Mr. BERLINER. I am Milton Berliner, a reporter of the Washington News. I say that the News has been in favor of home rule for 25 years and we will not take up any more of your time.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you.

We will next hear from Mr. C. Melvin Sharpe, president of the Board of Education and chairman of the committee of 100 on the Federal City of the American Planning and Civic Association.

STATEMENT OF C. MELVIN SHARPE, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE OF 100 ON THE FEDERAL CITY OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING AND CIVIC ASSOCIATION

Mr. SHARPE. Mr. Chairman, my name is C. Melvin Sharpe.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Sharpe, we appreciate your coming up to this committee. I think you have been interested in this fundamental question for some time.

Mr. SHARPE. I might say, Mr. Chairman, I am not here as president of the Board of Education, I am here as chairman of the committee of 100 of the American Planning and Civic Association.

The Board of Education has filed its own statement, which was supplemental and not in anywise affecting the statements of the committee of 100. This is a rather lengthy statement which I have submitted and I will not read it.

Mr. HARRIS. Without objection it may be filed and become a part of the record and be inserted in the record at this point. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF C. MELVIN SHARPE, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OF 100 ON THE FEDERAL CITY OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING AND CIVIC ASSOCIATION ON THE KEFAUVER BILL, S. 1527, AS IT PASSED THE SENATE, WITH COMMENTS ON OTHER PENDING BILLS CONCERNING THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT

The Kefauver bill (S. 1527) as it passed the Senate is an improvement in many respects over the various Auchincloss bills of 1948. It contains, in whole or in part, at least a dozen of the improvements suggested by the committee of 100 Some of these improvements were included in later Auchincloss bills. They in-. clude:

1. Two of the 11 (instead of 12) Council members are to be appointed by the President to give some representation to the interests of the executive arm of the Federal Government. The other nine are to be elected at large from the District, rather than by wards or areas a distinct improvement.

2. The provision for literary test for voters to the extent of requiring the filling out of registration forms in the handwriting of the registrant is retained in the latest Kefauver measure.

3. Administrations of schools and libraries are separated.

4. The composition of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission conforms to the recommendations of the Bureau of the Budget as they were interpreted in 1948, though the introduction of a more complete reorganization of the Commission is now before Congress in H. R. 4848 and S. 1931 and the two should be brought into harmony.

5. The purchase of parks and playgrounds by the Commission would not be changed by the bill.

6. The National Capital parks are retained under the National Park Service and all expenses of maintanance and improvements of grounds and buildings under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service are to be met from appropriations by Congress from the Federal Treasury.

7. Provision to transfer the Park Police to the Metropolitan Police is omitted from the later 1948 and 1949 drafts of most of these bills.

8. The zoning set-up seems an improvement in principle.

9. Administration of sources and transmission of water supply is omitted from the bill and would leave the matter in status quo.

95148-49- -14

10. Congress may not only disapprove by concurrent resolution passed by both Houses all legislative proposals of the Council, which must also be signed by the President who may exercise a veto, but retains specifically the right to initiate any District legislation it desires.

11. The formulas in all 1948 bills for Federal participation were unsatisfactory. The Kefauver 1949 version, as it passed the Senate, makes the Federal Government responsible for 20 percent of all income of the District of Columbia in the preceding year. This is more liberal than former proposals and as the virtue of rising with increasing revenue of the District; but probably falls far short of full Federal responsibility which should be based on the Federal stake in the Federal City and not on what local citizens are willing or able to tax themselves.

12. The proposed bonded indebtedness in the April and May 1948 Auchincloss bills was limited to 3 percent of assessed real property values; but the Kefauver bill sets the limit at 5 percent. This may prove useful in taking care of the arrears of capital improvements, but it should be remembered that bonds are simply a method for spreading the expense of capital improvements and that so far from saving money in the budget they ultimately add to the amounts to be repaid as compared to the present pay-as-you-go system.

THREE BOARDS DEFENDED

We particularly deplore the proposals for the Board of Education which for a long period of years has been free from local or national politics under the present system of appointment, and we express our approval of the report of the Superintendent of Schools as adopted by the Board. We regret to see the passing of the responsible Library Board, and the establishment of a department with an advisory board. We believe that the Recreation Board will function better as a responsible board which appoints its director than as a department under a city manager, with an advisory board.

DISTRICT CITIZENS NOT REPRESENTED IN CONGRESS

In other ways, the Kefauver bill contains certain provisions which are less sound than some of the provisions in former bills. There is no provision for any kind of representative in Congress of the citizens of the District not voting elsewhere. Since Congress retains its constitutional authority for all major legislation affecting the District, it is only fair that the citizens who do not retain their citizenship in any of the several States (and thereby their representation in Congress) should have the same privilege as other citizens of the United States. Probably the provision for some type of representation in Congress is omitted because it is generally conceded that adequate representation in Congress of the unenfranchised citizens of the District must be by constitutional amendment. This is a longer and more laborious method than simple congressional legislation; but who can doubt that the sound first step toward rendering justice to the citizens of the District is to grant them the suffrage to vote for adequate representation in Congress and for the President and Vice President of the United States. They would thus be constituents of certain Members of the Congress which is, when all is said and done, in charge of legislation for the District, and would be electors of the President who carries definite responsibility for the Federal City, not only in respect to the sites and buildings which house the executive agencies, but for the scale and character of the Federal City itself.

