Mrs. HOWLETT. It is more expressive of your own wishes.

As far as my second role here, representing Mrs. C. Rhodes Cox, chairman of the board of trustees of All Souls' Church, I have already taken enough of your time that I think in this case I will ask permission to make her statement a part of the record.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Without objection, it will be included. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT ON HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PRESENTED BY MRS. C. RHODES COX, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ALL SOULS' UNITARIAN CHURCH

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee; I am Mrs. C. Rhodes Cox, chairman of the board of trustees of All Souls' Unitarian Church.

At the 1962 general assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association, meeting here in Washington, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: "Whereas democracy is the system of government established in the United States; and

"Whereas the residents of the District of Columbia live under colonial status with appointed rather than elected city officials; and

"Whereas the residents of the District of Columbia have previously experienced self-government for a period of 70 years; and

"Whereas the Senate of the United States has passed on five separate occasions by large majorities self-government measures for the District of Columbia; and

"Whereas the present colonial status is unfair to District residents and embarrassing to the U.S. Government: Therefore be it

"Resolved, That the Unitarian Universalist Association urge the Congress of the United States to return local self-government to the Capital of the Nation." This resolution was proposed by All Souls' Church and presented to the delegates by Dr. Howlett, our minister.

One of the principles on which Unitarian churches are founded is the democratic process in human relations. And although Unitarians and Universalists are not known for unanimity of belief on any issue, this is one tenet on which they find no room for difference. Our fellow Unitarians and Universalists from all parts of the United States are shocked by the fact that there is no democracy in the capital of the world's greatest democracy, that two fundamental principles of American democracy do not obtain here: the right of the people to choose those who govern them and the right to have no taxation without representation.

Apart from the injustice of disenfranchisement, the fact that Congress is required to act as a city council for the voteless citizens of the District of Columbia shortchanges the rest of the American people as well. It is unfair to them that the men and women whom they have elected to make the Nation's laws and to concern themselves with national and international affairs should have to cope with local problems.

We therefore urge you gentlemen to report a home rule bill to the House in order that that body may, in the democratic manner, debate the issue on its merits and then vote according to its convictions.

We thank you for this opportunity to express our views.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Any further questions?

Mr. HORTON. No questions.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Thank you.

Mrs. HOWLETT. The third capacity in which I am here is as a representative of the Women's Alliance of All Souls' Church (Unitarian) of Washington. Perhaps I could read that statement because this is really the capacity in which I came to be here.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. How long is that statement?

Mrs. HOWLETT. Very short, just a page and a fraction.

The members of our alliance first voted many years ago to support and work for home rule for the District of Columbia and we have periodically voted to reconfirm that position. Many of us are resi

dents and taxpayers to the District of Columbia and even those who now claim their residence elsewhere demonstrate their true concern for District affairs by their association with us inasmuch as we are related to a metropolitan church which is well known to be deeply committed to the welfare of this community and all of its citizens.

We favor home rule in principle because we fail to see by what logic the citizens of our Nation who exercise their democratic right to selfgovernment and seek to encourage allegiance to democratic ideals throughout the world would wish to deny those same rights to those of us who live in their Nation's Capital. Nor can we see why Members of Congress should be required to divert their energies from the tasks for which they are elected to involvement in our local affairs.

But we support home rule not only because we think it is right, but also because experience has shown us that without it we cannot have a government responsive to the needs of the people who live here. Many of our members work as active volunteers to understand and alleviate some of our city's gravest problems, seeking ways to reduce juvenile delinquency and crime, to revitalize declining neighborhoods and curb urban blight, to eliminate all forms of discrimination and to encourage efficient long-range planning for better education and other public services for the health and welfare of all our citizens. As we work in these areas, time and time again we meet with frustration and delay. We find that ultimately the power to change conditions which aggravate these problems lies in the hand of those who govern us but are not responsible to us.

