However, I certainly welcome most warmly the President's proposals, and recognize that they may have more political viability. That respect is important. Also, the President's proposals involve an element of citizen participation in the putting together of the charter, and that part appeals to me. As for the Federal payment, I favor the 30-or as Mr. Hechinger suggested, probably five, which I think would be more equitable-percent fixed payment. I believe the Federal interest can be adequately protected by veto power resting in the Congress. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, thank you very much for preparing statements. Mr. HECHINGER. Senator, may I say one more word? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. HECHINGER. What I am a little concerned about is the fact that the participation by citizen election, model cities, and school boards, which has indicated a low participation in the beginning, makes me think that to go directly to the Mayor-Council form and allow that body to be the Commission which will present the charter changes, such as you have mentioned, for referendum would be a meaningful thing. In other words, what I don't want to do is dilute the participation in a meaningful progress toward a self-governing body which, as you pointed out in your opening statement, would be a 2-year delay, and the frustration that would result from further debate with the Congress on the matter. So, I strongly feel that the body that should operate as the charter commission should be the Mayor and the Council, as elected, and then go for a referendum. I just wanted to point out from that experience with our own city that we can't keep having just pieces and pieces and pieces and never come to the crux of the matter. We have got to act, and that is why there is a division between the idea of the commission and moving directly toward the Mayor and Council. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. HECHINGER. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. To continue the bipartisan nature, we will have Mr. Terris and Mr. Berliner both come forward. Mr. Berliner, we will incorporate your statement and let you proceed now, if you wish. STATEMENTS OF HENRY A. BERLINER, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, AND BRUCE TERRIS, CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE Mr. BERLINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to say it is a pleasure to be invited to appear here before your committee, and also a pleasure to sit beside Mr. Terris, the local leader of the Democratic Party. As Mr. Hahn and other witnesses have pointed out here this morning, the fact that the President's commission has bipartisan support, and the fact that the principle of home rule and congressional voting representation has been endorsed by both parties, both locally and nationally, is a factor that I think this committee should take into consideration. The Republican Party does endorse the President's proposal for congressional voting representation and for a charter commission. I will be glad to respond to any questions. (The prepared statement follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF HENRY A. BERLINER, JR., GENERAL COUNCIL, The District of Columbia Republican Committee strongly endorses President Nixon's plan to provide meaningful national and local representation for the citizens of the Nation's Capital. Congressional representation and the principle of home rule have consistently received Republican support in citywide referendums, party statements, and in local and national Republican party platforms. Voting representation in the Congress is long overdue for the District. The complexity of urban problems requires a full time advocate in the Congress with the ability to exercise judgment and political power on behalf of our residents. Although a non-voting delegate is an interim measure, we will work for the speedy enactment of a constitutional amendment to provide full voting Congressional representation. The Charter Commission for the drafting of home rule legislation is also a sensible first step. It will provide a voice for the various interested elements of our Federal City to collaborate on a model form for our future government. More important, it represents a solid commitment by the Nixon Administration to the enactment of home rule legislation once it is drafted. It was during the last Republican Administration, under Dwight Eisenhower, that statehood for Hawaii and Alaska was achieved. The Republican Party can now take similar pride that the citizens of the District of Columbia are moving toward meaningful participation in the political process under President Richard Nixon. The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel that a majority of the Commission should be elected? Mr. BERLINER. You raise an interesting point, and I think that- Mr. BERLINER. I understand that. I think that on the question of appropriations, you often find the Congress saying, "Well, we don't have that substantial an interest in the District of Columbia. We are only going to give you 15 or 20 or 25 percent," but when it comes to the Commission that is going to write the charter for the District of Columbia, suddenly the congressional interest jumps up substantially to greater than half of the Commission. So, I would say that if the Congress feels that its interest in the District of Columbia is in the nature of 50 percent, and that it should be represented to that extent on the Commission, then their financial support should be on that same order. If the Congress feels that their financial interest is only 25 or 30 percent, then perhaps that should reflect their representation on the Commission. The CHAIRMAN. The District of Columbia, although constitutionally subject to the Congress, is not the private preserve of the Congress. This is the national capital of the