When it comes to the delegation of minor defined legislative authority to the Council; this is something which could have been done by a simple act delegating such authority to the District Commissioners at any time, now or in the future. All of the absurd illustrations of matters to which Congress has given its attention in the past could have been corrected at any time, had Congress chosen to do so. We do not need an expensive Council of 11 instead of the 3 Commissioners to bring about this desirable reform.

CONGRESS STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR LEGISLATION

The provisions for the handling by the Council of legislative proposals which will become law if Congress does not disapprove by concurrent resolution within 45 days and if the President does not veto them, as stated above, indicate that the drafters of the bill must have come to the conclusion that Congress could not alienate its constitutional duty. As a matter of fact, the Commissioners have frequently proposed legislation to Congress, but Congress has insisted on extensive hearings and has seldom accepted the legislation in the form submitted.

ELABORATE, EXPENSIVE GOVERNMENT PROPOSED

So far as we can see, these proposals, instead of streamlining the District Government, would blow it up into an inflated system. The provisions in the early Auchincloss bills provided for an unpaid Council, except for an honorarium for attendance at meetings. Then the compensation was hiked to $3,000 and in the final Kefauver bill to $5,000 with $7,500 for the President of the Council, plus an expense account. It has been our experience that a higher degree of ability can be secured in members of boards whose principal function is attendance at stated meetings and concerned with policy-making, not administration, than through the appointment or election of paid board members. I regret to say that in my belief $5,000 is enough to attract many politicians and might lead to the election of those entirely unfitted to serve on such a policy-making Council. It must be remembered that in addition to this Council of 11 which would inherit only a small part of the duties of the District Commissioners, there would be a city manager, presumably paid a large salary-perhaps equal to the pay of all three Commissioners as set up today-and he would inherit the administrative duties of the three Commissioners as they now function.

In addition there would be the 12 department heads with assistants and clerical service. With these 24 policy-making and executive heads and their assistants mulling around it will be a miracle if economy or efficiency in government can be achieved.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FIRST STEP

A campaign to relieve Congress of dealing with unnecessary details has resulted in a superficial opinion on the part of many citizens in the States that their representatives in Congress should not be spending so much time on the affairs of the people who live in the District of Columbia. The Kefauver bill does not in fact relieve Congress of the ultimate duty placed upon it by the Federal Constitution and it is doubtful if congressional committees will spend any less time on District legislation than in the past, except as Congress may do what it could have done at any time, delegate defined legislative authority to the District government-whatever it is-along the lines suggested by the late Charles

Beard.

We agree with Jesse C. Suter, writing in the Sunday Star on June 12:

"What the American people whose homes are in the District of Columbia want and need is the right to participate with their fellow Americans of the States in the government of their country. This is absolutely true measured by all of the fundamental principles of the American form of government and supported amply by the experience of these voteless and unrepresented people at the Nation's Capital.

* *

*

"What the District of Columbia needs is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which will empower Congress to provide by legislation 'that there shall be in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President members elected by the people of the District constituting the seat of the Government of the United States, in such numbers and with such powers as the Congress shall determine."

"Such an amendment to the Constitution would, of course, require passage by a two-thirds vote of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and then ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. When this fundamental reform is accomplished the creation of a local government will be a mere detail handled by a Congress in both Houses of which the District is regularly represented and submitted for the signature of a President who in part was elected by the citizens of the District."

In these bills we have put the cart before the horse and propose to set up a too-elaborate local machine, still subject to a Congress in which the District citizens are not represented.

FINANCIAL BURDEN WITHOUT AUTHORITY

In other words, in this measure it seems, Congress would be passing the financial buck to the residents of Washington (many of whom are citizens of 1 of the 48 States) without transferring from Congress the ultimate power which_Congress holds under the Constitution and without providing that the Federal Treasury meet its manifest responsibility for its Federal City.

Can anyone suppose that a council with nine elected members, responsible for raising the proposed budget, would approve the further alienation of private property from the tax rolls of the District in order to provide sites for Federal

buildings, however necessary to the Federal executive Government? It is true that the Federal Government could condemn land for public purposes; but the pressure of the voters and their elected officials decidedly would be against the extension of Federal holdings which would reduce the District income from taxable real property and, indirectly, as a result reduce the Federal contribution based on local income.

FEDERAL CITY UNIQUE

The responsibility for the size and disposition of the budget is put squarely upon the local taxpayers. If they tax themselves enough they will receive from the Federal Treasury 20 percent of last year's income. The Federal City, established solely to serve as the seat of government, should not be limited in budget to amounts which the local citizens are willing to authorize. The Federal Government has a stake in its Federal City far beyond the estimated value of its buildings and grounds, and, as the years pass, the Federal Government will own an increasing area in the Federal City-larger in extent than the area of private property.

