HOME RULE HEARINGS TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:30 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Basil L. Whitener (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Whitener (chairman), Williams, Dowdy, Grider, Horton, Nelsen, Roudebush, and Broyhill. Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel: Donald Tubridy, minority clerk; and Leonard O. Hilder, investigator. Mr. WHITENER. Subcommittee No. 5 will now come to order. We will resume the hearings which commenced last week. We are delighted to have with us one of the members of the Committee on the District of Columbia, Representative at Large of Maryland Carlton R. Sickles. Mr. Sickles, we are glad to hear from you. Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I should like to propound a question. When these hearings commenced last week, the chairman made a very clear statement, I thought, as to what his intentions were and what the plans of the committee would be in trying to expedite these hearings, and to dispose of the subject matter before us. The chairman of the full committee went even further, to offer an explanation of why there had been so much delay as there was in getting to this matter, pointing out that there were other problems of greater priority that had to be closed out first. I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman of the committee dignify any charges or threats that have been directed against this committee; but it is a strange situation here, when we have a committee acting on a matter properly before it, a very complicated as well as controversial matter, and yet, at the same time, having a petition being filed to discharge the committee from jurisdiction over the subject. Actually, statements are being made to the effect the committee is operating under a farce or sham, or not being honest. I am not quoting anybody's words, but the implication is that we are not being forthright, by conducting these hearings. I know that every member of this committee has other duties and responsibilities. I have another committee meeting this morning. I don't like to be here every morning attending hearings, undergoing an exercise in futility. Many Members of the House are very much concerned about this subject, and are somewhat confused as to what is actually going on. Certain Members have asked me, "Are we going to dispose of this matter? Are we going to act on any particular proposal?" These are Members who are most reluctant to sign a discharge petition. Now, as the chairman knows, it is the right of every Member of the Congress to do as he sees fit, insofar as signing a discharge petition is concerned, but I seriously doubt, Mr. Chairman, if the majority of the Members of the House would sign a petition to discharge this committee if they understood that we intend to dispose of the matter which is before us in a proper and orderly manner. Now, my question to the Chair is whether we might perhaps have a little reassurance that this is the intention, certainly, of the chairman, and whether it is the intention of the other members of the committee, if at all possible, to dispose of this matter promptly and expeditiously, and vindicate us all before the House, according to the will of the committee. Mr. WHITENER. As to the matter of threats which the gentleman refers to, I don't know that we should be concerned. We all have a sworn responsibility here, as well as a high moral duty to do what is best for the country, and if some Member of Congress wants to sign a discharge petition, I don't construe that as a threat, as far as I am personally concerned. I would express the hope that anyone signing a petition would at least go to the trouble of looking at the various proposals that are before us and determine, first, whether he can say that any one proposal is so meritorious as compared to others, that he ought to sign a petition to bring out a particular bill, which may merely be the idea of some individual or some small group. As the gentleman knows from reading the papers, there are some members of our own committee who are leading in this so-called discharge petition movement. That is a matter for them to decide, and not for us. As far as I see, what this subcommittee should do is proceed with the hearings. The proper democratic way is give the people, the Members of Congress, and the citizens alike, an opportunity to express themselves on an issue which is not only of importance to the District of Columbia, but which is important to the people throughout the Nation. I apprehend, from having talked to some Members of Congress who have told me that they are going to sign the discharge petition, that they are going to do all they can to get home rule, but that in the future, they are going to leave the District of Columbia to its own ways, as far as financing itself is concerned, and that they are going to get that one-third of the cost of operating the District of Columbia off the backs of the people that they represent. One member from the Deep South told us that he was always opposed to the so-called home rule bill, but he thought that maybe we ought to go ahead, and just let them run their own city, if they want to do it. I doubt whether many Members of Congress have even gone to the trouble of reading the analysis of the various bills that the staff has prepared. While I have no particular comment, to answer the gentleman's question, except to say that I think it is our duty to carry out our mission of giving the people the right to make a record. I think that the least that any Member of Congress ought to expect, before passing upon an issue of this kind, would be to have a record to which he could resort in order to assist him to make up his mind. The gentleman from Virginia and I have been here awhile, and I know that there are certain titles that you can put on a piece of legislation, and you can get it voted for by some Members, apparently, regardless of the language of the bill. The main purpose that we are concerned with here, I think, is give our colleagues and the public an opportunity to understand and see what the issues are; then form a judgment, based on that information. If a discharge petition is signed by enough Members to discharge this committee, then I suppose that we then cut off the voice of the people and let our friends vote in whatever degree of darkness that they desire to vote. It is just that simple. Mr. BROYHILL. Gentlemen, if the Chair yields. Mr. WHITENER. Yes. Mr. BROYHILL. I don't know of any precedent for a committee of Congress being discharged by a majority of the Members, from jurisdiction over any legislation which that committee is actively considering at the time, and I propounded the question merely to add emphasis to the fact that the committee is properly and actively considering the matter which is presently before it, and I am confident that if a majority of the Members of the House understand that we are acting as expeditiously as possible, they will not sign a petition to discharge the committee from the jurisdiction of this matter. Mr. WHITENER. I might say, gentlemen, I have here in my hand, a petition signed by, the staff tells me, approximately 400 people in one little section of the District of Columbia. They are saying that they do not think that any home rule legislation should be enacted. So there is a difference of opinion in the community, a substantial difference of opinion, and a very strong difference of opinion throughout the Nation and in the Congress. If it is the purpose of others to say that they