STATEMENT OF SENATOR ESTES KEFAUVER, OF TENNESSEE Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity of testifying before your committee and presenting what I consider the will of the Senate on the matter of home rule for the District of Columbia. Obviously the passage of the Senate home rule bill S. 1527 after 2 days of debate on a voice vote without objections expresses an emphatic approval of the merits of the measure from both parties. A glance at the record will reveal the bipartisan support strengthened unquestionably by the position of Senator Richard Russell, of Georgia, in his statement that the home rule bill was not in any manner to be construed as part of civil-rights legislation. The action by the Senate was an acknowledgment of platform pledges of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. It reflects, moreover, several years of continued aralysis and the accumulation of experience on the problems of home rule in the Nation's Capital. This bill, the Senate believes, offers the best solution to these problems. It is with this background that I testify before you today on one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever affected the District of Columbia. My observations will be confined to these three problems: (1) A summary of the purposes and principal provisions of S. 1527. (2) The constitutionality of this proposed legislation. (3) The reasons which compel immediate action by the House on this bill. J. PURPOSES AND SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF S. 1527 The objectives underlying S. 1527 are principally threefold: (1) To relieve the Congress as much as possible of the burden of District affairs, without surrendering its constitutional powers. For example, when the attention of the whole Congress should be focused on appropriation legislation, bills to implement our national policy and national labor program, this committee and its counterpart in the Senate are literally bogged down by the considerations of such minutiae as whether rockfish weighing over 15 pounds should be thrown back, and whether the District of Columbia has authority to cut weeds growing in excess of 4 inches. These and other examples with which you are as familiar as I are matters of local, not national, concern and should be within the legislative jurisdiction of a local government. Secondly, it is the purpose of this legislation to create a representative local government for the District of Columbia chosen by qualified electors. It is inconceivable that in the Capital City of the leading democracy of the world the residents are denied the right to govern themselves. It is this anomaly which this bill seeks to correct. Thirdly, S. 1527 is designed to provide a more efficient and economical government for the District of Columbia. The government of the District presently constitutes a hodgepodge of one hundred-odd agencies, some Federal, some District, some both. The line of responsibility and direction in the District government is devious and complex. In only 26 agencies do the District Commissioners have plenary control. In other departments their authority is limited to budgetary or administrative supervision. The proposed home-rule bill reorganizes the District government into 12 departments, each headed by a director responsible to the District Manager, who in turn is responsible to the representatives of the people. With such a reorganization, there is a clear line of authority which has heretofore been absent. Dr. George Galloway of the Legislative Reference Section of the Library of Congress has prepared a complete and accurate comparison of the different homerule bills. It would be useless to repeat what he outlines in great detail. should like only to summarize what I consider to be the important provisions of S. 1527. I The bill establishes a District Council, elected at large, which will assume the ordinance-making power of the present Board of Commissioners. In addition, authority is given to the Council to enact legislative proposals on any subject coming within the scope of the power of Congress in its capacity as legislature for the District of Columbia as distinguished from its capacity as the National Legislature. Legislative proposals must be submitted to the Congress and, if not disapproved by the Congress, to the President. They will become law unless, within the 45-day period after their submission to Congress, Congress passes a concurrent resolution stating in substance that it does not favor such legislative proposal, and unless within 10 days after their submission to the President, the President disapproves. In addition to its power of disapproval of legislative proposals enacted by the District Council, the Congress retains its right to enact whatever legislation for the District it may deem appropriate. This procedure will relieve Congress of much of its legislative responsibility without abdicating its constitutional powers over District affairs. The bill gives the qualified electors of the District the right to elect 9 of the 11 members of the District Council and all of the 7 members of the Board of Education. A person otherwise qualified as an elector in the District of Columbia is not disqualified by reason of his right to vote in any other jurisdiction. This bill will bring the local franchise back to the District after almost 80 years of an appointive commission-type administration. The bill will provide an efficient and economic government properly attuned to the District's needs. The council-manager form of government, which is successfully operating in more than 800 American cities, has been chosen as the best framework upon which to build a sound, modern administration. Both the Council and the Manager have been given sufficient authority to effect certain administrative reorganization. A sound plan of fiscal operation is considered essential to the success of the proposal. Accordingly, the District has been given the power to borrow for capital improvements up to an amount equal to 5 percent of the District's taxable real property. Realizing the obligation of the Federal Government to share in the expense of maintaining the District government, a formula has been included providing for an annual Federal contribution to the District. In general, the formula provides that the United States will pay to the District for each fiscal year a sum equal to 20 cents for each dollar of revenue received by the District (from all sources except the United States) during the preceding fiscal year. II. THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL Article 1, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution grants to Congress the power: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever of such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of Government of the United States * * The question as to the power of Congress to delegate authority to the District Council to enact general legislation is no longer open to question. Historically the framers of the Constitution clearly intended that the District exercise local suffrage. James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 43 states this conclusively when he says: 66* * * a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrage, will of course be allowed them (District of Columbia).” By The type of government which we are today urging for the District of Columbia has been in actual operation in most of the Territories for many years. analogy the constitutional power of Congress to delegate a part of its legislative function to a District Council is no less than its power to delegate similar function to a Territorial assembly. As a matter of fact, for a period of 70 years a local assembly exercised municipal functions and for the 3 years thereafter exercised the same general legislative powers which we now propose to give to a District Council. During this period of almost three-quarters of a century this delegation of legislative functions was never held unconstitutional. The constitutionality problem of home rule stems from these words: Congress shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District. The meaning of the word "exclusive" in its context has been explained by the Supreme Court of the District (Roach v. Van Riswick, 11 D. C. 171 (1879)). The word "exclusive" means that the States shall not participate with the Federal Government in the adminis tration of District affairs. It does not mean now, or has it ever been construed to mean that the Federal Government could not delegate its legislative power to a District Council. While the United States Supreme Court has not been asked to pass upon this question, this interpretation has been rendered by the highest court in the District. Moreover both the House and Senate legislative counsels have rendered recent opinions concurring in the above interpretation, which upholds the constitutionality of the delegation to the District Council. III. THE PROPOSED BILL SHOULD BE REPORTED BY THE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY First, the home-rule legislation has the support of the following organizations representing a true cross section of District economics, politics, races, and religions: (a) District of Columbia Central Labor Union (d) American Business Association (e) National Lawyers Guild (f) National Negro Council Central Suffrage Council (h) Progressive Party of the District (1) Federation of Citizens Associations (m) National Association of Colored Women (n) League of Women Shoppers (0) American Association of Medical Social Workers, Washington group (p) Interdenominational Ministers Alliance of Washington (q) Young Democrats of the District of Columbia In the polls conducted by the Washington Board of Trade and the Washington Post, the latter as late as 1946, the overwhelming majority of the people who voted favored home-rule legislation. Moreover, for what it's worth, a recent Gallup poll of the United States favored home rule for the District of Columbia. It is Secondly, the House Calendar is at this time in such a position that it would be possible for this important piece of legislation to receive full consideration. problematical when this fortuitous circumstance may again occur. It was a fortunate series of coincidences that permitted the consideration of this bill for 2 days in the Senate during a critical period. Should this bill be allowed to die on the House Calendar or in this committee, the sheer pressure of more important business might prevent, as it has for the past 75 years, the further consideration of home rule for the District of Columbia in the Senate. It is imperative that the House act and act immediately. stances any delay is the equivalent of a negative vote. Under the circum In the Thirdly, consideration of this bill is timely for two important reasons. first place, the planners of this legislation have considered it important that elections in the District of Columbia occur in the odd years, or years in which there are no national campaigns. If the House delays the passage of this bill until the second session of this Congress, it will be most difficult to maintain such a schedule. Secondly, passage of this bill this summer would enable the potential District electorate to become thoroughly acquainted with the proposed plan for District government at a time when the enthusiasm for the proposal still runs high. This or similar legislation has been presented to Congress dozens of times, but never before has the proposal been voted on by either House of Congress. The progress of this bill through one-half of the legislative machinery in this Congress has created a spirit and an enthusiasm for home rule that has never before existed with the residents of the District. The opportunity should now be taken to pass the legislation and to present to the citizens of the District the choice for home rule. DISTRICT GOVERNMENTS 1800 and prior thereto: Citizens voted in Maryland and Virginia elections. 1802: Incorporation of the city of Washington. (a) Mayor appointed annually by the President. (b) Elected City Council consisting of 12 members; Council was divided into a "first" chamber (7 members) and "second" chamber (5 members). Latter chosen from whole number of councilors elected by joint ballots. (c) Power of the Council-could enact bylaws and ordinances. 1804: Legislation changed the District Council to consist of two chambers of nine members each. Members were chosen at a popular election. 1812: Act amending charter of Washington. (a) Mayor retained. Mayor elected by the members in joint meeting by majority vote. (b) Council abolished and in lieu thereof a Board of Aldermen consisting of 8 members and a Board of Common Council consisting of 12 members were established. (c) Voting qualifications: (1) Free white citizen of lawful age; (2) resident of city for 1 year and assessed on the books of the Corporation. 1820: Mayor elected by the people. Board of Aldermen consisting of two members from each ward chosen for 2 years. (Washington consisted of six wards). Board of Common Council consisting of three members 95148-49- 11 from each ward elected for 1 year. Voting qualifications among others: Resident of city for 1 year preceding election. 