citizens might well be chosen for these importatnt posts. But if only District residents were eligible for appointment to these places, the new government would be unreasonably handicapped in obtaining the best talent for the task. City management has become a national profession during the past 40 years, and it is common practice for manager cities to hire the best administrators wherever they can be found. The problems of city management are essentially similar throughout the country. From the viewpoint of home rule, however, it does not matter where the District Manager and the 12 department heads come from so long as they are subordinate to a locally elected legislature composed of local residents. Under the manager form of government, department heads are responsible to the city manager who appoints them, the manager in turn is responsible to the city council which appoints him and can remove him, and the council in turn is responsible to the voters who may change its composition on election day.

Under the present system, Washington in fact is now governed by outsiders. For Congress is now the governing body of the District of Columbia and all the Members of Congress come from other parts of the country. The chairman of the District of Columbia Committees of the House and Senate are customarily spoken of as the "mayors" of Washington. Mayor McMillan comes from South Carolina, and Mayor Neely comes from West Virginia.

Moreover, even under the present form of District government, department heads are often appointed from the States. Eleven of the present 42 department heads in the District government were not residents of Washington at the time of their original appointment. For example, Dr. Corning, the Superintendent of Schools, was then a resident of Nebraska; Dr. Seckinger, the District Health Officer, lived in Georgia; and Mr. Shea, the Director of the Board of Public Welfare, came from Massachusetts. One advantage of appointing outsiders is

that they are independent of any local interest group affiliations.

Argument: No real home rule is possible under the Kefauver bill. Rebuttal: The essence of home rule, as it is understood throughout the United States, is the making of local policies by locally elected officials. The Kefauver bill transfers the local lawmaking power of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia to a locally elected District Council. Over the years Congress has delegated to the District Commissioners broad powers to make rules and regulations to protect the life, health, safety, and general welfare of all persons and property in the District of Columbia. (See 1, D. C. Code 226.) Their ordinance-making powers, which the Council would inherit under the Kefauver bill, cover 90 percent of all local matters and would not be subject to congressional or Presidential review. The other 10 percent-corresponding to legislation on the State level-will become effective in 45 days under the bill, in the absence of negative action by concurrent resolution of Congress or subsequent veto by the President. For all practical purposes, this will be home rule for Washington. For municipal legislation will be enacted by a council elected by the people of Washington instead of by a Board of Commissioners appointed by the President. Short of a complete delegation of legislative authority by Congress to the Council, this will be as much home rule as the Constitution permits. So much self-rule is surely better than none. Ninetenths of a loaf is preferable to none at all. The insistence of the Board of Trade upon the whole loaf, knowing it to be unattainable, may conceal their secret desire for none at all.

Argument: Congress cannot surrender its exclusive authority over the seat of the National Government.

Rebuttal This objection refers to article I, section 8, paragraph 17, of the Constitution of the United States, which reads:

"The Congress shall exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States * * * ""

It is well settled in our constitutional law that the word "exclusive" in the paragraph quoted above was meant by the founding fathers to exclude the authority of the States over the Federal District. But there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent Congress from delegating its legislative authority, as the legislature for the District of Columbia, to its own agent. In actual practice, Congress since 1879 has made broad grants of local legislative authority to

the Board of District Commissioners who have wide powers to make rules and regulations covering purely local matters. Similarly, Congress could make a locally elected city council its agent for the enactment of municipal legislation in the District of Columbia. This is what the Kefauver bill provides for.

Arugment: The only way to obtain genuine home rule for Washington is through national representation of the District of Columbia in Congress.

Rebuttal: This argument puts the cart before the horse. It overlooks the fact that successful local self-government has been a condition prerequisite to national suffrage and representation in Congress throughout our history. Before the various States have been admitted into the Union since its creation by the Original Thirteen States in 1789, they have had to prove their capacity to govern themselves competently in their local affairs.