Concerning the provisions for the electorate, it is easily understood why the body of District voters would more nearly resemble a balanced community elsewhere if all or a large part of the Federal employees were permitted to vote; but we question the practicability, if not the legality, of permitting those who vote in the States also to vote in District elections. So long as the civil service and many other appointed positions draw quotas from the different States it is unlikely that many of these would relinquish their home State privilege of voting. At best, therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible to set up in the District a truly balanced community electorate, whereas if all those who live in the District and do not vote in any State were permitted to vote for representation in Congress, the ground would be covered without duplication or omission.

The fact that a majority of District citizens authorized to vote under the Kefauver or similar bills, might elect to accept financial and governmental responsibility for the District of Columbia, does not in any respect justify Congress or the executive branch of the Federal Government in relieving themselves of the moral and legal responsibility which they bear for the Federal City.

Washington is not like any other city in the United States. It was founded, and continues, to serve as the seat of the Federal Government. Unlike other national capitals, it is not an industrial city. In a sense its principal and only industry is the National Government. Most of its citizens are employed by the Federal Government or belong to families so employed. While many Federal employees remain in Washington over considerable periods of time, there is a cyclical turn-over brought about by succeeding administrations, which, in spite of the comparative permanence of the business community, offers less continuity in residence and larger proportion of citizenship in different States than in any other city.

IN CONCLUSION

We beg to submit, therefore, that the proposed legislation does not in fact transfer responsibilility (except in minor matters) from Congress to the Council; that Congress must still carry on the duty laid upon it by the Constitution in all major legislation; that the proposed machinery is expensive and overelaborate for the authority bestowed; that the citizens of the District of Columbia would be obliged to undertake the raising of an unfair proportion of the District budget in the face of a dwindling area of land in private ownership on which to collect taxes; that the citizens would acquire the doubtful privilege of discussing and recommending legislation and budgets without the authority to put them into effect.

We recommend, therefore, that Congress proceed forthwith to adopt a constitutional amendment which will confer the franchise upon all those who live in the District of Columbia who do not vote elsewhere, that they may have representation in Congress and vote for the President and Vice President of the United States. This is an act of simple justice and it is believed that once such a constitutional amendment has been adopted, a much simpler and less expensive form of District government can be devised-perhaps a small policy-making Council or Commission and a Governor to serve as a single administrator. In the meantime, the District Commissioners can carry on, as they have for many years, with somewhat better results than in most American cities; though we recognize that every government needs a periodic overhauling to systematize piecemeal expansion into a unified government.

Mr. SHARPE. Fundamentally the Committee of One Hundred is opposed to the home rule bill. We believe that the only genuine, positive action that can be taken by the Congress

Mr. HARRIS (interposing). May I inquire-perhaps I should know and this is for my own information-as to whom comprise the Committee of One Hundred?

Mr. SHARPE. The Committee of One Hundred is composed of about 250 to 300 citizens of the District of Columbia. The committee was formed and started by Mr. Frederic E. Delano, who was succeeded by Mr. Justice Roberts, and more recently by a Congressman from Virginia and then myself. Our sole objective is the advancement of the city as a Federal institution.

We believe sincerely-I have lived here for 45 years so I have a rather concrete, certain knowledge of the civic affairs-I have been occupied much of my time in the advancement of the city and I have never drawn a cent of pay directly or indirectly from any source, and therefore I speak free and uncontrolled.

We believe that where James Gibbons wrote his great book on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, another man will rise to write one on Washington if the Federal Government makes its sovereignty over to the District. We believe firmly, and the facts prove it, that all the advancements, all the beautifications, all the fine realities of living which are so apparent in this city, have been due primarily to the Federal Government.

It must be remembered also when you talk about re-ceding to Maryland of the District of Columbia that Maryland did not give the ground to the District of Columbia. Maryland simply passed sovereignty or jurisdiction over it and those who owned the land here sold it. The only thing that would then be owned by the Federal Government, frankly, would be the sites on which our Federal buildings stand and the streets, alleys, and parks; so that as I see it, there is not a conflict of practicality but a question of conflict between the commercial interests and private interests who have invested in real estate and the Federal Government.

We must realize as sensible men and women that it would be rather abnormal for an elected council to sit by and see the taxable area reduced by the acquisition of Federal sites and the tax rate inevitably going up. It just is not a normal process of thinking, in my judgment.

We feel that this bill has many advantages over the Auchincloss bill. We in no wise are attempting to define or to deny the rights or privileges of the so-called democratic principles, but we think the first step would be that of a constitutional amendment which will confer the franchise upon all those who live in the District of Columbia who do not vote elsewhere, that they may have representation in Congress and vote for the President and Vice President of the United States. I have been denied that since the days of Theodore Roosevelt when I cast my first vote for him, by the way. We have never had the right to vote for a President and for Members of Congress.

The home rule bill as written, I am sorry to say, is filled with inequities. Now Washington has progressed. I defy any person in this room or elsewhere to show me where there are superior facilities, say for garbage collection or ashes, or better street paving or good,