DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARTER ACT

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1962

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 6226, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Alan Bible (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Bible and Miller.

Also present: Chester Smith, staff director; Richard Judd, assistant chief clerk; Fred McIntyre, counsel; and Pat Ferris, assistant counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order.

This is the continued hearing on S. 287 and S. 2342, to provide home rule for the District of Columbia. Our first witness this morning is Mr. George C. Pendleton, chairman of the board of directors, Washington Home Rule Committee.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE C. PENDLETON, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WASHINGTON HOME RULE COMMITTEE

Mr. PENDLETON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

My name is George C. Pendleton. I am a lawyer practicing in the District of Columbia, and I appear as chairman of the board of directors of the Washington Home Rule Committee to testify in support of the pending bills, S. 287 and S. 2342 which would restore local suffrage and self-government to the people of the District of Columbia.

The purpose of the Washington Home Rule Committee is to work in behalf of all the District citizens to regain their democratic rights. of suffrage and self-rule, and we welcome this opportunity to lend our support to passage of home rule legislation. Our organization endorses both of these bills because both contain provisions for a locally elected legislative body, which we believe to be the heart of home rule.

The members of this Senate committee have given so generously of their time and sympathetic consideration to home rule legislation proposed in the past that any lengthy discussion of basic principles and provisions would be superfluous. We sincerely thank you for your past efforts, and hope they will continue until our common goal is achieved.

These measures both are sound legislation incorporating provisions presented in predecessor bills considered by this committee in the

85th and 86th Congresses. The essential structure of these bills resulted from long, hard study by the staffs of the District government and Federal Government agencies, and advice from independent consultants as well as study and drafting by this congressional committee and its staff. No one bill is ever perfect or completely acceptable to everyone, but these bills offer a modern, workable charter for self-government in the District of Columbia.

We do not desire to consume the time of this committee by restatement of the many merits of home rule which can be found in the records of previous Congresses. However, it is worthy of note that, in spite of the progress of democratic government in other parts of this great Nation, the District of Columbia is in its 89th year of colonial government. Hawaii and Alaska have been granted statehood, and quite recently the Federal Government expanded the degree of selfgovernment permitted to the people of Okinawa. We certainly do not begrudge this generous treatment of a former enemy territory. However, it accentuates the plight of the District.

Congresswoman Green has ironically suggested that the District. of Columbia be governed by the United Nations. We believe that, even though nearly 90 years have passed since the District lost the right of self-rule, the majority of Congress will overcome the reluctant minority which fears democracy and blocks home rule.

It seems that some opposition to home rule legislation springs from the misconception that home rule would completely sever the District of Columbia from Federal control. Of course, this is constitutionally impossible. Congress must retain the ultimate legislative power over the District. The constitutional right of the Federal Congress to legislate for the District of Columbia is particularly recognized in both of the pending bills; S. 287, section 324 (a) and (d); S. 2342, section 342 (a) and (f).

These bills might well be described as reorganization measures whereby Congress exercises its constitutional power to delegate the initiative for local legislation to the people governed.

The home rule committee thinks that giving the responsibility for government to the local residents is in the best interests of the Nation at large as well as the District itself.

This city is the Capital of the Nation, and its showcase. We believe that all the American people want it to be a model of democratic efficiency as well as beautiful.

This city has problems similar to but in many respects greater than those of other urban areas. These problems can best be solved by the initiative of local citizens, those closest to and most affected by the problems.

With the greatest respect to our national legislature, obviously it is not a city council. The citizen voters of our 50 States send their representatives here to Washington to guide and direct the national and international destiny of the United States, not to legislate upon such purely local matters as licensing of practical nurses or forging a local corporation law. In point of fact, this entirely local but important law required more than 30 years to be enacted.

With great regret we recognize that a substantial amount of opposition to home rule stems from racial prejudice. This unfortunate fact

must be discussed even though home rule is not a civil rights measure as such.

The discrimination imposed by our present form of government is complete. All District citizens, regardless of race, color, or creed, are deprived of rights of self-government. We submit that no valid objective arguments against home rule can be founded on considerations of the race or color of our citizens.

Turning to the particular provisions of the two bills before the committee, we repeat our endorsement of both. We find very few places in which one has an advantage over the other. In fact, a very large number of the provisions are identical.

Regarding the composition and compensation of the local Council, we find desirable features in both measures. S. 287 provides for a membership of nine whereas S. 2342 specifies only seven. We believe the larger number is more practicable for a body which must legislate in this rather unique situation. On the other hand, we endorse the higher pay scale in S. 2342. The more adequate the salary scale the better the chance of securing superior candidates.

We join with the two political parties in supporting provisions for partisan elections. Party politics stimulate interest in and responsibility for the functioning of local government. Also, we endorse the idea of party primaries since such should eliminate the necessity of runoff elections. Thus, in S. 2342 we endorse particularly sections 809 and 810.

Regarding the referendum and recall provisions, we note that section 805 (a) of S. 2342 is limited to the office of mayor. We favor the wider provisions contained in the same section of S. 287. However, in the context of this small geographical area, and assuming biennial elections of the Council, this restriction is not of a major importance.

Section 741 of S. 2342 represents a constructive approach to the constantly aggravating problem of determining the Federal payment of the District of Columbia. We wholeheartedly endorse this attempt to settle the recurring problem by the application of a formula.

