Mr. MATTHEWS. I will be delighted. Mr. MULTER. I have in my hands five volumes of argument for and against home rule beginning back in 1947. I am sure by the time this committee gets through with its hearings, it will probably have as much again. The matter of home rule in the District has been debated on and off the floor, in and out of committee, and will continue to be, even long after a home rule bill is either rejected or adopted by the House of Representatives, and whether you have 1 hour of debate or 50 hours of debate, I think the gentleman will agree with me that none of the opponents of home rule will change their minds about it. They will still be opposed to it and the 1 hour of general debate on the floor, I am sure he will agree, is not going to change any votes and the 2 days of general debate will not change any votes and the 4 hours of debate on the substitute will not change any votes. I think this House is ready tomorrow to vote home rule up or down and we ought to give it the opportunity to do that. If you want long debate, if you want 2 days' debate, you can have it under the second rule. If you want 4 hours more debate on the substitute, you can have it. Surely that is enough, is it not? Mr. MATTHEWs. Mr. Chairman, I do not want this to be sidetracked into an argument between the able gentleman from New York and myself. He is a far more able debater but I would like to again express my amazement that he still defends his original discharge petition when in that particular petition he would only permit those gentleman of his own viewpoint to offer amendments. He would go so far contrary to the democratic principles in which I know he believes that he would say to the proud Members of the House of Representatives, "Unless you believe exactly like I do, you have no right to stand up here and offer amendments," and I am amazed that my beloved colleague still defends his position on that original discharge petition, granting only 1 hour of debate, permitting only those who are authors of the discharge petition resolution to offer any amendments. I am amazed and I still cannot believe that my beloved colleague really means exactly what he is saying here. Mr. MULTER. You see, sir, if I may, Mr. Chairman, our distinguished colleague's amazement is only slightly less than my own amazement that despite the fact we now give him all the debate he wants, he still does not want the House to work its will on this bill. Let's not get sidetracked from the issue by talking about 1 hour's debate and no amendments. You now have the opportunity in this committee to bring forth the kind of a bill you want and offer it to the House. You now under this new rule have the opportunity to bring forth the kind of bill and offer the kind of amendments that you want by way of that bill, but you are still not willing to do it. You do not want the opportunity. You people who are opposed, pardon me, the gentlemen who are opposed to home rule, offered the challenge. You wanted more debate. You said this was a gag rule. We accepted the challenge. We offered you a compromise. First we called on you to tell us what kind of a rule and debate you wanted. When you did not come forward, we came forward with what we considered a very liberal rule. Mr. MATTHEWs. The gentleman does not know how I will vote on the discharge petition, does he? You know I come from a section in the country where sometimes only gracious Providence knows how we are going to vote at the last minute. Have I told the gentleman how I will vote? We are having these hearings for me to make up my own mind, and the gentleman is so persuasive he does not know how much effect he has had on my vote. Mr. MULTER. I will escort you to the floor at 12 o'clock and watch you sign the petition. Mr. MATTHEWs. I have not promised that. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Wheeler. Mr. WHEELER. I might allude to this fact that it took the greatest deliberating body in the United States only about 55 minutes to pass the home-rule bill about a month or two ago. Mr. MATTHEWS. May I have the floor, Mr. Chairman ? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Mr. MATTHEWS. Coming back to that point, as I recall the testimony in the other body, did they have any opposing witnesses to appear for home rule? Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir. Mr. MATTHEWS. I recall there were two or three. Mr. WHEELER. There were a number. I do not know the exact number. I was not at the hearings. Mr. MATTHEWS. You cannot criticize the other body. Our Speaker is very careful about critical observations, but I sometimes wonder, if, perhaps, even though they are the great deliberative body, if they might not hasten some of these things. Is it proper to make that humble observation, Mr. Chairman? Mr. DAVIS. I hear no objection. Mr. MATTHEWS. Excuse me, Mr. Wheeler. Mr. DAVIS. While you are on that subject, as a matter of information, do you know how many Members of the other body were on the floor when this bill was passed? Mr. WHEELER. No; but there was no quorum call and there was no request that there be a quorum call. I assume there was a majority of Members of the House on the floor. Mr. DAVIS. I have heard to the contrary. I did not know whether you were there. Mr. WHEELER. I was not there. In the time allotted me, I have only been able to skim the surface of this nationwide support for home rule. But I can say that the people of our country at last have become aware of the plight of the people here and are indignant. From all quarters come calls for restoring self-government to the city. I now return to the situation here in the District. I know that the overwhelming majority of the people in the District of Columbia are in favor of home rule. As you will recall, in the plebiscites held back in the late 1940's, home rule proponents built up a tremendous majority over the opposition. In our own Demo cratic primary in the District of Columbia in 1952 and 1956 there was a question placed upon the ballot seeking to determine the views of the electorate toward home rule. In each of these cases the clear majority of the people of the District of Columbia voted in favor of home rule. In 1956 there were 18,000 votes cast in favor of home rule compared with 1,200 against a 15 to 1 ratio in Democratic primary. I submit to you that this is convincing evidence of the propor tion of the people in the District of Columbia in favor of home rule