so that they can be considered on the merits and adjustments made as appropriate, there will be a very heavy, and entirely unfair, burden placed upon this Committee when the time comes to write a bill. It is the participation of such persons in a helpful, problem-solving manner, that has been missing. And if it is not forthcoming early on, we cannot escape the apprehension that as in the last Congress, some completely unforeseen obstruction may appear just as our heavy stone is pushed to the crest of the hill, and down it will tumble. There can be no justification whatsoever for permitting this to happen. We therefore call upon not merely the most devoted supporters of home rule, but also those many well-intentioned people in Congress and in the Administration who may nonetheless harbor some doubt or reservation, to come forward now and engage in a constructive, solution-seeking dialogue about those precise issues which concern them-and to do so now, or forever hold their peace. We are confident that if such a dialogue took place, the pitfalls of the past could be avoided. After all, while there are a few persons who have been candid enough to make known their opposition to home rule, they cannot be regarded as numerous. And the issue clearly is a nonpartisan one: both the Democratic and the Republican Party Platforms in 1972 advocated D.C. self-government. In 1969, President Nixon said that he had supported home rule for T).C. "for more than 20 years." And on another occasion he correctly observed that "for PAGENO="0263" 259 years there has been broad support for granting the people of Washington, D.C. . . . the right to conduct their public business themselves." With such broad support, it is inconceivable that a satisfactory home rule bill cannot be drafted. The question is not whether self-government should be granted the Dis- trict; it is rather the form which a home rule charter should take. And that ques- tion could be better answered if the views of all elements of the Congress, and of the Administration, were made known now and not at some time later when their effect inevitably will be an obstructionist one. No home rule charter will be perfect. The enabling legislation of the cities has not been, nor have been the constitutions of the States, and even the U.S. Con- stitution has not been immune from change. Many of the technical issues in- volved in transferring power over local affairs to a local government are highly complex, and we know that we shall have to feel our way. Quite possibly, with even the most craftsmanlike legislation, it will be necessary to return to the Congress for improvements or corrections in our enabling statute. And no one should be under the illusion that a restoration of suffrage rights will be a panacea for urban problems that plague local and State governments across this country. But surely there can be~no doubt that the gradual broadening of the District's electoral experience over nearly two decades has adequately prepared us to rule ourselves. It was in 1955 that Congress provided for the election of local officers of the major political parties. In 1961, within ten months after Congressional approval, the Twenty-Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, giving the District a vote in the Electoral College. In 1968 Congress passed legis- lation permitting election of a local school board. And in 1970 D.C. was granted a non-voting Delegate in the House of Representatives. With each step our citizenry has regained political maturity, and it is time for the next logical step, to full self-government, to occur. And if our home rule legislation is carefully drawn-allowing, for example, for salaries substantial enough to attract men and women of high caliber to run for full-time elective positions-then there is every reason to think that the District will be as able to govern itself as any other local political entity in this country. We are quite cognizant of the need, while taking that next step, to fully pro- tect the Federal interest in what is, after all, our National Capital just as much as it. is anyone else's. The metropolitan coalition's home rule proposals recognize this Federal interest, and contemplate a continuing special relationship. Specifi- cally, the coalition's recommendations to this Committee on April 3 indicate at least nine proposed or possible focal points of some form of Federal involvement in addition to the general oversight function which the Congress and Executive Branch w-ould continue to perform: (1) responsibility for Federally-owned buildings, lands and monuments in the District; (2) responsibility for the diplo- matic community; (3) responsibility for the operation of the Federal Govern- ment w'ithin P.C.; (4) a possible Congressional veto power over District of Columbia enactments; (5) a possible mechanism for resolution of conflicts be- tween local and Federal functions; (6) the structuring of the Federal planning functions of the National Capital Planning Commission; (7) possible Federal participation in D.C.'s Judicial Selection Committee; (8) Congressional review of the automatic Federal payment at the end of five years (and possioly, in the interim, Congressional analysis of particular services rendered to the Federal Government to ascertain whether they can be broken out of the Federal pay- ment and charged for as "user fees," under separate contracts) ; and (9) a pos- sible mechanism for Federal reimbursement of District expenses incurred on request or by actions of the Federal Government. It will be seen, then, that a Federal role will continue after home rule is granted, but one proportionate to the Federal interest. President Nixon has said: "The Federal Government bears a major responsibility for the welfare of our Capital's citizens in general. It owns much of the District's laud and employs many of its citizens. It depends on the services of local government. The condi- tion of our Capital city is a sign of the condition of our nation-and is certainly taken as such by visitors, from all the states of the Union, and from around the globe. "However, this Federal responsibility does not require Federal rule." [Empha- sis added.] Indeed, the logic of this expression of the Federal interest suggests that the Federal responsibility not only does not require Federal rule, but that it pre- PAGENO="0264" 260 eludes it. For the present "condition of our Capitol city" is the condition of being this nation's "Last Colony"-is a condition of disenfranchisement-and that is a "sign of the condition of our nation" which this democracy can ill afford to be judged by. Mrs. FORTUNE. The Washington Home Rule Committee is a partner in the Metropolitan Coalition for Self-Determination Home Rule for D.C. A number of our members are active in the various organizations which make up the coalition. However, we differ in nature from Self-Determination for D.C. in that it is a coalition of local organizations while we are a body of indi- vidual citizens concerned over denial of basic sufferage rights to our fellow citizens and to ourselves. The Washington Home Rule Com- mittee has been campaigning for self-government for the District. since 1947. Only recently, one of our members recalled that he went on. his first home rule March some 45 years ago and that prompted an- other member to say that 11e had written his college thesis on home rule way back in 1929 yet here we are again still trying. Can Sisyphus, in the Greek legend, who was condemned to roll a stone uphill only to have it roll back down whenever he made it to the top of the hill, can hardly have repeated himself nmch more than we.. Why, after all the. hearings and bills don't we have home rule? We don't pretend to know all the answers to that question but we do want to suggest. a partial answer. Part of the answer is that something has been missing from these and from our past home rule discussions. which I can recall. That missing something is very well illustrated by what happened to home rule legislation in the last Congress. You will remember that in April of 1971, the Senate District Com- mittee had home rule hearings, and in October of that year, it reported out a bill as S. 2562, which quickly passed the Sena.te by a big margin. Next, this committee held home rule hearings in February, March, and April of 1972, as the 92d Congress was drawing to a close, home rule supporters were trying hard to report a bill out of this committee. But then, late in the summer, the Justice Department quietly began to oppose certain provisions of the Senate-passed bill concerning the local judknary, and it appea.rs that this last-minute intervention by the Justice Department, well over a. year after the legislative process on the Hill began was at least partly responsible for the committee's. failure to .report out a bill. Now, as to the specific reason for the Justice Department concern, the Metropolitan Coalition for Self-Determination for D.C. in its testimony on April 3 has set to accommodate the Justice Department by proposing that, except for the instigation of a so-called Missouri plan technique for selecting judges, there will be no change of the judicial system of District of Columbia for the time being. But our point is that had the Justice Department's views have been stated publicly, at an earlier stage, it is possible that a bill alleviating this concern could have been drafted in time for enactment in the last Congress. We bring this up now only so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated in the future. Mr. Chairman, unless those Members of both the Congress and the administration who have specific doubts or reservations about granting full home rule to the District come PAGENO="0265" 261: forward and articulate them so that they can be considered on their merits, and adjustments made as appropriate, a very heavy and en- tirely unfair burden is placed on any committee drafting home rule legislation. To get around to a direct answer to the question that I put earlier, one reason we don't have home rule is that by and large, the partici- pation of such persons at an early stage of the legislative process in a hopeful problem-solving manner, has been missing. That makes us worry that just as that heavy stone of ours is pushed to the crest of a hill, some new obstruction may suddenly materialize and down that old rock will tumble. We don't want to see this happen again. This committee has before it a number of recommendations as to a framework for a local government, which could have delegated to it the full powers of local self-government. These recommendations are carefully and studiously developed by the Metropolitan Coalition for Self-Determination for D.C., and the Washington Home Rule Com- mittee endorses them. We ask, Mr. Chairman, that this committee call on those well- intentioned people in Congress and in the administration, who may harbor some doubt or reservation about home rule, to come forward now and engage in a constructive solution seeking dialog about these recommendations, and about those precise issues which concern them, and let them do so now, or forever hold their peace. No home rule charter can be perfect. We should draft the best we can, but we know that our new local government will at first have to feel its way. It may be necessary to return to Congress for improve- ments or corrections in our enabling legislation. But now is the time to start. Surely there can be no doubt that the gradual broadening of the District's electoral experiences over nearly two decades has prepared us to rule ourselves as well as any State or local government. Finally, we want to stress to this committee that we are fully aware of the need to govern ourselves in a manner consistent with the Fed- eral interest in this city. The metropolitan coalition's home rule proposals recognize the significance of the Federal interest, and con- template a continuing special relationship. * In my prepared statement, I have noted some nine proposed or possible focal points of some form of Federal involvements, contem- plated by the coalition's testimony, over and above the general over- sight functions which the Congress and executive branch would, of course, continue to perform. But the Federal role ought to be proportionate to the Federal in- terest. President Nixon has said that the Federal Government bears a major responsibility for the welfare of our Capital's citizens in general. It owns much of the District's land, and employs many of its citi- zens. It depends on the services of local government, The condition of our Capital City, is a sign of the condition of our Nation, and is certainly taken as such by visitors from all over the States-from all of the States of the Union and from around the globe. However, this Federal responsibility does not require Federal rule. PAGENO="0266" 262 Mr. Chairman, the logic of the President's expression of the Fed- eral interest suggests that the Federal responsibility not oniy does not require Federal rule, but that it precludes it. For the present condition of our Capital City is the condition of being this Nation's last colony, it is a condition of disenfranchisement, and that is a sign of the condi- tion of our Nation which this democracy can ill afford to be judged by. Thank you. Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much. [General applause.] Mr. FRASER. Mr. Bamberger, did you have a statement? Mr. BAMBERGER. No, sir, I don't. Mr. FRASER. You are just prepared to respond to questions? Ms. FORTUNE. We are prepared to respond to questions. Mr. FRASER. All right. Mr. Landgrebe? Mr. LANDGREBE. I would just ask the lady what she thinks is most important: if we adopt some form of home rule, for 1976, even though it might be a bad job; or would it be better to continue the progress we have made in-toward home rule over a period of time, develop- ing and working out the problems as best we can. In other words, there seems to be an urgency toward having to meet a date here, and I don't know-what is the development of the conditions in this city, the quality of life that makes it so urgent that we try to meet a time. Particularly, with most of you people coming in without a pattern or a program in front of you, you say. we want home rule, we want to be sure of a constant or increasing Federal payment. But what is the real urgency, in view of the fact that we are making progress and have moved toward home rule, and by Mr. Fauntroy's presence here indicates that it has-there has been progress made. Mrs. FORTUNE. I am not sure I exactly understand your question, but I will respond and say that we have been asking for home rule for the District of Columbia over the years, and I can't see that asking for it now is going to speed anything up. I suppose you were referring to my statement. the statement in-the statement that we had in the record, inserted in the record, the fact that we will be celebrating our bicentennial, and here we are. the citizens of the District of Columbia, what do we have to celebrate? We are citizens too, we are taxpayers. We are law-abiding citizens, so we need to celebrate with the other citizens in' the country our freedom. [General applause.] Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, I am somewhat of a conservative, and I think that we do enjoy a great deal of freedom in our country, and we enjoy a lot of freedom in the District of Columbia, and I feel that as we move along, we should make sure that improvements are made, and we don't launch out into a situation that might end up taking away some of the freedoms that we really cherish. Mr. BAMBERGER. I wonder if I might ask the Congressman one question? Mr. LANDGREBE. You may. Mr. BAMBERGER. You have suggested that perhaps we should have posed some kind of a pattern for home rule. Of course, we have en- PAGENO="0267" 263 dorsed the metropolitan coalition's specific proposed pattern, but in light of that possible criticism, if I may construe it that way, I wonder in light of the progress that you think has been made in hearings in past years, in light of the hearings that have been held in the past six Congresses on home rule, what specific pattern for a local home rule government you would propose? Mr. LANDGREBE. Well, I guess at this time I would say, I am propos- ing the status quo, the laws that we have, the constutional require- ments, in consideration of the proximity of the District of Columbia, and even more the mixture of the Federal City and Federal interest in the city, taking into consideration the fact that the city has a tre- mendous tourist trade, the city has more money in Federal grants than the State of Indiana and the quality of life that exists here, and the overwhelming amount of representation you people have through the 100 Members in the Senate, and the 435 Congressmen who have offices right here in the heart of the city. We turn nobody away from our office. You are probably the most overrepresented people in the whole world, and as we move away from this, I think we should take great caution, and we should-the safety the prosperity, the joys and opportunities of people are not only pro- tected but improved. So I have not written my plan either, for a specific transfer from what we call this lost colony to the new State of Columbia. But I think that the trail-I will tell you right now, in my opinion, and not only because I am one member on the committee that is kind of asking questions about this, but because the people in the country, while there are different groups representing groups here, I think the people of America are going to insist that we take very cautious action, that we make progress while, we don't just blindly make changes that could be very harmful to-not only to America, but to the people of the city. Mr. FRASER. I am going to ask Mr. Fauntroy to take over the Chair :at this point. We have got a quorum call on. Mr. FAUNTROY. As I do, I want to apologize to Mr. Landgrebe for the people of the city. It is too bad he just left. He says that we are overrepresented. But this is income-tax day, and we are so enthusiastic and clapping for pro-home rule statements here, because today we paid about $900 million in Federal taxes, and we don't have a single vote on what the Federal Government does with our taxes, and I am so sorry Mr. Land- grebe missed that statement. I hope he reads it; and also reads that if he will return the $900 million to us, we will have-we will be very pleased to release the Federal payments, and make it with 80 p9rcent of the budget that we now pay in the District for the delivery of the services to all the residents and businesses within the city. I just want to thank you for the quality of your testimony and your patience in not responding to some of the misguided statements about the character and quality of life in this last colony. Counsel, do you have questions? Mr. DEPUY. Mr. Chairman, I have just learned that we must be out of here at 12:30. so I wonder if we might have counsel submit ques- PAGENO="0268" 264 tions and perhaps you might want to give Mr. Hahn the chance to- Mr. FAUNTROY. My ruling is that counsel will ask no further questions. * We will hear from Mr. Gilbert Hahn, thank you. Mr. HAl-IN. Mr. Fauntroy, it is a pleasure to appear before your committee. I have my statement in writing, which I will be pleased to submit, and ask that it be made partof the proceedings without my reading it. Mr. FIWNTROY. Thank you. Without objection, that will be done. [The statement referred to follows:] PREPARED STATEMExT OF GILBERT HAIIN, JR. Gentlemen, I am pleased to be able to be here today as a witness on the matter of the future form of the city government, and to share with you the views that I formed while Chairman of the City Council. The first thing that I believe should be recognized is that Reorganization Plan Number 3, which established the Mayor-Council Government is a success. It has more than done its job of revitalizing the city government. Specifically, I want to focus on the role of the Council. The Council has demonstrated that it can operate as an equal and independent legislative body in relation to the Mayor, like the Congress in relationship to the President and the executive agencies. The Council has become not only the major legislator for the District but also the major investigator of city policies, practices and procedures. Taking these in turn, Congress established the District as a municipal corpora- tion and the reorganization plan delegated to the Council the exercise of the police power of the corporation. Under the old forni of government this power was not used. But under the Council, particularly during the past four years, the power has been relied on extensively. Through the exercise of these powers, we were actually able to relieve the Congress of the necessity for much legislation and to act with more flexibility in the making of major policy than is possible from the Congressional level. T1e Council for example. acting under its police powers has passed a ~5.00 a ton tax which raised 52,000,000 for the City, ordered the closing of Junior Village, and stopped free City employee parking. It has legislated in the field of landlord and tenant relations; it has acted to protect the consumer, rcgula~e moving companies. and in general govern the city with respect to welfare, environmental, public safety and transportation problems. Secondly, the Council has held an almost countless number of investigative hearings on matters of public concern. We did the first thorough analysis of the planning of the city's solid waste disposal problem, which among other things, lead to the cancellation of the proposed bailing and barging system-a savings of some 57 million. The Council has investigated the operations of D. C. Transit, and I believe its leadership aided substantially in bringing about the public takeover of the company. We investigated health services in the city and recommended many changes which the Mayor has incorporated into city ~Oi1CY. And, of course, the Council has held almost continuous review of the operation of the overall taxing and spending of the city. In short, it has been successfully demonstrated that there is now- available to the Government of the District of Columbia sufficient authority to act on most of the day to day issues. I have set out w-hat the Council's powers are in order to dispel an unfortunate myth, that ours is a government which lacks the power to govern. I believe very strongly that most people in the city are unwilling to accept less than absolute powers of government because of the historic performance of the efty government. That government under the commissioners did not act in the public interest. Instead the government acted as if it were simply a corporation protecting its own rights and nothing more. It developed and indeed nourished a posiltion of impotence. Congress was asked by that government to do most any- thing of importance whether or not the city had the power to do it for itself. PAGENO="0269" 265 This all leads up to this conclusion: I support the bill giving to the City Gov- ernment the largest independent set of powers that can be passed. However, I would not want any further delay in Home Rule in order to argue over the final form of t~iose powers-even if this meant that the Congress did nothing more than simply authorize electing the Mayor and Council. That is why I have explained, at length, my view, that the Mayor and Coun- cii can govern now, without the grant of a single additional power. This is not my preference, but it is what I would support, if no early agreement can be reached on the details of the form of government. Election of the Mayor and Council should not be seen as a token gesture toward full self-government, because the powers of the city government today ~are not token powers. All of this is not to say however that the committee should simply report out a bill for election of the Mayor and Council. I believe that you have a duty to the people to grant as strong a bill as possible. We should have the power to alter the size, composition and selection of the legislative body. We should have the power to set our own budget priorities. We should have the ability to determine the physical and economic growth patterns of the city. We should have the responsibility of raising taxes. We should have the full power to regulate utilities, insurance companies, and other such matters of strictly local concern. We do not have these powers and the committee would be well advised to understand that these additional powers would make the city government even more effective. What I am saying then is simply this. The committee should recommend to the full House the strongest bill which has the best chance of passage. But the com- mittee should not delay the matter any longer than necessary over the question of the power of the city government. If they can be increased that is well and good. What is of the greatest importance is that the current undemocratic nature of the government be altered, and as soon as possible. "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Our government has no such mechanism. In drafting a bill for the election of the mayor and the council, there are several other lessons that my experience has taught me that are essential to the opera- tion of a good council. First, there is a matter of party. I think that it is essential that the Council and Mayor be elected on a partisan basis. I believe most strongly in the two party system, and its ability to hold the party in power accountable for its actions. At the present time, Reorganization Plan Number 3 requires that no more than six members of one party may be on the Council at any one time. This has also worked well in that policy-making in the Council has been bipartisan. The Council members also, since they are appointed, have become representa- tives at large of the city and have concentrated on issues irrespective of geo- graphic location. These elements of the Council should he preserved: partisan representation, limitation of the number of seats any party can hold, and repre- sentation of the city as a whole. A simple plan would allow all of these elements to continue. The nine mem- l)ers of the Council would all run at large, but each of the city's political par- ties would he allowed to nominate no more than six persons. Thus. the voters `onld vote for nine and would have to select three persons or more from among inI~'nendc'nts or the minor party. The effect on the Mayor Council government would I think be excellent. The major narty with six members would have normal working majority hut in the c~se of overriding vetoes, etc. woulń have to seek votes from th~ remaining m~mhers of the Council. This is a political protection which would mean that policy making in the city would ultimately have to he binartisan. No nartv has a monopoly of talent. yet I believe that party rule arnl resnonsi- bility are important. This plan where each party nominates six and fhp r~ponle vote for nine would blend all of these needed elements into the city government~ T think that it would be wrong to elect the city council on the ~~me ward ha sis as the school hoard members: this might create unnecessary political fric- tion in the community that would serve no useful ends. 97-527-----7a----pt. 2-1S PAGENO="0270" 266 I would like to turn now to the problem of money. As long as the federal government provides up to half of, if not in excess of, the funds that operate the city government, it is going to be impossible to reduce the matter to an equitable formula. I strongly agree with the Nelsen Committee recommendation that what Is needed is not so much a formula as there is needed certainty with respect to the federal payment. If the Congress continues to authorize a federal payment one fiscal year in advance of the city budget, the element of uncertainty is removed. There will always be differences of opinion over the adequacy of the amount involved but at least there will be the certainty of receiving a set amount. With that certainty, the city can then move ahead to prepare a responsible budget document. In summary, I call upon this committee to do the following: 1. I support a strong bill but recognize that the city government has adequate powers-not ideal, but adequate-to govern and proceed directly with the election of the Mayor and Council if the Committee cannot agree on a stronger bill promptly. 2. Insure that the city council is elected at large within a party structure that guarantees minority party representation. 3. Insure that the federal payment to the City is set one fiscal year in advance of the budget. STATEMENT OF GILBERT HAHN, ER., FORMER CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITY COUNCIL Mr. HAHN. I would make, I think, three points. One is that I am in favor of the strongest possible bill that the committee can report out this spring. It c~ncerns me that there are so many different directions in which the hearings are going, so many competing forms of local elected self- government, that I fear that by that vary reason, home rule will be further delayed. That is why, in my testimony, I have called attention to the fact that the Mayor and Council, as they are presently con- stituted, can and do govern very well, and that the committee might well be pr~pared with a bill that would do no more than provide for the election of the Mayor and the Council, if the complications of the committee's proceedings made that the oniy way in which we could make progress on Home Rule this year. Second, with respect to the form of the Council itself, I would pro- pose that their number be nine, that they be elected on a partisan basis, and that a provision be made that no more than six from any one party should be elected to the Council. Third, with respect to the money, which I think is the single most difficult issue before this committee, I would say that none of the formulas that are presently proposed would provide large enough contribution to the city, and, therefore, I would support the basic provision of the Nelsen Commission, which is that the most important point is that the authorization for payment be made a year ahead of time. Experience tells us that taking into account the categorical Federal grants, the Federal payment and the capital budget, more than half of the city's budget is going to be provided by the Federal Govern- ment, and I wouldn't wish to see anything take place that would keep this from happening. PAGENO="0271" 267 Also, I. do not see within the revenue that is available to the city, how that is going to change substantially over the corning years. Mr. Chairman, those are the points to which I would call your attention. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so very much, Mr. Hahn, for that testimony. I think I have a couple of questions. You suggest that the marry dis- cussions of forms of self-government may confuse the issue. I can appreciate your concern, but I assure you that at least the members of the committee are aware of the number of side issues that have historically been injected into the question, like retrocession, and in the last Congress, statehood, to try to shift the focus from the es- sential issue and we will, I think, be able to handle that. But I am concerned about your suggestion that the present City Council-Mayor form of government has sufficient powers now to jus- tify, in the last analysis, a simple election of those persons to serve in that function. I, of course, disagree with that. I just left rent control hearings on a bill that I have introduced. Mr. HAHN. I am sorry-the noise-I missed part of what you said, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes. I said, I do not agree with the suggestion that the city, present city government, has only token powers. I recall just this week, as I said, as I prepared for our subcommittee hearings on the rent control measure, that the City Council cannot impose rent controls as were the people elected, for example, in Montgomery County, who have in fact protected their citizens pursuant to their will, through that means. Mr. HAHN. Could I respond to that ~ Mr. FAUNTROY. Well, yes, respond to three. The courts, I think have ruled that the City Council cannot enact criminal legislation. Mr. HAHN. `Well, with respect to the rent control legislation, it is my opinion and has been my opinion, that the City Council could indeed enact a rent control legislation, and has this power all along. Ihave spelled this out before, and will, in a short time, spell this out again. Equally, the Congress, of course, has the power and if the Congress acts in this area, which it has not yet done, then, of course, the city government would be ousted in power. But upder the delegation of police powers, under which the police powers, under article 1, section 8, have been delegated to the City CounciL they have as much power in these areas as the Congress does, provided the Congress does not act and provided it does not forbid the City Council from acting. Mr. FAUNTROY. So that you would suggest that the City Council failed to move on this question out of ignorance of the powers that had been delegated to them? Mr. HAHN. During the time that I was on the Council, we consid- ered this and did not act on it because we did not think it appropri- ate. During the time since I have not been on the Council, whe~i I think it would be appropriate for the Council to act, I think they will have to answer that question themselves. PAGENO="0272" 268 Mr. FAUNTROY. Well, I certainly hope you speak to yout ~o1leagu~ Mr. Nevius, because he is under the impression that he is as powerless as I think he is on these questions. Mr. HAHN. Well, if he says that, I cannot dispute him. Mr. FAUNTROY. How about the power to impose taxes, for example ?