1867: Voters were all male citizens who, among other things, resided in the District for 1 year and 3 months in the ward where voting, without distinction of color or race. 1871: Territorial government established consisting of a Governor, Board of Public Works, Board of Health, and a Legislative Assembly. Legislative Assembly consisted of Council of 11 members; House of Delegates of 22 members. The members of the Legislative Assembly were elected by the people. 1874: Temporary Organic Act creating government for the District by three Commissioners appointed by the President. 1878: Temporary form of government made permanent with no provision for franchise; first time in three-quarters of a century. Senator KEFAUVER. It is a great pleasure to have an opportunity to be back over here with my colleagues of the House, whom I miss seeing as much as I would like to. You are all my good friends, and I know that we are trying to arrive at the best solution of this problem that we can. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, during the course of my remarks, if any of you want to ask me any questions or make any observations, I would be glad for you to do so, because I am just going to talk about this matter. In the first place, I am entirely convinced, regardless of the fact that I know there is some opinion to the contrary, that we cannot sustain our position in Congress of not giving the people of the District of Columbia the right or some degree of home rule. It is a privilege that is enjoyed by American citizens everywhere else. This is a great city, Washington, where 600,000 people would be : eligible to vote. It has a larger population than many States. It pays more income tax than many States; and I can't see any really basic reason why we have continued to deny the people of the District some limited measure of home rule; and under the bill that Mr. Auchincloss has and I have, it is a limited expression and a limited right of home rule. Each year, gentlemen, in the world today we are trying to set an example of democracy, and we are going to be plagued with this problem of denying the people who live in our Capital City suffrage and some measure of home rule. It is going to mitigate against the example we are trying to set in the world today. We are going to have the sesquicentennial here before long, in voteless Washington. I have been much impressed, gentlemen, with young people I have seen who appeaerd before our committee, who were born here and grew up here. They want to participate in their government; they say they haven't much to look forward to; they have no right to vote; they have no right whatsoever to even have a vote in electing a city council that has a limited authority. Now, gentlemen, we have intelligent people here in the District who are as good people as there are anywhere else, and I just don't think we are doing right by the people of the District in not giving them some suffrage or some right to govern themselves. I think the figures show that the amount of education that the people have here is high, or higher than it is in most cities. We have a good white franchise. There are tremendous interests in getting a right to vote, and I am certain that we would have a successful city government run by the people. Now this is not giving them much in the right to vote for members of the city council, particularly in view of the limitations which are placed on the authority of the city council. I think it is the least we can do. We had 42 to 43 million people who voted in the last election. Here in the District of Columbia perhaps 450,000 people would vote. That is pretty big percentage of the population. After all, under the Constitution, and under the provisions of all of these bills, the ultimate power of doing whatever Congress wants to do with its charter, or any right of suffrage that may be given the people of the District, of course, is in Congress; but I think we ought at least to give them the opportunity of trying it out, and I am certain that it would be successful because there is wide interest, as I see it, in doing something about this problem. A few minutes ago my good friend, John McMillan, asked about who was interested in this. I want to say frankly that, as a matter of giving people here some rights that everybody else enjoys under the Constitution, I would be interested whether anybody in the District was or not; but there are a great number of organizations, and good, respectable people, with whom I have met, who have worked on this matter day and night. I have them here on page 6 of this statement. There is the Democratic Party; there is the Republican Party, as part of their platforms. Now in connection with this whole matter there have been some bouquets passed my way; and, of course, I am always glad to get them while I am living-but actually I don't deserve any credit for the passage of the bill in the Senate. This committee conducted a very thorough investigation. Then there was the Auchincloss report. The members of the House District Committee have gone into this problem very thoroughly, after having been assisted by Dr. Galloway and Mr. Pierce of the Legislative Reference Service. In the Senate other Members have done as much or more than I have. Senator McGrath, the chairman of the Senate District Committee, Mrs. Smith, Senator Holland, of Florida, and the work of former Senator Overton of Louisiana, were all very helpful. Now the second point is that actually we are not, in Congress, equipped as we should be to run the detailed affairs of the District of Columbia. In the Senate committee during this session-this is the first time I have served on the District Committee; my colleagues have been doing it for a long time and they know more about it--we spent several days over there hearing testimony as to what to do with stray dogs. We heard testimony for some time about what to do with weeds that grew up. We spent four precious days on the floor of the Senate debating on the sales tax. I enjoy my work, but I spent more time on the District of Columbia than on the Armed Services or the Interstate Commerce, and the number of calls from people has been very time-consuming; and yet, of course, they have a right to call on me. It does not mean anything to me in the State of Tennessee; and actually, as you know, it is something of a political liability to serve on the District Committee. I have had criticisms from my State because I was spending so much time with affairs of the District, and I guess I will have some this morning because they are marking up the pay bill on the Senate Armed Services Committee. |