as contrasted to those opposed to it. There are a number of very good reasons why the people of the District of Columbia favor home rule apart from the obvious ideological reason. Perhaps the most persuasive practical reason is that the laws of the District of Columbia have become stagnant by virtue of our existing system. As you know, in order for a local law to be enacted in the Senate it must pass on the Consent Calendar. During the last 50 years few local laws except home rule legislation, taxation, and appropriation legislation have been debated on the floor of the Senate. It is far too busy a deliberating body to be concerned with local District of Columbia matters. Consequently, our laws have become archaic and stagnant. Any controversial legislation can always muster a negative Senate vote, thereby requiring full debate on the floor of the Senate. It was only recently that our corporation laws were overhauled because Senators from Delaware feared that the District of Columbia would be competitive to the Delaware corporation laws if they were modernized. It was only recently that our archaic laws affecting distribution and descent were changed. These laws were more than 200 years old. I could cite numerous other examples of the archaic laws of the District of Columbia resulting from the temporary commissioner forms of government which was later made permanent. Another consideration which impels me to comment is the sad state of affairs affecting District expenditures for schools and public welfare. In each of the categories the District ranks 49th among all States and districts in the Union (State and Local Government Finances in 1957; Bureau of the Census advance releases, February 1959, p. 23). This means the District spends less money for education and public welfare than any other State or district in the Union. Moreover, the District of Columbia in the past has had one of the highest serious crime rates of any State or district in the Union. I submit to you that if the city government were directly responsive to the people, the District's plight would be remedied promptly and the Federal City would be a much better place to live for all of us. Mr. MATTHEWS (presiding). Will you yield, Mr. Wheeler? Mr. MATTHEWS. We have information that indicates that the District does not rank 49th among all States and districts in the Union and with your permission, I would like to check my files and insert at this point in the record the information that we have with the statement that this is the information that we have. (The information referred to is as follows:) Current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance for public elementary Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1957, p. 104, U.S. Department of Total expenditures for public welfare, in the 13 U.S. cities with populations Source: Compendium of City Government Finances, 1956. U.S. Department of Com- Mr. WHEELER. This publication that I have, Mr. Matthews, is called Mr. MATTHEWS. Is that per capita or the gross amount? That might Mr. WHEELER. Gross amount. Mr. MATTHEWs. You would not actually be able to tell unless it were Mr. WHEELER. I would like to take a look at that. I am not quite Mr. MATTHEWS. I wanted to point that out. Mr. WHEELER. I will submit the publication in the record at this point, also. (The information to be supplied was not available at time of going to press.) Mr. WHEELER. I would like to comment upon certain provisions of the bill, H.R. 4630, in which we suggest certain amendments. First, with respect to section 810, page 61, this section provides for a nonpartisan election. The Democrats in the District are opposed to it. We believe that the strength of our system of government is in bipartisanship, not nonpartisanship. We think partisanship is a virtue and an asset rather than a liability. There are numerous benefits which redound to the public benefit by virtue of partisanship: (1) leadership can be made more responsive through party council; (2) there will be a larger participation by voters because intensive efforts will be made both by the candidate and by the party; (3) party leadership assures a greater continuity of economic, social, and ideological policies; and (4) assumption by the parties of greater responsibility because of the desire by the party for continuity in office. Moreover, nonpartisanship could easily create a third, or possibly more, parties. This has been the experience with nonpartisanship in Virginia. I submit to you that the multiparty system is as bad as the no-party system. Our democratic experiment is based upon the two-party system which I believe is fundamental to the success of democracy. I would like to suggest an amendment with respect to section 805, page 56, and section 311, page 61. As I read these sections, they provide for the nomination by wards and election by the District at large. Conceivably the language could be read to mean nomination by wards and election by wards. I believe that the candidates should be nominated at large and elected at large. If this type of procedure in nomination and election is followed, the city will obtain the best possible leadership and would not be inhibited by ward boundaries. The city is ont so large that our neighbors in different sections are unfamiliar with the problems of other sections of the city or that the problems of the city are so complex and peculiar that the people in one district will not be able to understand those of another. Moreover, such an election at large and nomination at large avoids all problems of gerrymandering which are inherent in the construction of any artificial boundary lines. It will also avoid the establishment of a ward political system with its tightly disciplined organization. Party organiation will insure the best cross section of nominees. On the whole, the advantages of an election at large far exceed any disadvantages. Mr. BROYHILL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MATTHEWs. Mr. Broyhill. Mr. BROYHILL. I want to commend your statement regarding partisan elections and state that in substance I agree wholeheartedly with you. Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, sir. Mr. BROYHILL. However, there is a question I have in mind. It is a serious question that we have over in some of our sections in northern Virginia. That is in respect to the fact that we have a large number of Federal employees, the Federal Government being our |