~ Mr. HAHN. Well, yes, sir. There is no question about the fact that powers to impose all taxes, except for the real estate tax, are not in the District government and, of course, ought to be. That is one of the things that can be added. But these are the points I make. First of all, I call attention to the fact that the Council can and has expanded its powerto pass taxes. We have passed a tax that would put a $5 a ton tax on the disposition of solid waste that added $3 million the past year to the city revenue. One reading was passed of a parking tax that could have raised up to $35 :rniflion a year, had the current City Council wished to go forward with that. At the same time, the City Council of the District of Columbia, as ~it is presently constituted, has powers that are quite similar to city councils in most of the cities in the country. New York City is a case in point. Most of the important tax-raising measures have to be done by their State legislature in Albany, just as we have to have it done by you through our State legislature for the District of Columbia. A well-formed home rule bill would transfer those powers. Never- theless, if the members of the committee could not come to an agree- ment over just "vhat tax powers ought to be passed, I would hate to see the city wait to make ~ beginning, and that is why I suggest that while it is not the most desirable result, that it is not impossible for the city to govern. Quite the contrary. I think the city government under the reorganization plan has suc- ceeded very well, indeed. Mr. FAUNTR0Y. Now, I am sorry the time is so short, but you have shed some light on a problem which has concerned some members of the committee, and that is, would we have any way of assuring a balance of political party representation. You have shed some light. I do not see all the way through the tunnel, but are you suggesting that by indicating that no party could put up more than six candidates, that a party would have to concede at least three ward elections? Mr. HAHN. Well, I have suggested that all of the nine members, if it were a nine-member Council, should run at-large, which I think is preferable to election by wards. Mr. FAUNTROY. Oh, I see. Mr. HAHN. If there is no convenient way with ward elections that you could deal with this problem, unless you had multiple members from each ward, I think a Council of much over nine members is un- desirable. That is why I suggest a nine-member Council and that all the members should run at-large, and that no party should elect more than six. Obviously, if there are a different number, there would be a diqerent proportion. Mr. FAUNTROY. All right. We have got a minute for questions from counsel and answers from the witness. PAGENO="0273" 269 Mr. HAHN. I can answer yes, no, and I don't know. [General laughter.] Mr. DEPUY. Mr. Chairman, I have one quick question, I hope. Mr. Hahn, you stated the Federal Government provides half or more than half of the local funds. The figures I have obtained are that,- of the operating budget-this is based on 1970 figures; these of course are estimates-looking at total revenues, 32 percent would be Federal payment. The rest would, of course, be Federal grants and enabling revenue sharing, which all other cities get. How do you get from approximately 32 percent of ~`eder.al payment, which is a special payment in this case, to your statement of 50 percent? Mr. HAhN. I was taking the whole of the city's budget, which runs over $1 billion, including categorical grants both in and out of the budget, and the capital budget. Of that approximately $1.1 or $1.2 billion, revenues from city sources are about $550 million. The rest of it is supplied either by the Federal payment, by Federal categorical grants, or by capital loans from the Treasury. That is the present situation. Now, the capital part can be redressed by authorizing the local elected governmeiit to put out its own bonds. Mr. DEPUY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. F[OGAN. Could I just ask one question? Based on your experience, Mr. Hahn, the question was brought up and the statement was made about why the Federal interest, why does it exist. or how does it come to be, or how do people perceive it. I wonder if, based on your experience, the Federal interest is not inti- mately tied into the Federal payment and the Federal funds that go from the Congress-or at least they perceive it as going from the Con- gress-to the District of Columbia? Is that not what, basically, seems to be the Federal interest, that it is primarily a financial interest in what happens to the money and this kind of thing? Mr. HAHN. Well, there is not any doubt about the fact that the Fed- eral Government and the whole country has got a legitimate interest in the city and its character as the Nation's Capital and in the Federal buildings and Federal institutions here. And also, article I, section 8, says that that interest is in the Federal Government. ~ow, I would divide my answer to you into two parts. No. 1, the city as a city, based on pure laws of economics, cannot raise enough money out of local sources to meet its needed budget. That is irrespective of wl1ether or not there are additional costs that we have to incur because the Federal Government is here. Now, I conceive of the Federal interest here not in terms of money, that is the second half of my answer. The Federal interest expresses itself in a lot of tangible and intangible ways that would take us a long time to define. I do point out that, because I foresee the fact that, under any circumstance, a major fraction of what is contributed to the Dis- trict's budget under local elected self-government will come from the Federal Government. By the political nature of this fact, the Federal Government is not going to have any difficulty protecting its Federal interest. PAGENO="0274" 270 Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you. And thank you SO much, Mr. Hahn. We are going to have to recess the subcommittee now, until Thursday, April 19, at 9 :30 a.m., in this room, room 345, at which time we will hear from Mayor Washington ~nd other witnesses. Thank you so very much, and the committee is recessed. [Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed to recon- vene Thursday, April 19, at 9 :30 a.m.] PAGENO="0275" APPENDIX [Under the authority previously granted, the following statements and communications were ordered printed:] CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., April 5, 1973. Hon. BROOK ADAMS, Chairman, Government Operations Subcommittee, House Committee on the Dis- trict of Columbia, Longworth House Office Building. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge and thank you for your letter inviting me to testify or submit a statement for the Record on proposals for self- government and governmental organization. My bill H.R. 950 is identical to H.R. 355 of the 92nd Congress. As you know, I offered testimony on this bill during hearings held in the 2nd Session of the last Congress. My position has not changed. I would appreciate your making this letter along with a copy of my statement from the 92nd Congress, a copy of which is enclosed, a part of the Committee Hearings on these proposals. With kindest personal regards. Sincerely, JOHN R. RARIOK, M. C. STATEMENT OF HON JOHN R. RARIOK, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS Fnoi~ THE SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Mr. RARICK. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I welcome the opportunity to testify today in support of my bill H.R. 355, 4'to retrocede a portion of the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland," which is in many ways similar to the Chairman's bill, H.R. 12823. Let me say at the outset, I am in favor of home rule for the District of Co- lumbia as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and as provided for in the Con- stitution. The District of Columbia is our Federal city, the home of our Nation's government; therefore, it is presently under home rule-the control of the Congress of the United States. The framers of the Constitution understood the importance of a neutral environment. They had experienced the threat of mob rule to a republican form of government; indeed, the Continental Congress was itself surrounded and im- periled by such a lawless mob from which it was powerless to protect itself. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Founding Fathers, therefore, provided in the Constitution for the creation of a Federal district, the District of Columbia over which the Congress should have plenary and exclusive legislative power. This provision of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, guarantees a neutral, nonpolitical sanctuary for the seat of our Government, where the representatives of the people could meet in safety far from the "madding crowd," issue oriented as they are or can be made. This Clause is worth noting in its entirety: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all (271) PAGENO="0276" 272 places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings ;" The framers of the Constitution recognized that the Nation's Capital belonged in the same category as these other essential Federal properties. It serves the people of the nation; it is supported and maintained by the people of the nation, and it is controlled and governed by the representatives of the people of this nation. This is the function of this Committee-to exercise the control and au- thority over the District in the name of the people of this country. The Constitution gives "home rule" to the Congress; to surrender it in any manner would be to abrogate the power of the people over that which is right- fully theirs to hold and control. The inhabitants of the District of Columbia have no more entitlement in logic or in morality to "home rule" than do the inhabi- tants of Fort Polk, Louisiana, Redstone Arsenal, the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the Chicago Post Office, or, for that matter, the Navajo Indian Reservation located in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. There are those who attack the peoples' present system of "home rule' in the District and argue instead that the District of Columbia should have either statehood and/or Congressional representation as a separate and unique entity. There is, however, no available evidence to indicate the people of the District are deserving of such compensatory recognition. On the contrary, the District of Columbia has never been self-supporting; it is not now able to pay its own way nor will it ever be able to do so. Unfortunately, such shibboleths as "home rule," "democracy," and "government by the people" seem to have caused the Congress to forget the lessons of history and to relinquish step by step our responsibility and authority over our home to residents whose inability to operate a city of this size and complexity has made Washington an international joke, the laughing stock of people the world over. We would not be surprised to find that the capitals of certain undeveloped or emerging nations were regarded as hazardous posts by civilized people in the foreign service; but it is more than a little disturbing to find that our own capital-supposedly the showplace of democracy-is regarded as hazardous duty by the personnel of many of the foreign embassies resident here. The other aspects of the domestic situation here in Washington certainly do not indicate that the residents of the District have the ability to govern them- selves. Crime is rampant; rape and murder occur during the daylight hours within a block of the White House, indeed, the Executive Office Building itself. Are we to believe Home Rule would restore law and order? SCHOOLS The level of public education in the District is certainly an illustrative exam- ple. The Superintendent of Schools here in the District doesn't know how many people are on the school board payroll, and has no idea of the disposition of school funds. Superintendent Hugh Scott has been quoted as saying, "We don't know the scope of the deficit and we don't have the system or the people to pro- vide it," yet these are the same people crying for "home rule.' The state of education itself is worse. There are now 51 completely black schools without one white student, and as late as June 3, 1971, Superintendent Scott announcd that the average reading level of 8th grade students in the Dis- trict is equivalent to 6th grade reading ability on a nation-wide basis. The Dis- trict student actually progresses at a rate of about 3/4ths the national average, and the situation becomes worse as the progressive education programs force more and more whites and intelligent Negroes to flee to the ~uburbs. Are we to believe education would improve because of home rule? The apologists and interpretative analyzers seek to explain the exodus of decent Americans on the failure to pour more and more taxpayers money down this disgrace to American democracy for more giveaways and more free public accommodations to encourage more squatters on the federal reservation. Few dare to comment on the obvious reasons for this mass migration of decent Ameri- cans from their nation's capital; that is, the fear of violence and evenS death; the concern for human safety and property: and the natural desire to be with the people of one's own choice and kind. The local and national news media continue to violate the principles of free speech and free press and they continue to suppress these truths because those who control the "right to know" mecha- PAGENO="0277" 273 nism in American society regard the right to choose your own society, your neighbors, and your friends as being foreign to our "free society." Are we to believe the press would be more free and impartial because of home rule? SOLUTIONS Neither home rule nor massive outlays of money can solve the District's dilemma. There are but two solutions: first, our many liberal and moderate citi- zens who profess to have dedicated their lives to the cause of integrated brother- hood, permissiveness, and tolerance to return to the District to live and take part in community affairs, including sending their children to the public schools in the District; or, secondly, remove all the people from the Federal district who are not here on government business and resettle them in areas of the country that have sparse population, and living room, the Yankee challenge of creating something from nothing. Unfortunately, the former possibility seems more and more unreal as news articles continue to indicate that our country's leaders make laws and enforce them, that they themselves do not adhere to or that they circumvent in one way or the other; therefore, the only real possibility, is to resettle the people of the District in other areas of our country. Again, it is unfortunate that the cost of relocating these exploited people to the sparsely populated areas like Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, or Kansas is prohibitive; certainly the people of those states would benefit from such close association with the people of the caliber of those in the District. It is, therefore, logical to give serious consideration to the retrocession of that part of the Dis- trict populated by people whose business is other than governmental to Mary- land. Such a move would entail no cost; it would not uproot any of the District's population, and it would give them what they seem to want so desperately- the right to vote and the right to self-government. Under the principle of retro- cession, the people of the District would become citizens of a state and would operate as any other community in that State, with the right to self-government and voting representation in Congress. RETROCE55ION TO MARYLAND This bill and others advocating retrocession would accomplish two basic objec- tives: one, it would effectively satisfy the desire of the residents of the District for the right to vote and would give them self-government; and two, it would not violate the basic Constitutional principle underlying the establishment of the Federal city-that representatives from the various States and of every political persuasion could meet in safety to legislate the laws of this republic. Certainly the `addition of this portion of the District to Maryland would give the State another Congressman and the two Senators from Maryland would also have to answer to the people living in the retroceded area. Furthermore, people would be able to elect their own mayor and other city officials and participate in state elections just as any other citizen in Maryland or in the United States. There is no justification whatsoever for giving the District voting representa- tion in Congress as a separate geographical location. Sympathy for transients and migrants who have been induced by many causes and promises to settle in Washington certainly cannot be considered as serious grounds for the granting of Statehood or Congressional representation. After all, these people knew the situation and circumstances of settling here; there was no false representation on our part; it is not something that has been sprung upon them suddenly, yet there are those who support such an idea in an attempt to satisfy block votes or misinformed people at home. To give statehood and/or Congressional representation to the people of the District will benefit no one. The only possible results of such actions would be detrimental to the American taxpayer and would result in the additional threat to the personal safety of those of us in Congress, our staffs, and our families and the visitors to the nation's capital. At most, the American people could expect but a few more radical votes in either body of