Home rule consists in the right of a community to control its local affairs through its own locally elected representatives in a city council. That is what is meant by home rule throughout the United States. If the people of Washington could elect Representatives in Congress, these Representatives would have no more voice in running the local government of the city than Members of Congress from Chicago or Philadelphia or New York have in running the government of those cities. Members of Congress from the District of Columbia would not perform any of the local legislative or administrative functions which are the essence of home rule. They would serve as national legislators. Long repetition of the argument that national suffrage and national representation is the road to home rule for Washington may have led some unthinking people, parrotlike, to believe it. But this argument is, in reality, a smoke screen designed to conceal other grounds of objection to local suffrage for the District of Columbia. Argument: The District Council would be dominated by the two councilmen to be appointed by the President under the Kefauver bill.

Rebuttal: The Kefauver bill provides that the District Council shall be composed of 11 members; 9 elected by the qualified voters of the city, and 2 appointed by the President of the United States. Since each of the 11 Councilmen would have one vote apiece, it is obviously absurd to argue that the 2 members appointed by the President could make their will prevail over the other 9. The provision for the appointment of two Councilmen by the President is designed to protect the Federal interests in the National Capital. At present the District government is headed by a Board of Commissioners all three of whose members are appointed by the President. The Board of Trade has not objected to this arrangement. Are they sincere in objecting to the Presidential appointment of 2 out of 11 Councilmen? Another precedent for Presidential appointment of local District officials is seen in the fact that during the territorial period (1871-74) the President appointed all the members of the upper house of the bicameral District legislature.

Argument: The 1-year residence requirement in the Kefauver bill for voting in District elections is not long enough.

Rebuttal: The typical residence requirement for voting in the United States is residence of 1 year or less in the State and 6 months or less in the county. Thirty-three States require 1-year residence in the State; 5 States require 2 years residence in the State, and 9 States require 6 months' residence in the State. No State requires a longer residence than 1 year in the county.

The proposal for a longer residence requirement for voting in District elections is probably designed to exclude from the local electorate the so-called floating population of Federal employees to whom spokesmen for the Board of Trade frequently refer. Yet census figures show that the average tenure of office of Federal employees in the United States at large is more than 11 years, and the average of those who reside in Washington, D. C., is believed to be even longer. More than one-fifth of the population of Washington is composed of officials and employees of the Federal Government and many of them think of Washington as home.

Argument: The Kefauver bill provides that registered voters in other places may vote in the District if they have lived here 1 year.

Rebuttal Section 1206 of the Kefauver bill provides that "a person who is otherwise qualified shall not be disqualified by being entitled to vote in another jurisdiction." The Board of Trade fears that this "dual voting" provision might give persons resident in Washington, but legally domiciled in the States, the balance of power in District elections. According to the Board of Trade's own

estimates, Federal workers would comprise 20.7 percent of the total District electorate. Four-fifths of the local electorate would not be federally employed and only one-ninth of the total population of the District maintain legal domiciles elsewhere.

The fundamental error in this objection is the attempt to distinguish between "transient" Federal employees and "permanent District citizens." This is a false dichotomy. Federal workers resident in Washington are "people of the District" as much as anyone else who lives here and has a stake in its government. To suppose that the "genuine" people of the District are a few native sons or the eight-thousand-odd members of the Board of Trade is a supercilious conceit which is contrary to fact.

The chief purpose of the so-called dual voting provision of the Kefauver bill is to increase the size and improve the composition of the District electorate by allowing some 100,000 Federal employees to vote in District elections who reside here, but maintain legal domiciles in the States whence they came. These people have a vital stake in this community because they own property and pay taxes here, send their children to local schools, and depend upon local municipal services. If persons who actually live here in Washington, but retain legal domiciles in the States, were denied the right to vote in District elections, two classes of citizenship would be created in the District of Columbia. In one class would be the residents of Washington who have seen fit to retain voting rights in another jurisdiction and who, if unable to vote in District elections, would look to Congress for the protection of their interests. In the other class would be the residents of Washington who do not have the right to vote elsewhere and who would look to the District Council for the protection of their interests. Between these two classes of citizens, as well as between Congress and the Council, conflicts would certainly arise which might jeopardize the successful conduct of the District government.

Argument: The Kefauver bill does not confer the right to vote in national elections upon Washington residents.

