Mr. SISK. Yes; we sometimes are bound to be, let us say, dispensable. Mr. Chairman, I appear this morning on behalf of H.R. 10115. Mr. Chairman, I think the reading of the very fine discussion of the various bills prepared by the staff, and I do want to compliment the staff on the summaries of the many different approaches that are here, and I think the fact that we do have this many approaches is a very strong statement in support of my particular bill, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHITENER. May I interrupt you at this point? I overlookedwe will place this analysis in the record immediately prior to the testimony of Mr. Sisk. Mr. SISK. Thank you. (The analysis referred to faces this page.) Mr. SISK. I commend the staff, because I think they have done an excellent job, and it seems to me that as we look at this whole situation with reference to home rule, that the approach which I have chosen as a route to secure as much municipal government and local government as is possible under the Constitution of the United States is the best approach, because of what it does, in essence, and I will briefly outline the provisions of H.R. 10115. It provides, first, for a referendum, that the people may make a determination on a single issue, whether or not they desire home rule. Let me here depart a moment to say that each time this question comes up someone raises the question that, well, there have been a number of referendums. But in checking back over these in each case, they have been referendums in primaries in which other items were involved and very frankly, I do think that we should have a referendum by the people of the District of Columbia to make this determination, so my bill provides, No. 1, that a special election would be set up and be held within 100 days after the passage of this legislation, if the Congress saw fit to enact it, and they would make their determination and at the same time, if they decided-if the majority of the voters decided in favor of home rule, they would elect a 15-man charter board which would be empowered to hold hearings, to secure the finest expertise in America to develop the type and kind of city government which would most adequately fit the peculiar problems and programs and situations in this area. The charter board would be given 7 months in which to make this study, in which to hold their hearings, in which to pull together a charter for the city of Washington. I might say this is in line with what is done in the majority of States of our Nation. This is identical to the procedures followed in the State of California. I understand that it is almost identical to the procedures followed in the State of Maryland, an adjoining State here, where a city seeking either a charter, or, a chartered city, because of problems within its government desiring to draw a new charter, is allowed by it, under the authority of the legislature of the State, to go through the procedure of electing what we call in California, a board of freeholders. I am calling it in this case a charter board, which is empowered to draw up the type and kind of city government which they believe most applicable and best suited for their particular city. Whether it be a strong mayor form of government, a city manager, or a partisan or a nonpartisan form of government, this would be so. So, this, of course, is, as I say, what is provided for in this legislation. The charter board at the end of 7 months must have completed their work and reported it to the people of the District in the form of, again, a referendum, where the people by majority vote it up or down. Now, if they accept the charter which has been drawn by 15 of their own people, it is submitted to the Congress of the United States where it will lie on the desks of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President of the Senate for 90 calendar days. At the end of the 90 calendar days, if Congress has taken no action, it automatically becomes law and is in full effect. The Congress, by approving the resolution, act immediately once it was reported to the House and to the Senate, or either House could pass a dissenting resolution. In other words, any one of these three things could happen. If either body of the Congress passes a dissenting resolution, then it is dead and we are right back where we are now. This is the sum and substance of my proposal. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that after having followed rather closely for the past 10 or 11 years the discussions on home rule and in discussions with local people, it seemed to me there was a great deal of misunderstanding, a great deal of confusion, as to what we were talking about when we were talking about home rule, because I believe that the Constitution very clearly provides for certain responsibility and jurisdiction by the Congress over the District of Columbia. Anything we do in the area of permitting home rule or permitting local government, must conform to our Constitution, else, of course, it will be thrown out anyway. There are those who feel that a constitutional amendment would be required to permit full and complete local government. I hope and I believe that it is possible with certain rights being retained in the Congress, that we could have substantial local government pertaining to the things, for example, mentioned by my good friend from New York, Mr. Horton, a few moments ago in his statement, things that deal with local problems, having to do with streets, sewers, signs and things of this kind-and certainly all cities in the country where they have local government are able to take care of these problems and it seems to me that Congress could be relieved of a lot of tedious and detailed work of this kind. It is my hope that this approach will permit true democracy to work, and if they come up with a proposition that is unconstitutional it will be thrown out anyway. If it is something too farfetched Congress will certainly not approve it. The bill of course provides that at all times Congress retains the right to amend this charter and to make changes. It also provides for amendments to the charter by referendum by the people within the city and in the final analysis it provides for Presidential veto over all acts of such a city government. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take a lot of the committee's time. I have generally tried to outline as briefly as possible what we have in mind here. I would like to close with this one comment. I have no idea what type of government a 15-man charter board might develop. I think none of us know. I have been told that the present bill as passed by the Senate is the product of probably about the same group of people who might prepare a charter. On the other hand, I have been told by a great many people in the District, people who have called on me, that they have felt that they have been substantially left out. It seems to me that it is in the truest, in the finest form of democratic procedure to permit the total electorate of this city to elect a board of qualified persons from among their own members, and I am sure they would be qualified men of judgment, and permit them, after securing the best experise they can get, to draw up the type and kind of government that will suit and will fit this purpose. One further thing that I would like to mention. Whether or not they might draw up a form of partisan government which is what is presently proposed-or not-I want to say this-that I will defend it, once it has been drawn up. If it is constitutional, if it conforms to the Constitution of the United States, I will certainly defend it and hope that it will be adopted. Just to express my own thoughts I know one of the great problems that we have had here not only this year, but in past years, is the problem of so-called minority representation on a city council or a city commission and so on. I am speaking now of providing a governmentproviding a partisan government that is not solely dominated by one party. I personally would hope that this whole question could be handled very easily by simply providing for a nonpartisan or bipartisan, if you wish to call it, procedure of local government within the District as this is done in many cities and in many States of our country. In my own area we do not have partisan elections at city and county levels, and it has worked. I come from a city that is 2 to 1 Democratic-that is, Democratic registrations well over 2 to 1 against that of the Republican Party. But our city elections, our city council, city mayor, all officials are elected in a nonpartisan election. There has never been a case in my memory but what there have been members of both parties on that city council and they have served as mayor. Right at the moment in my hometown we have a Republican mayor. Immediately preceding there was a mayor who was a Democrat. The man who immediately preceded him was a Republican who served for many years and in fact was my opponent at one time as a candidate for Congress. The city council at the present time I think is broken down some 4 to 3, I believe. The point I am making is this could relieve the whole hassle over attempting to devise what I think a rather distorted formula to set up a provision so that the entire city council or commission or whatever type of government it is is not wholly and completely dominated by one party. Of course, as I say, again, my bill provides for this whole question. to be resolved by the charter board, subiect of course, to the approval or disapproval of the Congress and I am only again expressing here my own general feeling with reference to some of the reasons why I object to a number of the approaches that have been proposed by some of my good friends and colleagues. Mr. Chairman, that ends my statement and I would ask unanimous consent or ask permission, Mr. Chairman, that I might submit a written statement for the record in addition to the remarks here. Mr. WHITENER. So ordered. (The statement referred to is as follows:) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF HON. B. F. SISK Mr. Chairman, of the proposals perennially before Congress in recent years, few have been more persistent or less successful than those which would grant home rule to the District of Columbia. Not only has there been a lack of agreement on whether home rule should be granted at all, there has also been a noticeable absence of consensus among home rule advocates as to what specific form home rule should take if it were to come about. Moreover, there are those who question whether the people of the District even want home rule. This much is clear: the whole problem is in need of a fresh approach. The basic deficiency with previous attempts to establish local selfgovernment in the District has been that they have tried to hand down to the people of Washington a municipal government from on high. To proceed in this fashion violates the very essence of home rule which is to allow the residents of the city to regulate their own purely local affairs. If home rule is ever to succeed it must be on the basis of a form of local government which has come up from the grassroots, not down from Congress. H.R. 10115 would achieve precisely this purpose. To settle once and for all the question of whether the people of the District really want home rule the bill provides for the calling of a referendum in which the matter would be placed directly to the people. Simultaneously with the referendum would be held an election to select a 15member, nonpartisan District of Columbia Charter Board. If the home rule proposition were approved, the Charter Board would be charged with the responsibility of drafting a local self-government charter which would then be submitted to the voters within 8% months of the first referendum. The charter, if approved in this second referendum, would be transmitted to Congress for its consideration. If Congress neither specifically approved nor disapproved the proposed charter within 90 days it would automatically take effect. Although it would grant the Charter Board the widest permissible latitude in framing a charter, the bill is consistent with the constitutional requirement that Congress retain ultimate legislative responsibility for the Nation's Capital. Although Congress could not and should not be denied the right to pass specific legislation for the District, the bill contemplates that Congress would exercise its legislative prerogative over the District only by means of amending whatever charter might be adopted rather than passing on specific acts of the District government. Provision is made for a Presidential veto of specific ordinances, although the President's positive assent would not be required for an ordinance to take effect. The merits of this approach to home rule should be obvious. First, it would establish home rule only if the people of Washington really desire it. Second, it would allow the people to propose the kind of municipal government which they themselves want. Third, it would protect the Federal interest. Finally, it would free Congress of a task for which it is ill suited: Sitting as a city council for the city of Washington. |