whole United States. Mr. BERLINER. There are some Congressmen who perhaps would like to make it their private preserve, but fortunately that is not the view of this committee. I would say, Senator, that I think the majority of the Commission ought to be elected. I don't think it is necessary that it all be elected. There is a certain momentum to these bills and these kinds of legislation which has to be built up in a fairly intelligent and measured manner if it is to succeed in the ultimate test before the Congress. The CHAIRMAN. How do you feel about the fixed payment formula versus the authorization? Mr. BERLINER. We could try to work for the best of both worlds. There is some support for the principle that a percentage of whatever taxes are raised by the District of Columbia itself will be matched by the Congress in some fixed ratio. The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of a fixed formula, basically. For example, you take the amount of taxes raised on real estate and other property, and then you calculate a percentage of that property which is exempted as part of the Federal preserve, and you give the fixed percentage applied to the actual collections of the D.C. Govern ment. Mr. BERLINER. What I was going to say was that I think a base authorization of a fixed dollar amount which the District could count on every year, supplemented by any additional matching funds on some kind of a fixed payment ratio. On the basis of the additional funds raised by the District of Columbia residents. The CHAIRMAN. Which are you in favor of? Mr. BERLINER. If we have to choose, I think the fixed payment would be our choice. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Terris. Mr. TERRIS. Let me start off by saying we support the charter commission. The charter commission route was in the Democratic national platform. It was not in the Republican platform. There was a very weak and ambiguous statement about the District of Columbia in the Republican platform. I don't think the idea becomes a bad one merely because it has been adopted by a Republican President. On the other hand, we are extremely worried about the proposal. I think we are for it only on the basis of three conditions. First of all, we are for it if the President is willing to give his full commitment to it. In our view, President Nixon can give home rule to the District of Columbia, and only he can do it. There is a solid Democratic majority in the District. There is not at Republican majority in the Congress for self-government. We could sit here and talk about improvement in the charter proposal. I would be in favor of electing all 15 members. I think the critical thing is if the President is willing to fully back the proposal which he puts to Congress. In my view, if he gets selfgovernment, he deserves the credit. If he does not, and if we do not get self-government within the next 2 years, it seems to me he deserves the blame. We, in the District of Columbia Democratic Party, intend to put the responsibility over and over on his shoulders. It is his responsibility, because the critical votes are in the Republican Party on Capitol Hill. We would like to keep the responsibility there by having him put his proposal, which is not perfect, but it seems to me a decent one, and put the responsibility on his shoulders. Second, we think the charter commission is useful only if it is going to explore new ideas. I do not think the City Council form of government, as we see it across the country, is adequate. We can see the inadequacies in other cities and this city. I do not think the city government of this city has performed adequately in the last year and a half. I don't think that method is adequate. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think any city government in the Nation has performed adequtely in the last year and a half? Mr. TERRIS. I think the Mayor-City Council form is an inadequate one. We need more decentralization in our cities. I think the charter form is a way to explore that, in a rational way, before it is forced out in the streets. Third, the possibility that the charter commission is going to be used for delay. It seems to us critical that the election for the charter commission occur this fall. If it doesn't, the President should appoint his own commission. He could have appointed that, and used contingency funds to pay for a staff for it. Because we are fearful of delay, we hope this committee will report an updated version of the 1965 bill. (The prepared statement follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE J. TERRIS, CHAIRMAN DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE I wish to begin by commending this Committee for holding hearings on selfgovernment for the District of Columbia. It is extremely unfortunate, however, that the hearing which this Committee conducts today needs to take place at all. We are here to consider whether the Capital city of the leading Nation in the free world should be given selfgovernment. While Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and every other part of American territory governs itself, we are denied this right. Hundreds of thousands of American lives and billions of dollars of American resources have been expended all over the world during the last 50 years in the cause of freedom. Yet, Congress has repeatedly refused to give freedom to this city. It is time, long past time, that the District cease to be ruled as a colony and that its citizens be given the right of every man, to participate in governing themselves. In order to achieve self-government in the shortest possible time the District of Columbia Democratic Party supports both the Administration bill and an up-dated version of the bill passed by the Senate in 1965. While we prefer a charter commission in order to obtain the most modern, progressive kind of government for the District of Columbia, we