Rebuttal: It is true that the Kefauver bill does not confer this right. Congress cannot confer the right to vote in national elections upon the residents of the District of Columbia simply by passing a law. The Constitution of the United States grants the right to vote in national elections to the inhabitants of the States, and the District of Columbia is not a State. It will require a contitutional amendment to enable the residents of Washington to vote in national elections. Proposals to amend the Constitution to this end have been introduced in Congress for many decades, but none of them has ever been approved by Congress for submission to the State legislatures in accordance with the prescribed amending process. For 40 years the Washington Board of Trade has tried in vain to induce Congress to propose such an amendment. But for various reasons Congress has always been deeply opposed to national suffrage and national representation for the people of the District of Columbia. The chances are slim indeed that such a constitutional amendment will ever be adopted. To ask that home rule be suspended until the District has been granted national representation, as the general counsel of the Board of Trade has done, is to fly in the face of both history and common sense and to classify oneself as an obstructionist against any form of District suffrage.

Argument: The city-manager form of government, which the Kefauver bill proposes for Washington, is unworkable.

Rebuttal: The manager form of city government is modeled upon the internal structure of the modern American business corporation. Under the manager form of government, an elected council is the governing body of the city, and a manager, appointed by the council to serve at its pleasure, is the chief administrative officer of the local government, subject always to the control of the council. Thus, the city manager corresponds to the general manager of the private corporation, the city council corresponds to the board of directors of the private corporation, and the voters correspond to the stockholders.

Since the manager form of city government was first adapted by Staunton, Va., in 1908, more than 900 American cities and towns have adopted it, almost a third of them since the late war. The manager form of city government has long been recommended by the National Municipal League in its model city charter. So successful, indeed, has been the experience of American cities with this form of government that less than 3 percent of them have ever abandoned it.

Argument: No city the size of Washington has ever had the manager form of government.

Rebuttal Cleveland, Ohio, with a present estimated population of 900,000, has had the manager form of government. Cincinnati, with a present population estimated at 500,000, is the largest city in the United States now having this form of government. Among other large cities which now have the manager type of government are Rochester, Hartford, Richmond, Dallas, and Oakland. The basic principles of the manager form of government are applicable to cities of any size.

Argument: The District Manager proposed by the Kefauver bill would become the all-powerful boss of Washington.

* *

Rebuttal Section 502 of the Kefauver bill provides that "the District Manager shall be the chief executive officer of the District government. He shall be responsible to the District Council for the proper administration of the affairs of the District coming under his jurisdiction or control To this end he is given powers of appointment, removal, and supervision commensurate with his responsibilities. But he is subordinate to the council which appoints him and which may remove him at any time. He must perform his duties in such a way as to meet with the approval of the council. Under the manager system, the line of responsibility runs straight up from the bureau chiefs to the department heads to the manager to the council to the electorate. Each has the power to dismiss those below it in case of corruption or incompetence, subject of course to the safeguards of the civil-service merit system. The general experience of the manager cities in the United States has been that the manager has not become the boss of the town.

Argument: Home rule would result in higher real estate and income taxes in the District of Columbia.

Rebuttal: Under the present system, increases in District tax rates must receive congressional approval. Under home rule, bills raising local tax rates would be subject to congressional veto. Taxation without representation is now the rule in the city of Washington. District residents have no voice in the determination of their tax rates or as to how their money shall be spent. Under the Kefauver bill they would have such a voice. Proposed changes in the tax rates would have to be initiated by the representatives of the people in the District Council and could be disapproved by Congress or vetoed by the President. Thus, whether District property and income taxes went up or down, they would change in response to the decisions of the elected representatives of the people in the District Council, subject to a congressional and Presidential veto. Washington would have taxation with representation for the first time in 75 years.

Argument: Transient residents would vote for bond issues which the permanent residents would have to pay for.

Rebuttal: This argument is based upon the false assumption that there are two kinds of people in Washington-the permanent residents and the transient, floating population. The population of Washington is as stable as that of any city in the country. To be sure, the individual composition of the federally employed population in the District of Columbia may change from time to time. But as long as Washington is the Capital of the country there will always be a hard core of Federal employees resident here even if they are not the same people to help pay the carrying charges on a local debt.