Therefore, we of the Women's Alliance of All Souls' Church emphatically support home rule by public officials elected and responsible to the residents of Washington and urge the adoption of legislation designed to restore to us our democratic rights.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Any questions?

Mr. NELSEN. No questions.

Mr. HORTON. No questions.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mrs. Howlett, for being with us this morning.

Mrs. HOWLETT. Thank you for the opportunity.

I can't resist saying when you are all expressing such grave concern to understand the wishes and feelings of the residents of the District of Columbia, and as you expressed it, longing to vote, that one of the best ways to find out would be to ask us, and so I am very grateful to have been able to be here.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Quite welcome.

The next witness is Mrs. Jack Gottsegen, National Council of Jewish Women.

If you will come around, Mrs. Gottsegen.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JACK GOTTSEGEN, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF

JEWISH WOMEN

I

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. Thank you. I have a very brief statement. have respected the committee's request to keep the testimony to less than 5 minutes, and mine will take less than 5 minutes to read.

I am Mrs. Jack Gottsegen, a member of the National Committee on Public Affairs, of the National Council of Jewish Women, Inc. Our organization was founded in 1893 and has a current membership of 123,000 women in 329 local communities throughout the United States. We are gratified to have this opportunity to endorse the legislation which would give the residents of the District of Columbia local self-government.

Our program coordinates service projects with study and action on public affairs in areas of special interest to our membership. Our positions on issues are determined at our national conventions at which elected delegates from all parts of the country participate. Since 1930, these delegates have reaffirmed their belief that properly qualified citizens of the District of Columbia should be granted the right of self-government and representation in Congress. While our members recognize that all citizens of the United States have an interest in their Capital City, they see no conflict between that interest and congressional delegation of authority to the residents of the District for determination of matters which are not primarily of Federal con

cern.

Our District of Columbia section, founded in 1895, has appeared before congressional committees in past sessions of Congress and has also authorized me to reaffirm its support of legislation which would lead to representative self-government for the residents of this city. We believe that the basic issue is the right of all citizens to enjoy both the privilege and responsibility of local self-determination, subject to the provisions of the Federal Constitution. Residents of the District already have responsibilities as Americans-we pay Federal and local taxes, we serve in the Armed Forces, and we are concerned and affected by the many domestic and foreign problems now confronting us. However, we have no elected represntative in Congress and we have no voice in the choice of our own local officials. We urge that you remedy this situation by approving legislation which would delegate to locally elected officials the management of our local affairs.

We would like to comment briefly on a few of the provisions which should be incorporated in such legislation to attain this goal.

1. We believe that the chief executive, as well as members of the city council, should be elected by properly qualified voters. We are well aware of the dedication and interest of many members of the congressional committees on the District of Columbia in District problems, but we have had no voice in their election, nor can they spend sufficient time away from important national matters on the District's complex urban problems, such as crime, traffic, schools, welfare, and health. In addition, all Members of Congress must vote when District legislation reaches the floor and they cannot be expected to inform themselves fully on the issues which are brought to them for action.

2. This city has a population of over 750,000. The District government must also be concerned with matters which many other cities do not have because we are not part of a State government. We therefore suggest that a city council of 15 members, elected from properly apportioned districts or wards, would be more desirable than a legislative body of 7 or 9 members.

3. We believe that adoption of the budget by the city council and its determination of how our tax money is expended is an important element in self-government.

4. We commend the borrowing and other financing provisions in such bills as H.R. 461, 503, and 5794. These appear to give us the flexibility needed to finance our program and at the same time limit the government from overextending itself and insure its ability to repay its debts.

5. The Federal interest is protected in the legislation before you. Even if these provisions were not spelled out, the Constitution of the United States gives Congress ultimate authority to act whenever it sees fit. We would hope, of course, that Congress will do so only on matters concerning the interests of the Federal Government and relieve itself of the necessity to take action on the minutiae of purely municipal matters.