Congress to be controlled and exploited by extremist pressure groups. Of some relevance at this point is an article from the January 24, 1972 issue of the Washington Post headlined "Black Muslims Plan to Expand Activities." This is a branch of the same organization that was involved in the recent racial PAGENO="0278" 274 confrontation in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the capital of my state and the major city of my District. As you all know, the Black Muslim group is a black separatist organization. The article clearly indicates that the Black Muslim group is expanding opera- tions in the District, including providing free schools in "black history" and the opening of three new "temples" in the Washington area. There is every suspicion that the Black Muslims intend to expand their operations and work to recruit new followers from the District's 71 percent black population. I ask that this newsclipping be inserted at this point in my testimony. (The newsclipping referred to follows:) "[From the Washington Post, Jan. 24, 1972] "BLACK MusLIMs PLAN TO EXPAND ACTIVITIES "(By Ivan Brandon) "Minister Lonnie Shabazz, leader of Washington's Black Muslim community, said yesterday that his followers will expand their activities in Washington with the opening of three more temples here within the next three months. "Shabazz, interviewed on the WRC-TV show `Dimension Washington,' also said that the Muslims will open a college branch of the Muslim University of Islam in March. "The University of Islam, located in Chicago, is made up of primary and sec- ondary schools and a college set up by Muslims' leader, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. There are branches of the university in most cities where the Muslims have a mosque. "The local Muslims run a high school and an elementary school with a total enrollment of about 350 students. Shabazz said the college will probably have about 50 students when it opens. "The schools are open to all black students and are tuition free. Shabazz said the Muslims have opened their own schools because `the schools are in a bad situation.' He added that black studies programs `are nothing more than a warmed-over version of white history.' The Honorable Elijah Muhammad has solved this his own schools,' Shabazz said. "Shabazz said the new temples will be located in the Upper Northwest, North- east and Southeast sections of the city. Muhammad's Mosque No. 4, 1519 4th St. NW., is the Muslims' headquarters here. "Shabazz did not say how much the expansion would cost or offer any other details on the new temples. The Muslims will not release the number of members in the Washington area or nationwide. "Shabazz was questioned about Muslim involvement at the recent shootout in Baton Rouge where two blacks and two policemen were killed in what police officials called a confrontation prompted by Muslims. "`We have been taught by the Honorable Elijah Muhammad to go about our work in a peaceful manner. We were not involved at all' in the incident in Baton Rouge, Shabazz said. "Shabazz said local Muslims have a `peaceful relationship' with the Washing- ton police. Muslims have been in Washington for nearly 40 years, and there have been no serious incidents here involving Muslims and local authorities. "When asked about reports of an internal struggle for control of the Muslims, Sbabazz quickly denied all rumors, saying that there is no dissent or power struggle going on within the movement." Mr. RARICK. It is certainly worth considering at this point whether or not an organization such as the Black Muslims could, in fact, control the District or elect the representatives should the District be given Congressional representa- tion as a separate or distinct unit. VOTER TPRNOUT The percentage of voter turnout in the recent D.C. elections indicates that there is a distinct possibility that such an activist group like the Black Muslims could control the local elections. The percentage of voters actually going to the polls in the District are shocking. If such a thing as this occurred in the South, at least in my Congressional District, the ~Tustice Department would invoke PAGENO="0279" 275 the Civil Rights Act because less than 50 percent of the voters turned out and therefore, according to the liberals, there had to be suppression of rights. In the 1909 School Board election at large, 18.17 percent of the voters cast ballots. In the D.C. Delegate primary only 45.21 percent of the people went to the polls and in the March General Election only 44.93 percent of the registered voters took part in the democratic process. Yet these are the same people who the opinion makers would have us believe want home rule. Of some significance here to bring the figures up to date, only 18 percent of the registered voters took part in the first Primary to elect District School Board Members on November 2, 1971; only 9 percent, or 14,998 votes, were cast in the en- suing run-off election held November 24, 1971. It is certainly something that must be considered in deliberations on bills that offer total home rule to the District or voting representation in Congress-it would be indeed shocking to have 15,000 votes cast in an election to name a Congressman and two Senators. It would only require 7,501 votes to win-certainly well within the reach of membership of activist groups such as the Black Muslims. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that it is essential for the free- dom and safety of the Congress, Federal employees, staffs, visitors to our nation that the Congress retain the power to govern and control the Federal city, rather than yield such powers to the exploiters of the squatters on this Federal reservation. This is the true meaning of "home rule." The people of this nation are the rightful owners of this city; it is fitting that their elected representatives gov- ern it. To yield control over the District exposes this government to absolute mob rule, to street democracy where the elected representatives of the people would live in virtual fear of their lives, subject to the whims and pressures of mob rule such as that dictated here during the recent May Day demonstrations or the earlier riots that threatened this city. No legislator can say that the District of Columbia is an independent, im- partial community, or a safe place to work in the interests of his constituents. Neither is the District a model city or the "showplace of democracy; rather, it is a sinkhole, rat-infested, the laughing stock of the free and Communist world. It is certainly not indicative of cross-section American society; it is not even in the proper racial balance, nor is there any indication but that the so-called "home rule" would but worsen, not improve situations. EETROCESSION TO MARYLAND Yet, Mr. Chairman, there is the problem of the right to vote and the right to "home rule" and or representation in Congress. The only logical means available of satisfying this problem is through retrocession to Maryland. There is historic precedent in the 1846 retrocession of the portion of the District to the State of Virginia. Furthermore, and most important, such a move would satisfy two basic objectives: one it would effectively satisfy the desire of the sincere resi- dents of the District for the right to vote and would give them self-government and Congressional representation as citizens of the State of Maryland; and two, it would not violate the basic Constitutional principle underlying the establish- ment of the Federal city-that representatives from the several states of every political persuasion could meet in safety to legislate the laws of the Republic far from the "madding crowd" and the pressures of mob rule. I would urge the Committee to give favorable consideration to H;R. 355, or any of the other bills proposing retrocession of part of the District to Maryland. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity today. STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MRS. SHERMAN Ross The American Association of tTniversity Women again wishes to express its appreciation for the privilege of presenting a statement on behalf of Home Rule for the District of Columbia, on which this Committee has acted favorably on several occasions in the past. As many of you who are members of this Committee know, the AATJW, with a mebership of approximately 170,000 university women graduates organized in some 1,750 branches throughout the fifty states, Guam and the District of Co- PAGENO="0280" 276 lumbia, has supported Home Rule for the District of Columbia for nearly two decades. Since its National Convention in June 1961, when the Association adopted Resolutions and an item in its Legislative Program reinforcing this long- standing position in favor of self-government for residents of the District of Columbia, we have urged support of Home Rule. The nation-wide membership of our organization is becoming increasingly aware that individuals living within the District limits are denied a part of their citizenship privileges. Yet after extenson of the privileges that accompany the granting of statehood to the resident of former territories, the residents of the District continue to be subject to taxation without represenation, to service in war-time, and to contribution of time and effort to our common causes. In fact, District citizens are expected to assume the same responsibilties to which other American citizens, with the exception of convicted felons, mental incompetents, and those under voting age are subject. Other Americans, however, have a voice in their own local governments. In the eyes of the members of the Association there is no doubt of the justice and wisdom of granting self-government to the District. The constitutionality of the proposals before this Committee was resolved in 1953. Precedent also exists, for between the years 1801 and 1874 the District had its own self-govern- ment without impairing in any way the duties and the functions of the Federal government. In addition to this injustice of taxation without representation and denial of a voice in the management of their own municipal affairs to individuals who live within the District limits, a serious injustice is being done to the constituen- cies of those Congressmen whose time and energy is subjected to the serious drain that service on House and Senate District Committees commands. This is time and energy which otherwise could be given to the affairs of a member's own state, to his own constituents and as well to matters of national importance. A similar injustice is being done to each individual taxpayer who under the present system is supporting one of the largest and one of the highest paid city councils for the District when its time is taken for the enactment of its local laws. It is a matter of grave concern, in our opinion, that under the present sys- tem so many unavoidable hours must be spent on District business by the whole Congress, while matters of infinitely greater national consequence are therefore delayed. An equally absurd demand is made upon the time of the President who must sign or veto legislation relating to the District and who, under the present system, now must make certain appointments for the District of Columbia. The expenditure of time and effort on the part of the Congress and the Executive to frame and pass legislation regulating the size of ice cream cones, kite flying, beauty and barber licensing and a myriad of other local matters surely cannot be justified as reasonable, when weighed against matters of national policy. We wish to assure this Committee and members of the Senate that the mem- bership of the Association is aware of the action taken by this Committee and by the Senate in approving Home Rule for the District of Columbia many times beginning in 1949 and to re-affirm Association's support for similar action in this session. We also wish to assure this Committee that our membership will continue its efforts to communicate its concern over the existing situation with respect to this problem to the members of the other body of Congress. AMERICAN CIvIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON, ~eatt7e, Wash., March 27, 1973. Hon. BROCK ADAMS, House Office Bv~iding, Washiuigton, DXI. Dx~&n CONGREssMAN ADA~Is: I write to urge your support for a bill that will extend truly meaningful home rule for the District of Columbia. The ACLU of Washington believes that meaningful home rule legislation must embrace at least three principles: provision for an elected council with full legis- lative authority, an elected mayor with full executive authority, and a formula for establishing a federal obligation to the District in lieu of taxes. Although we are over three thousand miles from the District, we share in the national scandal of denying self-government to the citizens of our national PAGENO="0281" 277 capital. Our state properly prides itself on the democratic and participatory nature of the governmental process. Our fellow citizens in the District of Colum- bia must also enjoy the right to govern themselves. Very truly yours, LAUREN SELDEN, Enecutive Director. STATEMENT OF CLYDE M. WEBBER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION or GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, is fully com~ mitted to achieving genuine home rule for the residents and citizens of the District of Columbia. On October 24, 1072, our National Executive Council unanimously adopted a resolution which had been submitted to our last national convention, which reads as follows: `Whereas, the residents of the District of Columbia have heretofore been denied full participation and representation in the political process, "Be It Resolved, that we support full participation and representation in the political process on the part of the residents of the District of Columbia. This goal includes the full control of all resources of the District by its citizens through representatives elected by them. We support all legislation which moves toward achieving these ends." We are a democratic organization and support the principles of democratic, responsive government. Currently the District does not have such a government. We believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to elective government and there is no adequate justification for denying this right to District residents, The American Declaration of Independence stated clearly the issue: "That to secure' these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed." One of the primary and most effective means the governed have of exercising the right of self government is through the institu- tion of elective government. In this respect the residents of the Dsitrict have been denied genuine citizenship as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Pres- ently the oniy elected officials in their local government are the members of the School Board. They have little, if any, effective control over the other officials of their government. It is an irony that in a nation so firmly dedicated to the prin- ciples of democracy, the residents of that nation's capital are denied local self- government. We have heard expressions of surprise and anger from new residents of the District when they find that as a consequence of moving to the District they have been virtually disfranchised with regard to local government. There is no justi- fiable reason that individuals who would be regarded as responsible enough to exercise full rights of citizenship by any other American state or municipality should have these rights so drastically limited merely because they live in the District of Columbia. We urge speedy passage of legislation to grant full home rule to the District and full citizenship to its residents. Up to this point, we have addgessed the issue of the basic principle of demo- cratic government. There are other issues of important constitutional and inter- national significance which we realize are invoked to retard the immediate application of democratic procedures in the District. Our national headquarters is domiciled in Washington, D.C., and for this reason, we are ~1aily made aware of the various facets of life here which are cited as arguments against home rule. Daily we hear such phrases as "executive privilege," "internal documents," "executive session." "hearings in camera," "secret," "confidential" and other classification categories which restrict access of the public to information. Thus we ourselves are fully aware that Washington is in fact the seat of our Federal government, comprising its three independent branches which jealously guard their own sovereignities both in relation to each other and in relation to the right of local authorities to supervise them. Even casual visitors to the District can discover this fact during a tour of our principal buildings. They will see, for example, the physical, tangible exercise of these independent Federal soy- ereignties in the varous police forces in the District-the Executive Protective Service, the Capitol Police, the Supreme Court Police Force. In addition, there exist within the District the Metropolitan Police Department, the National Park PAGENO="0282" 278 Police and the Zoo