are extremely afraid that this route will be used for purposes of delay. We therefore hope that this Committee will report and the Senate will pass an up-dated version of the 1965 home rule bill. Last summer the District delegation to the Democratic National Convention proposed a charter commission to develop the best possible kind of self-government for the District and this was adopted in the Democratic platform. We are just as committed to this program today. However, this support is based on the following three conditions: 1. The Administration must be completely committed to self-government. We are convinced that the Administration can obtain self-government for the District of Columbia if it really desires to do so. For the Administration can obtain the support of the Republican leadership of the House District Committee and other Republicans, who together with the solid majority of Democrats committed to self-government, can enact a bill. 2. The charter commission offers nothing if it merely considers the home rule bills which have been considered in Congress before. Instead, it is valuable as a method for listening to the views of the community and developing a new kind of city government which can be a model for the whole country. The commission should carefully study decentralization and neighborhood control of various government services and propose a system of government which maintains central ization where needed and allows neighborhood control where possible. In this way, the commission can write a charter which avoids many of the mistakes and problems so apparent in our other major cities. 3. The charter commission cannot be used for purposes of delay. The elected members of the charter commission must be chosen this fall and the commission should be required by statute to file its report within 6 months. In this way, a bill can be sent to the Congress in 1970 and, if fully supported by the Administration, passed in this Congress. If Congress puts off adoption of the commission until 1970, the Preident should be prepared to appoint the commisssion this fall. Meanwhile, we urge the Senate District Committee to report and the Senate to pass an up-dated version of the bill it passed in 1965. This bill should be ready if the charter commission is used for delay. Our most important goal is home rule. We believe that a charter commission can potentially formulate a better bill but an up-dated Senate bill is far, far preferable to delaying further the right of all citizens of the District to self-government. This up-dated bill, however, should not be the bill which has been introduced. As I understand it, this bill was introduced only for purposes of discussion. Numerous changes must be made if it is to serve this city in 1969. I would like to give just a couple of examples: Instead of creating 14 new wards, City Council elections should be based on the 8 wards created for the school board. Overlapping wards with varying boundaries can only cause confusion and limit citizen participation. It is also a serious mistake to have non-partisan elections. The non-partisan notion comes from a belief that politics are dirty and corrupt. In fact, partisan politics, if free and open to all, has served this country well in providing for real citizen participation in the government. If partisan elections are proper for Congressmen, why not for a Mayor and City Council? The city needs more organization, not less. We need to develop ways whereby citizens can work through neighborhood organizations to have their views heard so that they do not feel that they must take to the streets. Political organization provides the best possible mechanism to provide for orderly change through the democratic process. In contrast, non-partisan elections mean that no permanent organization is created. Citizens will continue to have no way to be heard except through occasional City Council hearings or demonstrations in the streets. The extremely lower voter interest in the school board elections last fall shows how lack of adequate organization seriously interferes with the democratic process. The Democratic Central Committee has been working on a new bill based on that passed by the Senate in 1965. We are attempting to make this bill consistent with the school board election statute, the experience of this city under the reorganization, and other changes which have occurred since 1965. When that bill is ready in a few days, we will submit it promptly to this committee for its consideration. 3. Finally, we oppose any bill which merely provides for the election of a Mayor and City Council and especially one allowing only for the election of the City Council. This is not selfgovernment such elected city officials will have no more power than present appointed officials. This is all too often merely the right to come hat in hand to Capitol Hill. Furthermore, an elected Mayor and City Council may not even be a step toward self-government. Such a statute may be viewed by Congress as a means to test whether the city is ready for self-government, a test which may last for years. The result may be to delay real self-government far into the future. It is possible that an elected Mayor and City Council should be considered at some point as a compromise. That need not be decided today. This Committee should report a bill providing the rights which District citizens are entitled to enjoy full self-government. The CHAIRMAN. If the committee should adopt the President's proposal, namely the commission, should the committee recommend in the report that, if the Congress does not pass the legislation authorizing the commission approach, the President should do so by Executive order prior to the end of 1970? Mr. TERRIS. I strongly recommend it. In addition, this committee should be prepared or even report a bill updating the 1965 bill. We prefer the charter commission, but we |