are not going to give these people a chance to be heard, whether they are for or against it, then that does not militate against me. We just do the best we can. Mr. GRIDER. Mr. Chairman, will you yield for a moment. Mr. GRIDER. I am one of the men who is going to sign the discharge petition, and I don't want to fail to respond to the statement that we are cutting off the voice of the people. I think a record has been made in this matter and recognizing that I am a first termer, but nonetheless, I know the history of home rule legislation. I know that on six occasions, the other body has passed home rule legislation. I know that there never has been a bill reported out of this committee, and I cannot agree with the chairman's statement that by voting to discharge this committee, we are cutting off the voice of the people. I think this committee perhaps, inadvertently, through its action, has effectively done just that, itself, by not reporting out a bill. The opportunity to have hearings has been present for a good period of time and much of the legislation which we have coped with during this session would have been unnecessary had the District had its own affairs in its own hands. Thank you, sir. Mr. WHITENER. Just let me say for the record, the gentleman is incorrect in his study of the history of this type of legislation. It is true that the Senate has on several occasions passed so-called home rule legislation, but I am informed that it has never been the same legislation. It has been a different bill every time; so they have gone uphill and downhill. Now, as to his statement that the House committee has never reported out home rule legislation, I am advised that in 1948, when Senator Dirksen was serving as chairman of this committee in the House of Representatives, a bill was reported out and was debated for 3 days on the floor of the House. Mr. GRIDER. I stand corrected. I did not know that. Mr. WHITENER. The gentleman's statement as to the history, I am sure, is unintentionally incorrect. Mr. Sickles. STATEMENT OF HON. CARLTON R. SICKLES, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE OF MARYLAND Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I have a prepared statement which is unfortunately a little lengthy and as has been done with other colleagues I would appreciate the opportunity to file it for the record and make just a few brief comments. Mr. WHITENER. Without objection, we will make it a part of the record. Mr. SICKLES. I sincerely thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify in support of S. 1118, which passed the Senate on July 22, and is now pending before the subcommittee. In my opinion this bill, if enacted into law, will provide a strong and workable charter for the District of Columbia. It is an excellent vehicle for restoring local self-government to the citizens of the Nations' Capital. Since much time has been spent on the problem of home rule and much testimony has been taken by this committee and the Senate District Committee, perhaps I could summarize the thrust of my remarks by stating my suppport for home rule now. And the time for home rule is now. We are at a point in history when our international and domestic problems are of such magnitude that we can no longer impose upon Congress and the Nation the unnecessary burden of enacting local legislation for the Nation's Capital. We are at a point in history when District residents, as a matter of right, ought to be allowed to choose their own local officials and be participants in the democratic process. We are at a point in history when we should give local residents the opportunity for better government under home rule, government. that would be more responsive to the needs of the people of the District and more efficient in meeting those needs. We have before us today the sixth Senate-passed bill in recent years authorizing home rule. We have before us today a bill strongly supported by the President of the United States, who in February of this year sent a historic message to the Congress urging home rule. We have before us today a proposition that was endorsed by over 80 percent of District residents who voted in the 1964 referendum on home rule. This is not a new bill before us. It is a carefully distilled approach to the problem supported by both Federal officials and the local officials and organizations. The major provisions of this bill have been available to the committee since February. In April of this year seven District Committee members asked that early hearings be held on H.R. 4644, which is similar to S. 1118. In testifying before the subcommittee today, I wish to emphasize that my support for S. 1118 is in no way a reflection on the ability or attitude of the existing members of the House District of Columbia Committee. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the actions of this committee, it must be recognized that much valuable congressional time and effort has been spent by the committee members in legislating on subjects ranging from a mass transit aid to the current level of Federal payment. My support for the discharge petition, however, does reflect dissatisfaction with the reluctance of this committee to allow the House to work its will on the subject of home rule. I would like to make it clear at the outset of my testimony that I did not come here today to abolish this committee-it will still be needed to consider legislation affecting the District that is of national importance. I did not come here today to abolish the Constitutionthe delegation of authority contained in S. 1118 is certainly within the scope of the Constitution and the Federal payment provisions of the bill do not do violence to the appropriations authority of this House. I did not come here today to abolish the District's problems because these problems will still exist under home rule. I do advocate the enactment of S. 1118 because it contains delicate balances of the Federal and local interest that must be preserved in the governing of the Nation's Capital because it embodies a form of home rule that is consistent with both the letter and spirit of our Constitution, and because it provides a better vehicle for the local citizens to attack locally the problems that plague each of our major cities. I will not burden the subcommittee, or take its valuable time, by going into any great detail regarding the contents of the bill. Briefly the bill provides: First. An elected mayor and an elected 19-member city council, 5 to be elected at large with not more than 3 thereof to be a member of the same political party and the other 14 elected, 1 from each of 14 wards. Councilmen's terms will be 4 years with terms to be staggered on a 2 year basis. Second. An elected nonvoting delegate to the House of Representatives to have the same powers as those now granted to a territorial delegate. Third. The council to be vested with local legislative power, including taxing and borrowing authority. subiect to certain enumerated restrictions and to the overriding power of the Congress-to repeal. amend, or initiate local legislation and to modify or revoke the charter itself: the council to assume functions presently carried out by the Board of Commissioners, which would be abolished. The council to control the city's financial affairs, to borrow for capital improvements, prepare and approve an annual budget, and provide for the payment of bonds and notes, and so forth. Fourth. A provision for a Federal payment by the Congress to the District of Columbia annually, with such to provide an automatic |