Police. Just a recital of these separate police forces indicates the many independent jurisdictions which play a role in the city. In addition to housing 119 Embassies and 3 Legations all enjoying diplomatic immumty, Washington is the host to many international organizations. These consider themselves immune to, or exempt from, local jurisdiction. The District is also home to large numbers of Institutions, Funds and Founda- tions, many of whom are tax-exempt bodies. It also provides housing to many American and Foreign corporations. Although their principal operations are located elsewhere, these groups consider it essential to maintain liaison offices here. The residence of these various groups in the District brings Washington many advantages, of course. Nevertheless there are some problems also, especially since it appears that the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court or the foreign embassies and international organizations would not be willing to be governed by any local body. Moreover, all these groups at this time have asserted their Con- stitutional or diplomatic rights by claiming local property tax immunity. The problem facing home rule then is largely a question of accommodating the needs of the Federal government and the international community to the demo- cratic rights of the local population. The 23rd Amendment to our Constitution, ratified in 1961, proceeded in this direction by granting residents of the District the right to vote for President and 1,Tjce President. Since then, provision has been made for the election of a Delegate from the District of Columbia to the House of Representatives. Although par- ticipating fully in the prerogatives of House Committees, the Delegate is still denied the right to vote on the floor of the House. From the foregoing, it is clear that much remains to be done. The most serious needs concern, of course, the election of local bodies, most of all an elected Council and an elected Mayor. The question of election of these government officials is intertwined with such other questions as the right of an elected Council to levy local taxes, especially real estate taxes, on Federal and diplomatic properties. Without the power. to tax, no sovereignty has very much meaningful home rule. Our organization realizes that these are compex issues, and that to their solution many of the finest minds in our country are directed. For our part, we wish to lend our most enthusiastic support and good wishes and to assure you that we will welcome every step forward toward effective self-government and home rule for the local residents of the District of Columbia. PREPARED STATEMENT OF L0vELL L. Cynus, EXECUTIVE DiREcToR, DIsTRIcT or COLUMBIA COUNCIL 20, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNIC- ir~L EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO This is before the Government Operation Sub-Committee of the House District Committee regarding Home Rule Legislation for the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appear before you on behalf of over 6,000 members of our Council in the District of Columbia in support of Home Rule Legislation for the District. Our Union has long advocated total self government for the citizens of the District of Columbia, including further voting representation in the United States Senate and House of Representatives. In recent years a number of important steps have been taken by the Congress toward that goal. We have recognized these actions by the Congress to provide the residents of the District with some voice in their Government. We realize that although these actions have been extremely limited in terms of effective self government, they have bad the desirable effect of further encouraging the people of the District to seek full citizenship and self government. We believe that this is particularly true of the recent election of Waiter Faun- troy as the District's Non-Voting Delegate in the House of Representatives. However, let us not forget that despite these gains, the District of Columbia remains, in fact, America's "last colony"-its residents subjected to the incligni- ties of second-class citizenship, a half-million voters denied their right to choose elected representatives, taxpayers with no representation, American citizens denied an effective voice in governing their lives. V Our Union firmly believes that it is time, therefore, that the Congress take a major step toward fulfilling the promise of representative government for all the PAGENO="0283" 279 people of the District of Columbia. The time for elected government in this city is long overdue. The principle of local self-government for the District of Columbia is no longer an area of controversy and I do not think it is necessary to belabor this quesion. However, I would like to focus on two issues which have been cited against home rule. It is often heard that home rule cannot be granted to the District of Columbia because the residents of the District are incapable of governing themselves and that home rule would lead to scandal, bankruptcy, or worse. This is a ridiculous statement at best and we find its racist implications intolerable. For anyone to say that since home rule for the District of Columbia in 1874 proved to be a disastrous experience is a valid, logical reason for not having home rule in 1973 is pure nonsense. If one follows this reasoning, I would like to point out to the Members of this Committee, the record of government in many states and cities from 1874 to the present would lead one to seriously question the capability of the citizens of those areas to effectively govern themselves. I cannot recall any Mem- ber of Congress demanding the revocation of the right of those citizens to choose their own representatives and govern themselves. There is also the issue of the District of Columbia as the Federal city and the fear that self-government for the District would have a disastrous effect on th~ ability of the Federal government to function. Those who defend the concept of the Federal city ignore the fact that all modern governments in the free world manage to function without denying the citizens of their capitals the same rights of all other citizens. H.R. 429 by Congressman Fauntroy, H.R. 5211 by Congressman Conyers, H.R. 6183 by Congressman Smith, H.R. 6439 by Congressman Fraser and H.R. 2574 by Congressman Dellums are excellent pieces of proposed legislation and we corn- mendthese Congressmen for their efforts on behalf of the citizens of the District of Columbia. We must however be practical and candid about the chances of get- ting these bills out of the House District Committee as well as getting them passed by this Congress. S. 2652, known as the Compromise Bill was passed by the last session of the Senate and was referred to the House District Committee on October 13, 1971 while that bill was not the utopia of Home Rule, we did feel that it had a fair chance of passage, that legislation provided adequate safeguards to protect the interest of the Federal Government. It was our understanding that no action could have been taken by the D.C. Government which would in any way run counter to the best interests of the Federal Government. We have been knocking on the door too long. The Compro- mise Bill did afford an opportunity to get inside the door, it did like many others before it. We want to get in and we are determined to continue our efforts for complete Home Rule for the District of Columbia. We can find no reason for the House of Representatives to delay any further the enactment of some type of legislation granting the right of self government for the people of the District of Columbia, legislation is long overdue and we urge this Subcommittee to favorably report and actively work on any bill that they feel will lead to final congressional ~nactrnent. STATEMENT BY CARL J. MEGEL, AMERICAN FEDERATION ov TEACHERS, AFL-CIO SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLIJMBIA This statement is to confirm support for Self Determination for the District of Columbia by the American Federation of Teachers, a national organization consisting of more than 300,000 classroom teachers, affiliated with the AFL-CIO. By convention action, a resolution was passed which stated that the American Federation of Teachers continue its efforts to influence the Congress of the United States to grant local self government to the citizens of the District of Columbia. The citizens of the District of Columbia are required to pay taxes yet do not have the power to see how the money is to he spent. To ieny one million Ameri- can citizens this elementary right violates the traditional American principal of no taxation without representation. Enactment of legislation to give the District of Columbia home rule is long overdue. Such legislation would restore citizenship to residents of an area which has been disenfranchised for nearly 90 years. Time benefits so derived will strengthen the entire nation. PAGENO="0284" 280 STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS For many years, the American Jewish Congress, a national organization with 40,000 members, has supported the principle of home rule for the District of Columbia. Once again we urge the Congress to enact legislation that will grant to the residents of the nation's capital the right and responsibility to exercise meaningful control over their local affairs. The bedrock of our constitutonal system is the principle that government exists only by the consent of the governed. It follows, therefore, that the people have an obligation to exercise the elementary rights of citizenship, to vote, to participate in the affairs of their community, and to hold their representatives accountable for what is done in their name. We teach this to our children, and we urge it upon ourselves. How ironic, therefore, that the people who live in the nation's capital cannot fully participate in the democratic process. They do not elect their officials, they do not determine the use to which their taxes will be put, and they are barred from ineaningftl decision making with regard to the policies and programs that will shape the quality of life in their community. We recognize that complex issues confront the Congress in its home rule deliberations. The presence of the federal government within the District's boundaries, the various proposals concerning the form of representative govern- ment for the District, and the nature of the anticipated fiscal relationship be- tween the government of the District of Columbia and the federal government are all matters of grave concern. Yet the Congress must riot allow the difficulty of the task to blind it to the rightness o the principle. It has a clear obligation to relieve the citizens of the District of Columbia of the burdens imposed by the denial of full cItizenship rights. The American Jewish Congress supports home rule for the District of Colum- bia and urges the Congress of the tufted States to grant self-determination to the nearly one million Americans who live in the nation's capital. STATEMENT BY B'NAI B'RITH WOMEN B'nai B'rith Women, an international Jewish Women's service organization comprised of 135,000 mneml)ers in the United States, reaffirms its previously stated positions in support of Home Rule for the District of Columbia. The City of Washington. D.C., home of our nation's government, is an anach- ronism within our democracy. It is governed by appointees of the President amid the Congress rather than by elected representatives. B'nai B'rith Women views this situation of `taxation without representation" as antithetic to a democracy. B'nai B'rith Women therefore urges the members of the Congress of the United States to speedily enact legislation to grant home rule to Washington, D.C. We specifically petition the distinguished Chairman of the House District of Columbia Committee to expedite such legislation as soon as possible. Now is the time to end the disgraceful lack of democracy in the District of Columbia. STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. STRAUSS. CHAIRMAN. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, MAY 7, 1973 The Democratic Party remains committed to the goal expressed in the 1972 Democratic National Platform of "full home rule for the District of Columbia, including an elected Mayor-City Council government, broad legislative power, control over appointments, automatic Federal payments, and voting representa- tion in both Houses of Congress." The Democratic Party has always been, and will continue to be, a political nerty hosed on the inherent faith of the people to govern. The Democratic Party has always provided the initiative in extending the franchise to ameliorate the worst nossihie injustice in representative democracy-denying duly qualified citi- zen~ the onnortunity to participate in the decision-making affairs of their gov- ernment. We remain committed to this principle today. PAGENO="0285" 281 The concept of a "Federal City" in no way assumes restricted citizenship for citizens of the Federal jurisdiction. Our Constitution has been amended to ac-~ count for this anomaly, and thus the citizens of the District of Columbia now participate in the election of the President and Vice President of the United States, as their fellow citizens in the fifty states do. Our system of government assumes a government of separate and co-equal branches. Certainly it is illogical to guarantee to the citizens of the District of Columbia participation in the se- lection of the Executive branch, and deny them any participation in the selec- tion of the Congressional branch of American government. The 23rd Amend- ment to the Constitution went half way in ameliorating electoral injustice. Is it now not time to go all the way in giving the citizens of the District of Columbia the same rights of citizenship as is enjoyed by all 209 million other Americans? Isn't it now time to allow the citizens of the District of Columbia to select their own local government, a local government that has meaningful powers to govern in the best interst of its citizens, and reject the paternalistic charade of congres- sional control over the well being and interests of the District of Columbia? Though not to label ~he situation colonial, it does come very close to our use of that term. It is unjust for citizens of the United States to be totally controlled by congressional appropriations when they have no ability to influence the will of the Congress. For one of the early tenets of our American system, one of the tenets used most effectively in attempting to secure American independence, was the slogan "no taxation without representation." Yet this is just the situation which we have allowed to fester in the District of Columbia for almost 200 years. We cannot have a free and independent people, governed by rules which they bad no power to make, governed by individuals they had no power to elect. To repeat, the Democratic Party strongly endorses the concept of home rule for the District of Columbia as a means to let the people of the District have the same rights and privileges of citizenship in the United States as all other people in our Nation. The great hope for our Nation is the participation of people in government. Thus, we must remove all barriers to such participation. STATEMENT OF THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS For more than twelve years the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has endorsed Home Rule for the District of Columbia. The Conference, a coalition of 132 national civil rights, labor, religious and civic groups has long worked to bring equal rights to all persons in the United States. There can be no more flagrant denial of equal rights than the denial of full citizenship to the men and women who live in the Nation's Capital. Presi- dent Richard M. Nixon himself has called the District of Columbia's lack of self-government a national shame and has given his support to Home Rule. The 93rd Congress has it in its power to correct this disgrace. This subcom- mittee can begin the task of making the District of Columbia a full, functioning entity in our democracy, by helping create a workable system of self-government. On behalf of our participating organizations we respectfully urge this sub- committee to help correct a long standing injustice and restore to the residents of the District their right to elect the persons who govern them and their right to exercise some influence on the affairs of the city in which they live. STATEMENT BY THE CAPITOL HILL SOUTHEAST CITIZENS AssocIATIoN The Capitol Hill Southeast Citizens Association again votes against Home Rule as it has done for years. This is the Nation's Capital, and the various government agencies extending for blocks from the U.S. Capitol, the Senate and House Office Buildings indicate that Government for this great country is the main business of Washington, D.C. Following are some of the distinguished groups not voting here but welcome to reside in the area: 1. Senators and Representatives as well as members of their staffs. 2. The various Embassies and members of their staffs. 97-527-73-pt. 2-19 PAGENO="0286" 282 3. Officers of Marine Corps Headquarters on Capitol Hill and marines sta- tioned in Washington, D.C. 4. All Navy Yard Officers at Washington Navy Yard headquarters and any sailors stationed there. 5. Officials at Boiling Field Air Base and men stationed there. 6. All government workers under the Hatch Act who must vote in home state. 7. Thousands who reside here while on assignment to governmei~t business ~but who vote elsewhere. 8. The tourist trade that visits Washington sightseeing all year round. Following are some of the many reasOns why this organization is opposed to Home Rule: 1. Since this is the Nation's Capital, the District Government cannot be ~expected to handle much of the maintenance or protection and certainly not the operation of the City. (Remember the riots of 1968; troops were called to help.) 2. This organization seldom asks the District Government for anything. In the past the House District Committee has aided Capitol Hill all it could. May it Stlil do so. This group hopes the House of Representatives will still assist Capitol Hill and the rest of Washington. Residents shOuld not be forced to sell their property and leave. 3. The D.C. Government can collect trash, swreep streets, provide lighting, and control the general appearance of the City including Zoning. It probably has some conferences with the City Schools, but the D.C. School Board whose mem- hers are elected have great trouble providing adequate education. All children whose parents can afford it should attend private school. Public schools appear to be mainly for those who cannot afford private schools. (Money is spent but something is lacking under the elected Board of Education.) 4. Many people refuse to leave their homes in order to protect themselves and their property, and since they have done this, reports state that crime has dropped in Washington, but to expect the District Government to protect the Nation's Capital is not realistic. Under no circumstances, allow this City to become more dangerous than it now is by allowing home rule. Home rule was started in 1871 under Boss Shepherd, Mayor and lasted until 1874. The public debt piled up during the three years and was so enormous that it was not completely paid off until 1922. Under no circumstances, subject the resident of Washington, D.C. to such a repeat indebtedness. Thank you for considering this matter most seriously. STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION The 1.2 million members of the National Education Association are appreci- ative of this opportunity to submit testimony again in favor of self-government for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Significant first steps have already been taken. The Association applauded the legislation which provided for a popularly-elected School Board for the District. Now further steps are before you. The Association believes that three basic elements essential to the establishment of a true and workable form of self-government are: first, locally elected officials, including a mayor and city council; second, control by elected District officials over the District of Columbia's budget; and third, automatic payment of federal funds to compensate for the heavy concentration of nontaxable federal and international buildtngs within the District. We have noted with interest the testimony presented by Mr. Sterling Tucker and others, representing the Metropolitan Coalition for Self-Determination for the District of Columbia before this Subcommittee on April 3, 1973. Although the National Education Association has taken no specific actions which would dictate support or lack of support for any of the details offered in the testimony, we believe that adoption of the suggestions made by the Metropolitan Coalition ~0uid saftisfy the three basic elements above which we consider essential for meaningful self-government. The Association has long been on record in favor of complete Home Rule for the District of Columbia. Educators across the country, who daily teach the history and developnient of representative government in the United States, PAGENO="0287" 283 the most durable democracy yet created, consider it ironic that 800,000 people in the nation's Capital City are denied the basic democratic right to a local government responsible to them at the polls. The Declaration of Independence says it well-that in order to secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . ." For the last hundred years residents of the District of Columbia have been governed by powers not derived from their consent, but from the consent of the citizens of the several states. It is basic to the principles set down by Jefferson and the other brave men meeting in Philadelphia that governments at all levels should be elected by, and therefore answerable to, the citizens governed. Only in the Dis- trict of Columbia is this principle violated, and we urge a speedy and effective remedy. An elected mayor and city council, and indeed an elected school board also, have in fact no powers unless they are able to make decisions concerning the financial affairs of the District. It would be an exercise in futility for a govern- ing body to legislate authority to hire more policemen, for example, or to mandate an innovative reading program in the schools, unless that same body could also legislate the financial means to implement the legislation. Therefore we urge that the District of Columbia's budget be controlled by the elected District officials. And finally, we urge adequate and automatic federal payments to the District government to offset the severe shortage of taxable property within the bound- aries of the District cause by the heavy concentration of nontaxable federal and international buildings. We join with other members of the National Coalition for Self-Determination for D.C. in urging that this Committee take quick and positive action toward granting full rights of citizenship to the residents of our Capital City. STATEMENT B~ THE OFFICERS or NEW DEMOCRATIC COALITION The officers of the New Democratic Coalition call upon all Democratic Con- gressman to give their wholehearted support to the reality, as well as the prin- ciple, of home rule for the District of Columbia. For more than 20 years, D.C. home rule has been a commitment of the Demo- cratic Party, through national platforms as well as candidates' statements. Yet today, the city is still a federal colony. It is time now, in this session of Congress to make our party's commitment a fact by insisting that the House District Committee report out a home rule bill as soon as possible. (The following document was referred to on page 118 "D.C. Government Organization", Part 1.) MARCH 20, 1973. Hon. BR0CK ADAMS, Chairman, Government Operations Subcommittee, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the Subcommittee's hearing held in my office on Monday, March 19th, you inquired regarding the Council's exercise of its regula- tory power and requested information on instances in which the Council has sought to test the limit's of this power in the public interest. In summary form, the authority of the Council is set forth in Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1907, Section 402, D.C. Code Title I, Appendix. The Council's regu- latory powers are those delegated by the Congress to the former Board of Com- missioners. The power of the Congress under the Constitution to delegate regu- latory authority to the District of Columbia was upheld in the landmark case of District of Columbia V. John B. Thompson ~ Co., 340 U.S. 100, 100-110 (1953). The preeminent authority to regulate is contained in D.C. Code § 1-226, which authorizes the Commissioners (now the Council "to make and enforce all such reasonable and usual police regulations . . . as they may determine neces~mry for the protection of lives, limbs, health, comfort and quiet of all persons and PAGENO="0288" 284 the protection of all property within the District of Columbia." In addition to this general grant of "police power" to the Council, there are a number of spe- cific delegations of authority, including the power to issue building regulations (D.C. Code § 1-228) under which the Building and Housing Codes were adopted and the General License Law (D.C. Code § 47-2301 et seq.) under which the Council has the authority to require licensing and regulation of various busi- nesses, trades, professions or callings. It is clear that the Council wilJ regulate under both broad and specific grants of legislative authority by the Congress, except when the Congress, by enacting a specific statute, "pre-empts the field" of regulation. Some instances in which the Council has exercised its delegated regulatory powers maximally are: (1) The Gun Control Regulation-a copy of the regulation and the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sup- porting the Council's authority in this field are attached. (2) Consumer Retail Credit Regulation-a copy of which is attached. A pre- vious version of this regulation was enjoined by the U.S. District Court on the grounds that consumer credit legislation pending before the Senate indicated that Congress had pre-empted the field. After revision of the regulation the suit was dismissed. (3) Insurance Regulations designed to prohibit geographic discrimination and arbitrary cancellation of policies within the District, enacted under the general police pow-er-a copy of these regulations and of the memorandum opinion of the U.S. District Court enjoining enforcement are attached. This decision is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and decision is pending. (4) Solid Waste Regulations which impose a $5 per ton fee on all solid waste disposed of by private haulers in District facilities. This regulation w-as chal- lengeci and upheld by the U.S. District Court in the attached memorandum opinion. (5) Abortion Control Regulation intended to provide health care requirements in connection with abortions performed in the District of Columbia. A copy of a memorandum opinion enjoining enforcement of this regulation based on the recent Supreme Court decision on abortion is attached. (6) Amendments to the District of Columbia Housing Regulations concerning tenants' rights. A copy of this regulation is attached. This regulation has not been judicially construed. Now pending before the Council are proposals to regulate in the following areas: (1) automobile repossession; (2) discrimInation in employment and housing on account of age, *sex, or marital status; and (3) licensing of auto- mobile and TV repair firms. I hope that this information will be useful to the Committee. We stand ready to provide any further information you may desire. Sincerely yours, JOHN A. NEvrns, Chairman, City Council. EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS OF THIRTY-NINTH ANNUAL CONVENTION, Tnn NEWSPAPER GUILD (AFL-CIO, CLC) THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The 800.000 U.S. citizens who live in the nation's capital city continue to have no voice in the choice or operation of the city's municipal government and have only token, non-voting representation in Congress. This situation flies squarely in the face of the tenet that participation by the citizenry in their government at all levels is the basic principle of responsive government. The Senate has passed a strong bill to provide home rule for the District. The House of Representatives has yet to act. Home-rule bills there have been tied up in the District of Columbia Committee, chaired by Rep. John L. ~IcMillan. The Congress also has before it a strong bill to provide home rule for the Dis- trict. The House of Representatives has yet to act. Home-rule bills there have been tied up in the District of Columbia Committee, chaired by Rep. John L. McMillan. PAGENO="0289" 285 The Congress also has before it a proposal to give the District full voting rep- resentation in Congress. (Eleven1 of the 50 states have fewer residents than the District and among them elect 22 U.S. Senators and 17 members of the House.) The Newspaper Guild, reaffirming the Guild's support for home rule for the District of Columbia, calls upon the House District Committee to report favor- ably. without further delay and without change, the home-rule bill approved by the Senate (S. 2652), and the IEB further calls upon the House of Representa- tives to enact the measure. TNG also endorses full voting representation in Congress for the District and calls upon the Congress to approve a proposed Constitutional amendment to accomplish this. NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS, Chicago, Ill., April 20, 1973. Hon. Bn.ocK ADAMS, Chairman, $ubcommittee on Government Operations, District of Columbia Com- mittee, U.Ei. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR Mn. ADAMS: The National PTA, representing approximately eight and one-half million members, has long been interested in the assurance of full and equal opportunities for the exercise of civic rights and responsibilities for all citizens. The Legislative Program of the National PTA includes an item which reads, "The District of Columbia should be granted self-government and elected representation in Congress." In our belief that the citizens of the District of Columbia are entitled to the same civic rights and responsibilities as other citizens of the United States, the National PTA urges that you and the members of your committee give favorable consideration to legislation which will give the residents of the District of Columbia self-government and full representation in the Congress of the United States. Thank you very much for hearing our views. Sincerely yours, Mrs. WALTER G. KIMMEL, Coordinator of Legislative Activity, National PTA. STATEMENT OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW) The United Auto Workers has consistently supported home rule for the District of Columbia. We were elated, therefore, when Congressman Charles Diggs, of Detroit, was named chairman of the District of Columbia Committee- for at long last it appeared that friends of District self-determination had majority control of the House committee which must report out a bill before the House can vote on the question. We are pleased that hearings have been conducted on behalf of District home rule and we look forward to a favorable report by the committee. Most Americans-including some members of Congress-can not believe that any part of the United States, least of all the federal city, is without self- government. The lack of a meaningful vote among the residents of Washington, D.C. for city officials is so inconceivable that most people have to be repeatedly reminded of this startling fact. Our union has 1.4 million members and we conduct conferences in Washing- ton to acquaint our leadership with the legislative process. Our members who visit Washington are amazed to learn that citizens in the District of Columbia are not able to vote for mayor or members of the city council, nor to vote for officials who will decide upon their tax rates and level of public services. It is our contention that District residents lack home rule because the Amer- ican people are simply not aware that this denial of self-government actually exists. 1 Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. PAGENO="0290" 286 We appreciate that there are some honest questions which home rule advocates can raise. Chairman Diggs has raised some of these in a recent teleyision edi- torial. But these questions are trival when placed against the injustice of continued taxation without representation which plagues the 800,000 citizens of the District. We in the UAW do not believe the House District of Columbia Committee should indulge in elaborate nit-picking exercises before voting out a home-rule bill for action by the full House. The Senate has many times approved a home- rule bill which faced all the questions propounded now by Chairman Diggs. We in the tJAW think that extended hearings will not improve the legislative climate, and that the House of Representatives ought quickly to vote its will on District home-rule. It is argued that District home-rule lacks a majority in the House. There is, in our judgment, no way to know if this is so. What the House needs is a vote- and only action by the District Committee will pave the way for a House vote. Congress has been criticized by many for failing to lead, for failing to act. What the District Committee does on home-rule will be a major test of con- gressional ability to lead in the 93rd Congress. Washington, D.C. has all the virtues and vices of every other major American city. We do not think that self-government will overnight transform Washing- ton into a better city as such. But we do believe that the people of Washington have the right to make their own mistakes, and that congressional committees should no longer be allowed to meddle in the internal affairs of the residents of this city. The people of Washington have waited long enough to use their talents arid resources to grapple with the schools, the public service, and the life of the city. The next move is clearly up to the members of the District Committee. We in the UAW await that move. BOARD OF CHURCH AND SOCIETY OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1973. Hon. CHARLES C. DIGG5, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. DIGOs: I'm sending along to you a resolution entitled "Home Rule for the District of Columbia." Thia was passed by the Board of Christian Social Concerns (now the Board of Church and Society) on October 7, 1971, during their Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. We would like to request that this policy statement be included in the written record of hearings being conducted regarding home rule. As our statement reflects, our Board would favor action by the District Committee to provide D.C. citizens with their fundamental political rights and permit them to assume responsibilities governing themselves. We should greatly appreciate your honoring this request. Yours sincerely, J. ELLIOTT CORBETT, Director. (Enclosure.) HOME RULE FOR THE Dismicr OF COLUMBIA More than 800,000 citizens of the District of Columbia find themselves living in the only U.S. territory without self-government. Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam all elect their own officials. With the exception of Washing- ton, D.C., every capital city in the free world governs itself. More citizens live in the District of Columbia than live in any of the eleven smallest states of the Union. Yet, unlike these states, the District has no voting representation in the U.S. Congress. Although District citizens vote for President and their school board, the Presi- dent of the United States appoints their Mayor and City Council. All laws affect- ing the District must be passed by the Congress. Also, all taxes are levied by Con- gress. To sum up the situation, the District has "taxation without representa- tion," a situation which moved the early American colonists to revolution. PAGENO="0291" 287 The 19G8 General Conference of The United M~thodist Church declared "Churchmen should seek the removal of every racial barrier to the right to vote, which is a fundamental right within a democratic government." Since more than 70 per cent of the citizens of the District of Columbia are black, the latter statement is pragmatically pertinent to the whole Home Rule issue. District of Columbia residents, mostly black, are without voting rights necessary to govern themselves. In view of this continuing inequity in the treatment of District of Columbia residents, the Board of Christian Social Concerns calls upon the United States Congress to: provide District citizens with the right to democratically elect their own Mayor and City Council; give the District City Council broad legislative authority, including the* power to levy taxes; require an automatic annual Federal payment for the District; provide the District of Columbia with two voting U.S. Senators plus the number of voting U.S. Representatives it would be entitled to if it were a State; protect the interest of "the Federal City" by allowing either House of Congress to act within 20 days to veto any measure passed by the District of Columbia City Council; otherwise, Council action would become law. Resolution adopted by the Board of Christian Social Concerns of The United Methodist Church during the Board's annual meeting held in Washington, D.C., October 5-8, 1971. STATEMENT OF UNITED PRESBYTERIAN WASHINGTON OFFIcE, THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE U.S.A. To: Chairman and Members, Government Operations Subcommittee of the House District Committee. From: United Presbyterian Washington Office. Subject: I-Tome Rule Hearing. Date: April 12, 1973. The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. meeting at the 182nd General Assembly in Chicago, May 20-27, 1970 concurred in the following Overture: The 1970 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States answered the following overture regarding House Rule for the District of Co- lumbia from the Presbytery. of the Potomac in the affirmative: Whereas, for seventy years the citizens of the District of Columbia enjoyed local Home Rule and whereas this Home Rule was abolished by Congress after the Civil War: Whereas, the District of Columbia has recently acquired a City Council and whereas its members are not elected by the people of the District; Whereas, the District of Columbia remains unrepresented in the Congress of the United States at a time when the malaise of powerlessness is more traumati- cally felt in the District, leaving the citizens of the District virtually alone among the people of the United States who are denied any voice in choosing the members of the legislative bodies who rule over them; Be it resolved, the Potomac Presbytery record its affirmation of the principle of representation in Congress for the District of Columbia and that it be com- municated to the news media and the Congressional Committee dealing with the matter. Be it further resolved, that Potomac Presbytery overture the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States to urge the Congress of the United States to adopt and the States to ratify, an amendment to provide for full voting representation in Congress for the citizens of the District of Columbia. We reaffirm support of this overture. For generations the Presbyterian Church has supported the principles of rep- resentative government and the right of participatory democracy. The citizens of the District of Columbia are responsible people and democracy can work in Washington, D.C. The federal interest and the local interest are synonymous. It is iii the "federal interest" to provide for "consent of the governed" in the Capital City of the United States. We advocate this form of government throughout the world and PAGENO="0292" 288 it is essential that we practice it in this city. D.C. residents no more want to allow appointed officials to control their daily lives than do the citizens of any other city, town or county in this republic. We believe that D.C. home rule legislation must contain four basic elements: 1. Locally elected officials. 2. Full legislative authority over local affairs. 3. Budgetary authority, including the right to determine local priorities and to raise and allocate revenue. 4. An automatic system of financial assistance coming from the federal govern- ment to the District of Columbia government to compensate the District for its heavy concentration of non-taxable federal, foreign and private non-profit property. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views to your committee. WASHINGTON, D.C., April 10, 1973. GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRONE-CHAIRPERSON-Or however you like to be called: May I please have the opportunity to testify before your committee concerning home rule for the District? I speak for myself-but I know there are many like me who live in the District because we choose to . . . who are not organized (yet) . . . who are white who believe in the majority form of government, even though we are often in the minority. The report in the Washington Post on yesterday's hearings practically incites me to . . . to . . . well, not really riot-but I want to do what I can to offset the impression that all white people in the District believe that the majority of those living in Washington, D.C. are incapable of governing themselves. I am only a resident for four months. Having always participated in com- munity activities where I have lived, I find it exceedingly frustrating not to be able to exercise my rights as a citizen . . . to elect the people who govern the community in which I live. Of all the places where democracy should be exercised at its fullest, it is this nation's capitol. "Power to the People", that expression used by President Nixon in explaining his New Federalism concepts-should apply here most of all. To know that the results of deliberations and decisions concerning budgets for schools and city government could be negated by someone not responsible to or elected by District voters simply perpetuates lack of interest and participation. Let us have the right to vote. Give us the same opportunity the rest of our country's citizens have to run our own community. Very sincerely, SALLY 3'. ALEXANDER. TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY CITIzENs AGAINST SUBSTANDARD HOUSING, INC. May I first introduce myself. I am Dorothy W. Jackson (or Dottie to my friends). Founder and President of an organization entitled Citizens Against Substandard Housing, Inc. or C.A.S.H. for short. We are comprised of those persons who were fraudulently sold houses under F.H.A. Programs 235, 221 (d) (2) and 203(b). These Programs were designed for low to moderate income people in an effort to make "homeowners" out of people in this income range. However, we were sold houses that have many code violations. I have 66 code violations in my 221(d) (2) barn, as I call it. For those of you who might not know, the 235 program is a subsidized program, where the buyer pays a part of the note and the Government pays the other part-ratio based on purchaser's s~1orv. The other two programs are non-subsidized. Throuzh the efforts of CASH and others, a repair bill was initiated entitled FHA 518(h) program. However, it was only for the 235 houses. It has proved to be unsuitable as it is not even a good cosmetic repair bill. By that I mean instead of dnin~ a thorough repair, they patch and use inferior materials. In some cases they start work on a 235 house, leave it, and in most cases do not return to corn- PAGENO="0293" 289 plete the work, even with constant pressure from the homeowner. There is no legislation for repairs of the 221(d) (2) house or the 203(b) house. As you may know, the Housing Bill was killed in 1972 and with it went the morale of many low to moderate income people. The former Secretary of HUD, George Romney, bragged that this Administration had done more to house low to moderate income people than any other Administration-but he failed to state what type of housing. The majority of these people are women with 4 plus children and no maii as "head of household" with Government or private industry employment, who can pay their notes, feed and clothe their kids but no money to make electrical re- pairs, roofs, floors, etc. They thought they were bettering their conditions and at the same time paying for something they could eventually call their own. It should be taken into consideration that these people knew absolutely nothing about what to look for before going to settlement and thought that since they were purchasing under F.H.A. these houses were up to par. They did not under- stand that F.H.A. only approves mortgage loans and not the house. People were neither orientated or educated as to right procedures in selecting houses; F.H.A. Appraisers did not do their jobs thoroughly; and real estate brokers saw chances to get rid of bad housing and made speculators out of these people knowing full well they (the buyer) were not in a position to have their houses brought up to code regulations. The thing that provokes me is that this has happened in the Nation's Capital as well as every inner city in the Country. As the Nation's Capital we should be setting an example for the rest of the Nation-but we're not. I just completed a six-week seminar on Planning, Development, and Manage- ment under the direction of the Housing Specialist Institute (I was given a $900.00 scholarship) and even though many expertise in housing for low to moderate income housing gave lectures they could not give me any answers to our problems. They are interested in the "money angle" and that's it. As many beginning typists practice-Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country," I feel that the country should now come to the aid of ALL people. America is supposed to be the land of the free, the land of op- portunity, and the wealthiest country on the globe. The Preamble says of, by, and for the people (of course there was no member among the writers that were in the minority group). They say Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves-some- times I wonder, especially those of us in the District of Columbia. I attended a new communities meeting, given by Metropolitan Washington Planning and Housing Association where a gentleman made a remark, "The whites moved out of the inner city to allow the blacks to move in." Being the only black, native Washingtonian there, I answered him by explaining I was born in Georgetown. My grandfather who was a school teacher, a minister, and a barber was buying his home as many other blacks were doing. They condemned the Courts, and offered the buyers good sums for their houses so they would move. Now. when the planners and designers of today give a history of Georgetown, they paint a picture that only the elite lived in Georgetown and the blacks there were only in servitude. I further explained that when I was old enough to purchase a home of my own, the lady who lived diagonally across from me, who was a Jew and that after a time we were able to communicate, told me that the white woman who sold me my house had asked her "if she was moving." The Jewish lady asked her "why should she move when she and her family had lived there for over 35 years." The lady who formerly lived in my house told her "The Niggers are Coming." The Jewish lady told her "as long as the "Niggers" didn't bother her she wouldn't bother them." Communities have been changing with the economy. First they are white, then black or minority group, back to white. ThIs is a regular ritual. Now back to the subject at hand. Why are the Administrations and Congress afraid to allow the District of Columbia to govern herself? Why do they feel we do not want to elect through vote those who run our city? Why do we have to look elsewhere for some one to run our School Board? Why do we have to depend on the President of the United States to select our Mayor (Commissioner), our Recorder of Deeds, and other pertinent officers? Is it because they feel we are not intelligent enough ot think for ourselves? People like Senator Edward Brooke, Delegate Walter Fauntroy, and even Mayor! PAGENO="0294" 290 Commissioner Walter Washington and his wife are products of the D.C. schools-yet they made it. It is true that many D.C. high school graduates go to colleges and universities in other locales but so do members of other locales come to D.C. to go to schooL This is done for various reasons-i.e., a life away from home, meeting new frends, and a variance in curricula. Last year people from Chicago, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and D.C. had a press conference on housing. Afterwards, members of CASH passed out circulars asking people to write their Congressmen pushing for legislation for the low to moderate income houses and I met a gentleman who was a lobbyist for President Nixon. He explained to me that we could not impress Congressmen to do any- thing for people of the District as the people of the District could not give them a vote. The only thing to do was to get people like Reverend Jessie Jackson to Intercede for us hi the States. Now I say-this is true. Take Civil Service for instance. Each State has a quota wherein that per- centage of people can work here in the Federal Government. The only way many from the District were able to get in was to say that their parents or grand- parents were from the States with vacancies in their quota and the Congressman felt this would be another vote for him. Look at the Board of Education-they are searching all over the country for a Superintendent to run D.C. Schools. Why? I am saying this to prove that we are not allowed under any stretch of the Imagination to dictate our desires and/or hopes on any level. We have no repre- sentation to direct us or help solve our problems and yet-we pay taxes. We pay taxes for the "privilege of"-what is our privilege? In view of the foregoing reasons and many more which time will not allow to go into. Cash and I wholeheartedly add our vote home rule or Statehood for the District of Columbia-immediately. STATEMENT OF MRS. EDWARD B. Mounis When I came to Washington in 1936, I might have agreed that the city should have its own elected government. However, as I became interested in civic matters and came to realize how much more influence we here bad on our gov- ernment through public hearings, etc., than residents of other cties had on their elected officials, I decided strongly against any local government elected by popular vote. Our three-member Board of Commissioners was approachable and cooperative. We did not have the scandals so prevalent in other cities where I had lived and about which I had read. No one in the government had to go out and solicit votes or make promises to all and sundry so that he could be reelected. His time could be devoted to the business at hand, running the city insofar as authority per- mitted. The Congress could have given the Board jurisdiction over such minor matters as who could play in the Police Band and where kites could beflown, had it so chosen. Members of the Board listened at Public hearings to individuals as well as to representatives of organizations, and their decisions reflected the views of those who spoke. I was proud to have a part in such a democratic procedure, far