No State in the Union limits the right to vote on bond issues to its so-called permanent residents.

It has long been an accepted principle of public finance that governments should pay for their current operating expenses out of their current revenues, and that they may borrow for capital improvements such as schools, highways, plant and equipment, etc. In keeping with this principle, section 701 of the Kefauver bill authorizes the District government to borrow for capital improvements, but limits its maximum indebtedness to an amount not exceeding 5 percent of the assessed value of the taxable real property in the District.

The Kefauver bill also provides a triple hurdle for bond issues. First, they must be approved by majority vote in the District Council. Second, bonds may be issued only after approval by majority vote in a popular referendum. And, third, the bond issue may be disapproved by Congress or the President. These three safeguards, together with the 5-percent debt limit, will prevent the new District government from rash debt ventures.

Argument: Passage of the Kefauver bill will mean the reduction or elimination of the annual Federal payment to the District.

Rebuttal Title XX of the Kefauver bill provides for an annual Federal contribution toward the cost of the District government amounting to 20 percent of District local revenues during the preceding fiscal year. This formula, if it were now in effect, would produce a Federal contribution to the District of $20,000,000 in 1950. The actual Federal payment to the District this year is a lump sum amounting to $12,000,000. Thus the formula in the Kefauver bill would increase the Federal payment in 1950 by $8,000,000.

Argument: The passage of the Kefauver bill would not save much congressional time.

Rebuttal One of the main arguments in favor of home rule for Washington has been that it would relieve Congress of the onerous task of functioning as a city council for the District of Columbia when it ought to be devoting its full attention to more important national and international problems. It has been carefully estimated that the House of Representatives alone devotes 3,000 manhours each session to the consideration of District affairs. The House and Senate together probably devote at least 5,000 man-hours a year to District of Columbia business. The House of Representatives sets aside 2 days each month for the consideration of District business.

Most of this congressional time would be saved under home rule because the formulation of District legislation-most of the 28 stages in the enactment of an act of Congress-would be devolved upon the District Council and the time spent in its consideration would be spent at the local level instead of at the national level. Under the legislative veto procedure set forth in the Kefauver bill, for possible use in the 10 percent of District legislation subject to congressional review all Congress need do under home rule is vote up or down a concurrent resolution of disapproval if one is introduced.

Argument: If Washington had home rule, the colored people would capture control of the District government.

Rebuttal: This objection is not openly raised by the board of trade, but it is whispered about and is one of the silent obstacles to passage of the Kefauver bill. The truth is that, under the method of voting provided for in the Kefauver bill, no minority group in the District could possibly win a majority of the nine elective seats on the District Council, or a majority of the seven elective seats on the Board of Education. Title XII of the bill provides for a system of city-wide voting in which the candidates who receive the largest number of votes in the general election shall be elected to these offices.

The Negro population of Washington has been remarkably stable through the years. Since 1880 it has varied between one-fourth and one-third of the total population of the District. At the present time, according to the latest census estimates, the Negroes account for about 30 percent of the city's population. This percentage would entitle them to three out of the nine elective seats on the District Council. In Richmond, Va., which has the manager form of government and where 32 percent of the population is colored, only one of the nine members of the city council is a Negro. The colored people have the right to participate in the political life of a community in proportion to their numbers and their qualifications. The experience of other cities in the United States where the colored people are allowed to vote shows that they do not vote en bloc, but scatter their votes as the white people do. In short, it is a myth that home rule for Washingon would mean domination by the Negroes.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I ask permission also to include in my remarks another statement by Senator Kefauver in reply to the criticisms made here yesterday by the Board of District Commissioners of this bill. The Commissioners made similar criticisms in July 1949 of an identical bill introduced in the House of Representatives in the Eighty-first Congress by Mr. Klein of New York. Senator Kefauver's reply at that time to the criticisms of the Commissioners applies, mutatis mutandis, to Mr. West's comments yesterday.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be included.