Determination of the District of Columbia budget is unduly complex. Four separate congressional committees act independently, and frequently conflict in their judgments. Too often the result has been that the District of Columbia's needs go unmet because of simple disagreements between men of good will. The suggested formula has real merit. It is predicated upon significant indexes, including real property and personal property tax, incorporated business tax, and water and sewer service.

We respectfully suggest that, in addition to the indexes now contained in the formula, thought should be given to some manner of measuring the extraordinary costs which the functioning of the Federal Government causes. The formula through its real and personal property measurements treats the Federal Government as a large but usual taxpayer. However, we know that the Federal Government often makes extraordinary demands upon our police and fire departments for ceremonial occasions. If possible, these costs should be measured and repaid.

The Home Rule Committee urges that this committee speedily report one of the bills to the Senate, and calls upon the Congress to

82628-62- -9

enact a home rule law returning self-government to the people of the District.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Pendleton. That is a fine statement.

Our next witness is Mr. Carl L. Shipley, chairman of the Republican State Committee in and for the District of Columbia.

STATEMENT OF CARL L. SHIPLEY, CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. SHIPLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to

appear.

All of us here in the District like to acknowledge once again the great service you perform for the Nation as chairman of the Senate District Committee. We know it is sometimes difficult for a Western Senator to have such a difficult assignment as this, and we are very appreciative of all of you, and particularly you with the leadership you have given in getting this important problem of getting some type of self-government once again before the Congress by holding these hearings.

I do have a brief statement I would like to make.

The Republican and Democratic platforms call for self-government for the District of Columbia. The Bible bill, S. 2342, referred to as President Kennedy's home rule measure, is a step in that direction. Although you are also considering the Morse bill, S. 287, I shall limit my remarks to the Bible bill since it is the administration proposal.

The Kennedy home rule bill has several features that deserve careful study by this committee. Section 810 (c) makes the Hatch Act inapplicable to local elections, and would deprive the nearly 26,000 city employees and approximately 200,000 Federal employees residing here of protection against being compelled to work, contribute, and vote as directed by their superiors in the Government.

The Hatch Act, section 9 (a), provides

no officer or employee in the executive branch of the Federal Government shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns.

Without Hatch Act protection, a political party in power could convert the Nation's Capital into a vast Tammany Hall. Without changing the Hatch Act, all District and Federal employees are given the statutory right "to vote as they may choose and to express their opinions on all political subjects and candidates" free from interference from other Federal or city employees. This protection must not be removed.

The administration bill, S. 2342, provides for a seven-man city council, each member nominated from a ward, but elected at large. Since 1871, when Washington City, Washington County, and Georgetown were all abolished and amalgamated into the District of Columbia, our local government has had State and county as well as municipal functions. This fact is reported in detail in the 1962 D.C. Commissioners' report to Congress.

The District has a greater population than 11 States-Hawaii, Alaska, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, Delaware, Nevada, and Vermont. These States have

two-house legislatures with far greater elected memberships than seven. Further, these legislators are elected from districts or wards. so all racial, religious, economic, and geographic interests can have a voice in the lawmaking process.

A seven-man city council elected at large favors the rich and powerful as well as the dominant political and other interests. In the District, where Democrats outregister Republicans at present 3 to 2, where only 11 of the present 68 precincts have Republican majorities, where the voting population age 21 or over, and the 17-to-21-age group which will register in 1964 are predominantly white as against nonwhite, and predominantly Protestant as against Catholic or Jewish, the administration proposal of an at-large election is loaded in favor of the white Protestant population in a multiracial, multireligious urban area. True democracy requires a larger group than seven, perhaps 34 as provided in the GOP House bill, H.R. 7198. And certainly the members should be nominated and elected in wards or districts so all may have an equal chance to participate in legislative activities.

The District should have a Governor, not a mayor, to put us on a par with the 50 other States, one-fifth of which have less population. How can we ever expect national representation as proposed by Senator Bush in Senate Joint Resolution 85 if we are downgraded to the status of a mere municipality? How can we compete in the metropolitan area with Virginia and Maryland on transportation, river pollution, et cetera, if we send a mayor to deal with Governors.

The $9,000 councilman salary and vague expense provisions, without any corresponding obligation or limitation on conflicting employment will encourage candidates attracted by easy money rather than the opportunity for public service.

The District is carved out of Maryland. That State's constitution prohibits ministers of the gospel from holding electoral office. There is an historical reason for this. Can you conceive of a legislative assembly composed of priests, rabbis, and ministers of various Protestant sects? Some religious faiths prohibit their spiritual leaders from holding any elective office, because of an obvious conflict of conscience and duty. Others do not. A religious leader is in a peculiarly sensitive position with his congregation. Would it not be more in the national interest to follow the historical precedent of Maryland and bar all rather than risk a divided community by favoring some? A half-century of failure of elected mayor-type governments in the District from 1820 to 1871 suggests that careful consideration should be given to an appointed Governor so he will be of the same political party as the President. This is the lesson of District history. The administration bill can be improved in other areas. Elections should be mandatorily partisan, not optionally so as provided in section 810(a). Voters should be age 21, and be resident for 1 year rather than 18 and 6 months as provided in section 806. The borrowing provisions of section 602 and the following are too vague and broad. This led to bankruptcy on several previous occasions. History cautions against such borrowing.

The administration bill would give the seven-man council power to appoint municipal judges, and run that court as well as the juvenile court. This seems very unwise. Politics should not be intruded into these important courts.