dif- ferent from any previous experience under elected city governments. Then President Kennedy installed in the White House a "special assistant on District of Columbia affairs," a resident of Maryland, and thereafter it was oh- vious that the Commissioners were being dictated to from above and that public hearings were more window dressing than sources of influence. President John- son continued this position and we as citizens were the losers. Later. President Johnson promoted and achieved a change in the form of government for the District of Columbia and costs resulting from expanded ciuarters, swank office decor, increasing numbers of employees, etc., skyrocketed. Real estate taxes jumped as much as 200 percent within a few years in some instances, and sales taxes climbed; the Federal payment was greatly increased, also-while the population showed no corresponding increase. "Home rule" was never a racial issue, to my mind. I remember a meeting in in the early 1940's in Southeast.Washington, before the city had a sizeable Negro population and there was any thought of race, when one man pleaded strongly for sunnort for an elected city government. Sentiment was so opposed that, out of sympathy, I voted with him-with just the two of us taking the affirmative. PAGENO="0295" 291 At another meeting, in the 1950's, a different organization had speakers pro and con on the issue and though the supporting speaker was a good friend of some of us, the vote was unanimously against him. When we moved to North- west Washington, the citizens' association with which I affiliated also voted overwhelmingly against any election of local officials. This city simply does not have a stable, responsible population. Those who have lived here and worked for so many years to make this a better city would be outvoted by renters and transients. Many responsible property owners retain voting rights in their home States. Home-rule bills have in recent years prohibited their voting here for local offi- cials. When in the past some bills did permit such a local vote, it was obvious that many of those voting elsewhere would not participate in any election here for fear of jeopardizing their State votes. Then, this city is unique in having five large universities within its bound- aries, drawing students from all parts of the country. Court have reduced resi- dence requirements until students, here only during the school year, could vote. Semesters now begin earlier so as to end by Christmas, so a 30-day residence requirement could easily be met before a November election. We all know of the takeover of the Berkeley government by radicals, and now Madison, Wisconsin, has a young student mayor. While students could probably not take over an election in a large city, their vote could certainly be a deciding factor and they would participate in campaigns to influence others. The District of Columbia cannot be permitted to come under the thumb of those who have no knowledge of or interest in its history and couldn't care less about its citizens, its Federal affiliations, etc. Student disregard of the rights of neighbors when they rent houses in residential neighborhoods and create confusion with noise and illegal parking and permit yards to become unsightly and insanitary shows this. We know what has happened in the case of our elected Board of Education. Our schools have deteriorated until the city may never again have a responsible program of education. Many children are showing complete disregard for au- thority, contempt for education (just talk to some of the teachers!) and they are supposedly our future voters. Without proper education they are ripe for radical influences. Many are actu- ally illiterate and the Board of Education seems unable to improve conditions. Obviously, many parents have no interest in their children's education, so they aren't to be recommended as voters, either, in this capital city of a great nation. Candidates for office would be spending much time courting votes and curry- ing favor in advance of elections. Incumbents would not be giving full time to fair and efficient performance of their duties as they sought reelection, and employees everywhere would be distracted from work at hand. With this we have not thus far had to contend. I am therefore adamantly against so-called "home rule" in any form that has been proposed. I believe that a return to the three-member Board of Commis- sioners would be in the best interests of the city, and that this should be con- sidered seriously by the Congress, which could delegate to that Board some of the nit-picking type of legislation on which it deplores wasting time. The three-member Board, with each member having certain departments under his jurisdiction, resulted in much closer supervision and deeper knowledge of performance efficiency. We had a qualified engineer from the 15.5. Army Corps of Engineers as one member of that Board, and we need more men of that caliber. The other members were always successful business or professional men who accepted the positions more from a sense of civic duty than a desire for power. They would not have souaht public election. What we now have is a burgeoning mess where, to quote some employees, people roam the halls because they don't know what they are supposed to do, and if they knew, they wouldn't want to do anything, anyway. Nobody bothers to fill the vacant position of Deputy Commissioner although orginally the man in this position was the workhorse of the administrative machinery. Meanwhile, our taxes go up, and up, and UP! Under "home rule," without braking from the Congress, there would be no limit. No one who wants a locally elected government is required to live inside District of Columbia boundaries. PAGENO="0296" 292 SPATE~InNP OF CHARLES M. SEIGEL, NINTH-GRADE STUDENT Mr. Chairman, Congressmen, ladies, and gentlemen, my name is Charles M. Seigel. I am a ninth grade'student at the Georgetown Day School, in the District of Columbia, and a resident of the District. Mr. Chairman, this statement is not to tell you that I am for Home Rule. I think you already know that. It is to tell you how I think Home Rule can work, and how it should work. I attended one of your hearings, so I will try to answer some of the questions raised there, too. First, I believe in an elected Mayor and City Council for the District. The City Council could be represented by two members from each "ward" and three elected "at-large", including the Chairman. I believe that the Chairman should. be elected by the City, not the City Council members. An interesting idea which I have heard about is the so-called "Minority Representation", on the City Council. It seems to me that if a city does not want members of party X, Y, or Z, it should not be "shoved down their throats". Besides, there is a ward or two in the District which would probably elect a. member of a minority party anyway. I am, of course, speaking of the 3d ward.. The Federal Government should pay a fixed tax to the District government as. "rent" for the property it holds on the District. This should be a fixed amount,. payable every year. which should in some way reflect the property value. For jurisdictional purposes, the City Police should be the police force for- the government buildings, embassys, etc., e.g. The Capitol, Department of State, et. al., w-ith a special detachment assigned to each bldg. or group of buildings.. The government should pay for this service, also. The Judges of the District Court System should be appointed by the Mayor, with confirmation by the City Council, for a life term. I truly believe that only the Mayor, or another elected official from the District, should have the right to appoint the local judges. The President should not be burdened with, or have the responsibility for, picking the judges for the City. Does he have the right in other local areas? Another idea is that the judges be elected by the voters of the city. I can not see, here or anywhere, the purpose of directly electing judges, except for the purpose of peddling influence by contributions to a campaign, etc. Can any- one imagine what would happen if the Supreme Court w-ere elected? Think of that in perspective of a local election. Probably the most important question, though, is that of the financing of the City Government I personally do heieve that the District, with a guaranteed Federal Payment, can support itself. There are the usual proposals, such as an income tax, a sales tax, etc. Also, if needed, the city could get tremendous revenue from such things as a city-wide lottery. One thing I would seriously consider is a "commuter tax," for people w-ho live in the suburbs and work in the District. Those people use our roads, our facilities, our services, yet pay nothing for it. For the city to survive, it should have a commuter tax. This same type of arrangement is in effect in the New- York City metropolitan area, where there are more than 3 state jurisdictions, but a slightly different situation. The Cleveland, Ohio, area also has a situation like this, in which the citizens of the whole area pay their income tax in the place where they work, not w-here they live. This proposal should also be considered. In the Senate-passed, bill from the last Congress, there was a clause that pro- vided for a veto power by either House of Congress of City Council measures within 30 days. Personally, I find this idea unsatisfactory. However, if this clause is the price of Home Rule for the District, I would gladly accept it. Another subject which I would like .to discuss for a moment is voting repre- sentation in Congress. I consider this very crucial. The people of the District are just as much citizens of the United States as anyone else. They have been denied their rights for tor long. I consider voting representation in both Houses of Congress very important. Mr. Chairman, I believe that any person who can look at this situation fairly and without any prejudices can see the plight of the citizens of the District. PAGENO="0297" 293 Many people have said that the people who move to the District and complain about the situation can move back to where they came from if they want to. This does not seem to be very realistic. Any American citizen has the right to certain freedoms no matter where he lives. Some people say that this city is The Federal City and is owned by everyone, no matter where they live. I think that they should pay taxe to the District, just like anyone else who lives in the city, since it is "their city" also! Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to give you my views on the important subject of Home Rule for the District of Columbia. I greatly appreciate this honor. Thank you again. STATEMENT OF GREENE CHANDLER FURMAN To: The Honorable Chairman, and members of the District of Columbia Com- mittee- of the Ninety-Third Congress of the House of Representatives of the United States of America. ~Subject: While not opposed to such home rule, temporary grants the executive and Congress of the United States may wish to grant. citizens of the United States and residents in the District of Columbia, we do oppose certain proposed provisions which are palpably in violation of the Constitution of the United States, particularly parts of article I and article IV thereof. That said Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the dona- tion from the State of Maryland is for a specific and limited constitutional purpose and when no longer needed in whole or in part by the National Government for the purposes outlined in the Constitution, the area not needed reverts to the control and full ownership of the State of Maryland which has always had the naked title to said area if the Government of the United States no longer has need of said land for the purposes set forth in said Constitution. As the rules seem to require anyone writing to speak or testify before any Committee to file a written statement with the Committee giving the subject matter, what interests he represents, and what he intends to say, I state: My name is Greene Chandler Furman. I am a citizen of the United States and the State of Maryland, and live at 5108 Fairglen Lane, Chevy Chase, Mont- gomery County, Maryland 20015. My situation is not the usual one of a witness. I represent no one except myself-in other words, I am "Sui Juris" of my own making or creation. Like St. Paul or Popeye, "I am (or y'am) what I am (or y'am) ". I am opposed to the form of Home Rule for the District proposals which are being agitated. I sincerely believe that some of these proposals, such as making a State out of the rump of the District of Columbia, are basically unconstitutional. The proposals basically change the purposes for which the District was created-so much so that, if enacted, they might constitute .a breach of faith on the part of the United States Government. There are so many problems involved in the plea for Home Rule for the District that to properly write up all that is involved would require volumes of encyclopedic contents. The naked title to the present District of Columbia is in the State of Maryland Article IV Sec. 3. Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the House District Committee, I have decided to begin the presentation of this opposition to the movement for complete Home Rule for the District of Columbia by a Syllabus of this paper. My reasons for this are those of necessity. This will be of a lengthy nature and by presenting a succinct syllabus of the whole paper, it will enable any member of the Committee to interrupt, propounding a question suggested by the syllabus upon which he desires an opinion, or clarification which the speaker will endeavor to answer to the best of his ability-and, let us hope, satisfactorily. SYLLABUS I. History of the District of Columbia. II. Personal experiences and qualifications of the writer of this paper; his education, degrees, Bar admissions and experiences before those Bars. Admitted PAGENO="0298" 294 to practice in the States of Louisiana and Texas, Guam, District of Columbia,. Supreme Court of the United States before which he has argued two cases: Elder et aL v. Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture, a Veterans Preference case 341 U.S. 277-289 (184 Fed 2d 219) and Ex rel Eaton v. Price, Chief of Police of Dayton, Ohio, an Illegal Search and Arrest case on a writ of Habeas Corpus 360 U.S. 246; Experience on Guam, MI. as condemnation attorney for the Naval Government, which included extensive experience before Naval, Marine and Army Courts and Boards (1947-1951). III. The Constitutional questions raised showing the impossibility of making a full-fledged state out of the "Rump of the District of Columbia". IV. The military importance in the modern world of the District of Columbia which is a hive of Government enterprise. Cannon shot between circles in the D.C. no longer limits enemy action against the District of Columbia. The changes which must be faced because of planes, missiles, the atom bomb-not to mention the far more powerful hydrogen nuclear bomb. The greater effective- ness of nuclear missile-carrying submarines' use of gases, smoke, and so on. ~T Conclusion. [Balance of statement in official files of committee.] PAGENO="0299" I INDEX Page Board of Education - 12, 79, 118 Budget 82, 232, 265 Charter Commission 6, 23, 25, 51, 176, 228 City Council: Number 2, 26, 66, 133 Powers 6, 11, 99, 132, 192, 211, 210, 264 Congressional veto 51 99, 116, 133 Congressional representation 41, i'd. 243 Constitutional question 34, 94, 230, 235, 244 Elections: At large 2, 265 Elected versus appointed 52, 56, 59, 91, 113, 169, 175, 230, 240, 241 Election year 3, 135, 152 Minority party protection 210, 213, 215, 238, 251, 265 Partisan versus non-partisan 66, 151, 169, 265 Term 66, 133 Wards 66, 152 Federal interest: Defining 33, 52, 55, 77, 128, 171, 211, 235, 259 Federal enclave 34, 225 Police 35, 277 Prosecutor 152 Federal payment 31, 52, 60, 78, 128, 193, 211, 229, 2-10 Hatch Act 32, 67, 123, 132, 136, 166, 171 Independent Agencies 171 Initiative, referendum and recall 15 Judicial Nomination Commission 17, 211 Metropolitan government 220, 253 National Capital Housing Agency Authority 53 National Capital Planning Commission 53, 103 Neighborhood councils 51, 54, 58. 59, 218 Nelsen Commission 7, 49, 85, 91, 93, 97, 124, 163, 196, 237, 246, 266 Nelson Commissision recommendations: Board of Education 88 Borrowing 108 Federal payment 88, 100, 101, 116, 117, 145, 163, 170, 176, 178, 193, 256 Legislative action 9, 100 National Capital Housing authority 30, 103, 163 National Capital Planning Commission 30, 103, 104, 147, 163 Personnel system 134 Reprograming authority 88 Redevelopment Land Agency 30, 103, 147, 163 Retirement funds 179, 194 Nixon, President Richard M., support for home rule 260 Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corp 152, 183 Public support for home rule 89, 187, 229, 236 Redevelopment Land Agency 53 Retrocession 160, 223, 225, 273 Service areas 153 State functions of District 14, 116, 142 Statehood 20, 35, 50, 81, 249 Superior Court 52, 134, 169, 211 Taxes 170, 175, 223, 263, 268 Water and sewer authority 253 Zoning 226 (295) 0 A PAGENO="0300"