6. The residents of this city should not feel that the legislation has been forced upon them. We therefore support the provision for a referendum so that a majority of the residents of the District will have the final decision of acceptance of the charter.

In conclusion, we are confident that District citizens will make as competent an electorate as our fellow citizens throughout the United States. We therefore respectfully urge that this committee approve a bill which would delegate the fullest exercise of local self-government possible under the Constitution to the citizens who reside in the District of Columbia.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Questions?

Mr. NELSEN. Do you have any preference as to the bills that we have introduced? I notice you have referred to H.R. 5794 and I think you referred to H.R. 503. The first is the administration's bill.

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. Yes, sir. As we have gone over our own principles and as I have enumerated them, all of these, with the exception of size of council, are on the Multer and Cohelan bills. In other words, the administration bills primarily.

Mr. NELSEN. The administration has 9 council members and you have 15; do you not?

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. We suggest that it be changed to 15, but basically the administration bill seems to fit our own position; yes.

Mr. NELSEN. Thank you very much.

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HORTON. I would just like to thank the lady. I know the National Council of Jewish Women do take a great interest in the affairs not only of the District but also across the country in local government. I think it is a well-worded statement. It shows some thought on the part of your group and certainly comes to grips with specific proposals. Would you tell me whether you have studied the Kyl bill?

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. We had not studied it when the hearings were conducted in November. We have discussed it some years previous because the retrocession idea is not new, of course. Since then we have had another meeting and we have discussed the Kyl bill. I found that our members were not in support of the Kyl bill, primarily becausefrankly, we are very proud of being residents of the District of Columbia, the Capital City. We are fearful that narrowing the District to that very small area would really be harmful to the interests of

the Federal Government. We think it is much safer for the District of Columbia to stay the way we are so that whatever Federal interests are involved will be better protected than by sending us over to Maryland where, as someone I think quoted, perhaps it was Mr. Kennedy when he testified here in November, you might even have to ask for a permit to have a parade for a visiting official in Maryland.

We feel the interests of the Federal Government would be best preserved by keeping the District of Columbia as it is and giving us our local voice.

Mr. HORTON. Do you have any opinion about the Mathias bill which would be to elect a Delegate to the House?

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. Yes; we do. We have supported as part of themany home-rule bills have always contained the nonvoting Delegate to the House of Representatives. We do support that. I would not say we would feel this is what we are here today to ask for if it was just that bill. We prefer that plus the other provisions of the homerule legislation.

Mr. HORTON. Thank you very much.

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. You are welcome, sir.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. If there are no further questions-thank you, Mrs. Gottsegen. I have heard the bells ring.

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask for a point of information? I am very grateful that I have had this opportunity to testify but there are many people here. Is there any schedule of further hearings? Can you give us some information as to whether

Mr. HUDDLESTON. The chairman had to leave. But there will be another meeting of the subcommittee in the near future and the witnesses will be advised. Certainly the subcommittee apologizes to everyone who was here today, but time didn't permit them to be heard.

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. At this point no specific time has been scheduled? Mr. HUDDLESTON. So far as I know he hasn't set a specific date, but it will be in the near future.

Mrs. GOTTSEGEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, might there not be some people here who would like to file a statement?

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Of course. Anyone who would like to file a statement rather than present it in person at the next hearing of the committee, we would be happy to receive their statement.

STATEMENT OF HUVER I. BROWN, ON BEHALF OF THE OLDEST INHABITANTS, INC., OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I am Huver Brown representing the Oldest Inhabitants. I have a statement which this association has authorized me to present.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Fine, Mr. Brown. We will incorporate it in the record at this point without objection.

(The document referred to follows:)

RESOLUTION PRESENTED BY THE OLDEST INHABITANTS, INC., OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

Whereas the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties declared in their platforms in 1960 home rule for the District of Columbia; Whereas, in the platform of the Republican Party of 1960, declared that "we shall not compromise on the fundamental civil rights of any citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution;