The CHAIRMAN. Why not? Why would those two have any more power than any of the two that were elected by the people?

Mr. ATHERHOLT. What are these two appointees going to be? Possibly they will be representatives of the White House. If not, it is reasonable to expect that one will be the liaison man between the Council and the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia; on the other, a liaison man between the Council and the House Committee on the District of Columbia.

Their say, their influence, in the meetings of the Council would be all out of proportion to their number, in view of other provisions of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Let's stop for a moment with the Senate Committee for the District of Columbia. Do you think this committee would have any particular influence over a member of the Council?

Mr. ATHERHOLT. Why, looking at past experience and the relations between the Federal Government and its constitutional duty as the sole legislative authority for the District of Columbia, I think it would be neglecting its responsibilities if it failed to, and I can't believe that it wouldn't have; no, sir. I am sure that it would have. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the committee would have more influence on those members of the Council than it has on the Commissioners at the present time?

Mr. ATHERHOLT. Yes; I do.

The CHAIRMAN. If you didn't, you wouldn't think the committee would have any at all, would you?

Mr. ATHERHOLT. Senator, I have been rather active, very active, in civic work in the District of Columbia for the last 10 years; and I think the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia and the House Committee on the District of Columbia have very great effect on the Commissioners of the District. I am sure those gentlemen would do many things many times if it weren't that they knew that the committees would be behind them for this and that. I think there are many times when their personal leanings would be in a direction other than the direction in which they move.

The CHAIRMAN. I haven't seen any indication of that since I have been chairman of this committee, nor did I see it when I was a member of the committee many years ago.

Mr. ATHERHOLT. Of course, the Senate has 98 members and the daily Record shows they are not always of the same mind, but let's look at these two as they operate in the City Council. They sit there, and a measure comes up and they have thoughts as to how it should be decided, and they want their views to prevail. They have those views and believe that they are correct views.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think those two members would override the other nine?

Mr. ATHERHOLT. I think those two members will urge, one will turn to his friend here and say, "Joe, I think perhaps you folks have a majority of voting, if it comes to it, but there is no use of your voting that when the Congress is going to turn it down, and I will assure you they can"-and, Senator, I do not believe but that those Presidential appointees would use those tactics in many cases. just wouldn't be human to expect them to do otherwise.

It

If it isn't as a representative of the Senate District Committee and of the House District Committee, it is as a representative of the White House, and then they can even use more influence and even with weaker words.

After all, it wouldn't be hard to make nine men believe there is no use in their doing that when the Senate and the House and the President all have a chance to reverse your action and they intend to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't believe you can elect nine men or five men to the council in a free election who would be that pusillanimous. I have more respect for those nine men than to think that two members could dominate them.

Mr. ATHERHOLT. It isn't a matter of being pusillanimous or doing any injustice to the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be betraying a trust.

Mr. ATHERHOLT. I don't think he is betraying his trust when he works to the utmost to get the solution he believes is right. I don't think anybody is betraying his trust, and I don't think the other fellow would be pusillanimous in knowing we had better play ball nowspeaking of the other nine.

We also look at this compensation for the members of the District Council. They are to receive $5,000 a year. What can we hope to get for $5,000 a year? Certainly not highly qualified people, unless we are to be limited to insurance solicitors and other people that are soliciting this and that and who can attend council meetings at any time whatsoever and do their work in the remaining time.

We also note section 1408 (b) on page 102 of the bill which seems to suggest that the Council is to be an out-of-hours job. It says that the right to another office or position or to compensation from another source otherwise secured to such a person under the laws of the United States shall not abridge by the fact of his service or receipt of compensation as a member of the District Council or either Board if such service does not interfere with the discharge of his duties in such other position or office.

That shows that the proponents of this bill contemplate that people shall be able to fill another job full-time besides serving on the District Council. That, sir, doesn't augur well for the good government of the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. What amendment would you suggest to that provision of the bill?

Mr. ATHERHOLT. My amendment would be to make it a full-time job and at a salary that could attract people of the caliber

The CHAIRMAN. What salary would you suggest?

Mr. ATHERHOLT. Ten or thirteen thousand, without a doubt, and I would say that fifteen wouldn't be a penny too much.

I know the other side of that: Well, this attracts people of inferior caliber to high-paid jobs. When you have elective offices, you have that to face. I don't overlook that, but I just can't see that we are going to get good administration of the District government that way. Then we come to the matter of ordinances. The District Council may pass ordinances to carry out those functions of a legislative character transferred to it by section 321. This is reading from

section 324. That, of course, is exactly the power of the Commissioners today.

Then we get down to 324 (b), and we find an ordinance other than a zoning ordinance shall take effect as law upon passage by the District Council.

While we are speaking of that, I would like to recommend that if this bill pass, it be amended to make the advertising of an ordinance mandatory before it goes into effect. I might say that getting track of ordinances today in the District government is not one of the easiest things one can do.

Then getting further into the heart of the bill-and I think this is genuinely the heart of the matter-title IV, being action by the Congress and the President on legislative proposals, section 401 provides that the District Council shall deposit each legislative proposal passed by the Congress and each such proposal shall be referred to the respective Committees of the District of Columbia of the Senate and the House, and then it provides for lying there for 5 days, disapproval by the President after that perhaps, and what does it provide?

It provides that if between the date of such deposit and the expiration of such 45-day period there had not been passed by the two Houses a concurrent resolution stating in substance that the Congress does not favor such legislative proposal, then it shall be presented to the President and if the President do not act against it within 10 days, it becomes law.

I cannot conceive how any lawyer could have written that.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your profession or vocation?

Mr. ATHERHOLT. I am a lawyer. I have been practicing law for a great many years.

The Constitution of the United States, article I, section 7, provides for the manner in which legislation shall be passed.

Then it says that after the two Houses of Congress have passed it, it shall go to the President and the President can approve it, or failing to disapprove it within 10 days, it becomes law.

On its way through the Congress it has to get the affirmative approval of both Houses. This section 402 doesn't require that at all, but it requires that it get the affirmative disapproval of both Houses. Now, Senator, I am not unmindful of the fact that when we adopted the present Rules of Federal Procedure in 1939, they laid before the Congress throughout a session, and if they hadn't been opposed during that time, that they became effective, and they did become effective, but there we were dealing with an entirely different thing. The courts had rights of their own motion, their own inherent right, to set up the rules of practice, and that was not legislation in the sense these things are legislation.

Here we have a case where one House disapproving this legislative proposal passed by the legislative council could not keep it from becoming a law.

Sir, I do not believe that it would take very long before one of the Houses, having disapproved a bill and the bill not being disapproved by the other House, would promptly see that this legislation was changed.

But whether or not they did, it isn't constitutional, and I can't imagine any possible argument and I have tried to get an argument on it from many proponents of this bill, and I have yet to get any good substantial argument to sustain its constitutionality.

I would like to point out further that in the computation of the 45-day period there shall be excluded the days on which the House is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain. That, of course, could tie legislation up for many months. That is not any worse than it is now, but it isn't any better. If this is home rule, I don't know any great reason why we shouldn't have the right of home rule.

Then we have section 403, emergency authority. The seat of government of the United States has been in the District of Columbia for almost 150 years, and there has never previously been any occasion for a right of such emergency legislaiton, and this particular provision goes overboard far more than the previously discussed section of the bill. This says that it doesn't even have to go to the President of the United States or have been before the House or Senate while they are sitting, but upon joint certification to the District Manager by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives such proposal shall take effect as law.

I have the highest respect for the President of the Senate and I have the highest respect for the Speaker of the House, but I say, with no qualification, that they have no constitutional right to make something law by their signature, and I say furthermore that the whole thing is fouled up more when they get to the following section, 403 (b), on page 21, which says:

Notwithstanding the taking effect of a legislative proposal pursuant to the provisions of this section, such legislative proposal shall cease to be in effect upon disapproval in accordance with the provisions of this title applicable with respect to legislative proposals deposited with the Congress with respect to which no emergency exists.

That means that the Council passes the bill before them, the legislative proposal, it becomes when they have passed it-that comes up then to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and by their signatures, their certification, it becomes law-"shall take effect as law."

Then we find in the next line that this is law that can be used against you today but we can change it tomorrow. Such legislative proposal shall cease to be in effect upon disapproval in accordance with the provisions of this title applicable to other legislative proposals.

What is to be our law? We are certainly entitled to settled law. My dear sir, as to both of these provisions-and let's take them in connection with section 404, which states the fundamental constitutional right of Congress to the sole legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia-what is going to happen to our law here?

Bills are passed dealing with wills, dealing with real property, dealing with the manner of attesting a will, and other formal instruments. We can think of many other laws, and here they are to be one thing today and another thing next week or tomorrow and then back again.

The CHAIRMAN. Those who are here will take notice that hereafter all persons who testify will be limited to 10 minutes. This witness

has been proceeding for 20 minutes. I will give you 5 minutes more. After that if you want to make a prolonged statement, something you can't say in 10 minutes, reduce it to writing.

I want to give everybody a fair chance, and we will put in the record any pertinent, relevant, proper testimony that any citizen of the District wants to offer, but we can't continue all summer to take this testimony.

You will be given 10 minutes to state your case before the committee. Mr. ATHERHOLT. I want to cooperate with the committee in every way in this respect but I want to protest most emphatically against such a rule. The proponents of this bill have been given every opportunity to come in here with flag waving, taking no cognizance whatever of the multiple provisions in a 119-page bill. We can't consider or discuss a 119-page bill in 10 minutes, and I believe the opponents have a right to as much consideration as the proponents, and as a representative of the Northwest Council of Citizens' Associations and citizens of northwest Washington, I believe I am entitled to every bit as much consideration as was the representative of the Board of Trade when he took an hour and a half in here last Thursday. The CHAIRMAN. Who took an hour and a half?

Mr. ATHERHOLT. The board of trade.

The CHAIRMAN. They were opposed to it.

Mr. ATHERHOLT. And I, too.

The CHAIRMAN. No three persons who have testified in favor of the bill consumed as much time as the one witness who opposed it took last Thursday.

Mr. ATHERHOLT. I believe that.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't intend to give the opponents or proponents any advantage. I am going to apply the same rule to both.

Mr. ATHERHOLT. It isn't an advantage, it is an even break. The CHAIRMAN. I indulged the board of trade much longer than I have indulged anyone else, because I understood that there would be only a few who wished to speak in opposition. It now appears that there are almost 20 who still want to be heard. Judging from what the very able attorney said in behalf of the board of trade the other day, if the rest speak at the same length, we wouldn't be through with these hearings a month from now. I don't propose to continue this hearing that long.

I again emphasize the fact that if you have any relevant statement to make it will be printed in the record.

Mr. ATHERHOLT. I am against the Kefauver bill. I am not against home rule.

The CHAIRMAN. You are a lawyer, and evidently an able lawyer, will you have enought interest in this matter to prepare a home rule bill and bring it up here? Whether I concur in it or not, at your request I will introduce your bill and give the Congress an opportunity to pass on it.

Mr. ATHERHOLT. How much time are we to be allowed to do it? Will we have to give up all our business for a month or two? I know that this took a great deal of time to prepare, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How much would you want?