They have a matter of practically 100 delegates from the respective citizens associations, and those delegates elect the Executive Board as well as the President, the Secretary and other officials. Mr. DOWDY. Thank you, sir. I believe that is all of the questions we have. Thank you. Mr. Dowdy. We appreciate your coming. I understand that completes our list of witnesses for today, but I am advised that Mr. Nevius is here. Do you have a statement that you would like to make, Mr. Nevius, or would you rather wait? Mr. NEVIUS. I would be happy to do it at the Chairman's pleasure. Mr. Dowdy. Well, if you are prepared, you might come around now. STATEMENT OF JOHN A. NEVIUS, FORMER MEMBER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL Mr. NEVIUS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee: As a lifelong Republican and a D.C. resident whose family roots in our nation's capital city go back well over a century now, I am both honored and proud of the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Administration's bills to create additional suffrage for me and by fellow citizens in the District of Columbia. I hope you will indulge a brief reminder at the start about the bipartisan history of the local movement for self-government. While sometimes overlooked, the fact is that from its inception nearly a quarter of a century ago, the Washington Home Rule Committee, of which I am a Vice President, has included substantial Republican membership, and indeed for many years one of its cochairman has been a prominent local party official, Edward Burling, Jr. Several other members of the D.C. Republican Committee, on which I serve, have also been active in the Home Rule Committee, as well. Indeed, when the question was presented on the District GOP primary ballot a few years ago, a majority of the registered D.C. Republican voting expressed favorably for the principle of local home rule. It should be remembered that the first home rule bill in the House of Representatives to receive the serious attention of its members was sponsored by Representative James Auchincloss, Republican from New Jersey, and, while I have not researched this, it is my recollection that President Eisenhower expressed support for D.C. self-government while he was in the White House. self NON-VOTING DELEGATE IN HOUSE AND CHARTER COMMISSION Thus, it was building upon a solid record of Republican involvement when one of the first things to which President Nixon addressed himupon entering the White House was furtherance of home rule for the District. Well over a year ago he publicly proclaimed this objective as a priority item in his program and promptly set about preparation of legislative proposals to that end. Within only a couple of months thereafter, assisted by the Republican leadership in the House and Minority members of the District Committee, the President had worked out the provisions of H.R. 11215 and H.R. 11216 now before you, and they were introduced by Mr. Nelsen and his GOP colleagues by the middle of last May. Since then the White House and House Republicans have worked hard to further the progress of these bills, giving priority ahead of them only the pressing matter of a crime bill. I am confident that this active GOP leadership will continue in the cause of additional suffrage for District citizens this year, and I am proud that our Republican President is moving forward in partnership with the Democratic Party in the bipartisan manner this cause deserves. The second point, Mr. Chairman, is to emphasize the remarkable breadth of local support for these two bills. Notwithstanding the many organizations and news media which support D.C. home rule in full measure, there are some which disagree on that point. But, as far as these two bills are concerned, I am not aware of a single news medium or recognized organization throughout the length and breadth of this city which oppose them. I must make one qualification, Mr. Chairman. The Federation of Citizens Associations this morning expressed disapproval of one of them, but other than that my original statement remains correct. Literally scores of local media and civic, business, social and political groups ranging all across the spectrum of philosophy and interest actively support them, including the official state committees and all City Council members of both political parties. In all my experience in both public and private life I have never seen anything like the unanimity and degree of public support there is in this city for the proposals embodied in these two bills, the study commission on D.Ĉ. Government and the non-voting delegate. If you have never had a clear consensus from the people of Washington on any important subject before, gentlemen, in my opinion you have one there. I urge you to act favorably upon these bills in time for us to elect a delegate this year. And now a word, if I may, regarding my own views. While my goal is full local self-government and full national representation for the District, I learned long ago that it takes much hard work and many, many days to build a Rome, especially in important matters affecting the nation's capital. For this reason, I consider these bills a significant step forward for local suffrage, as I did the School Board Election Bill I had the pleasure of seeing signed nearly two years ago. I believe that Board is functioning very well under trying circumstances, not of its own making, and I am convinced that, similarly, the end products of these two bills, if enacted, will reflect credit upon the people of my city as they exercise a broadened franchise and upon the Congress and President who will have made this possible. STUDY COMMISSION Finally, Mr. Chairman, I support the purposes and provisions of H.R. 14715, Mr. Nelsen's bill to establish a "Little Hoover Commission" on the organization of the D.C. Government. There is room, in my opinion, for improvement in the coordination of functions among the various branches of our municipal government and the independent agencies involved in those functions. This patchwork is more historical than efficient, in my opinion, and I think our city could benefit from such a study as Mr. Nelsen suggests, whether enacted separately or as part of the charter commission bill. Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify before you today. Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Adams? Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nevius, I appreciate very much your being here and putting into the record the fact that the President and members of the Republican Party-the Republican members of the committee have supported these. I want you to know that I support them, and I will be following the President and the members here in voting for the three bills which you have mentioned, and I hope we will be able to vote on them soon, and I agree with your conclusion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DOWDY. Which is the third bill? Which was the third bill you mentioned? Mr. NEVIUS. Mr. Nelsen's bill on the little Hoover Commission. It is a different bill from the charter commission bill which he also sponsored. Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Nelsen? Mr. NELSEN. Thank you. I want to thank Mr. Nevius for appearing today and for his statement, and I noted this morning in the testimony that one of the witnesses made reference to the fact that they would favor the election of Council members which is really home rule, and so there is this difference of wide opinion as to what do you mean by "home rule?" Now, the charter commission bill (H. R. 11216) that you support can move in various directions. Is this not true, Mr. Nevius? Mr. NEVIUS. Yes, it could move either way. It could result in a recommendation for further home rule or it could result in a recommendation against further home rule. That would be a decision to be reached by the individuals who were on the commission, but I have confidence that responsible, capable people who have the time necessary to really study this thing carefully, which I would anticipate would be the appointees of the Congress and the President to this Commission, I am confident that this Commission would move somewhere in the direction of greater suffrage for the people of the District of Columbia and will perhaps be short of my actual goal of home rule but movement in that direction, and it is this same principle that makes me espouse the non-voting delegate. I would much rather see the congressional amendment, but as a practical matter I recognize that that is a bird in the bush, not nearly so much a bird in the hand, and I feel that it would be a very constructive move to have the non-voting delegate, even though he would have no vote. He would, as Mr. Nelsen pointed out earlier, be a person to reflect the views of the people of our city and possibly also to take some of the burden off the members of this committee, who, I am sure, hear a great deal from D.C. residents as well as from their own constituents. Mr. NELSEN. I have noted your reference to the elected School Board. I took a good deal of criticism from fellow colleagues for a while when this was rather in turmoil, but it seems to me now the performance of the School Board and, particularly 1 have noted, Mrs. Allen's work, I have seen the news commentators where there are these pleas of an atmosphere of understanding and a little bit less of the heated rhetoric and a little bit more of understanding, and I think that a person such as herself, and others, can make a great contribution in helping with the problems of the school district, and I am sure that is your own observation. I would like to have your comment. Mr. NEVIUS. I am very proud of the new School Board. I think they are demonstrating the kind of dedication to civic problems that good citizen participation requires. They were elected by the people of the District, and, in my opinion, they are conducting their affairs in a very responsible manner, and I am confident that as the franchise is expanded gradually for other offices that this same phenomena will be manifest when people are given an opportunity to demonstrate responsibility. It is my experience in city affairs here that that is just what they do: they demonstrate responsibility. Mr. NELSEN. Thank you very much. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CABELL. No. Mr. Dowdy. Thank you, sir. Mr. NEVIUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DOWDY. We will close for today. And our next hearings will be at the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., an adjournment was taken, the Subcommittee to reconvene at the call of the Chair.) HOME RULE TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Honorable John Dowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representative Dowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee), Abernethy, Adams, Nelsen, and Harsha. Also present: James T. Clark, Clerk, and Leonard O. Hilder, Investigator. Mr. DOWDY. We will continue hearings this morning on the bills pending before the subcommittee on Home Rule Proposals. Our first witness is Mr. Terris, Chairman of the Democratic Central Committee. STATEMENT OF BRUCE J. TERRIS, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. TERRIS. Mr. Chairman, I am the Chairman of the District of Columbia Democratic Central Committee which speaks for the more than 80 per cent of the residents of Washington who are Democrats. I am also speaking on behalf of the Reverend Channing Phillips, the District's Democratic National Committeeman, who unfortunately is out of town today and cannot be here. Except for the Board of Education and Republican State Committee we are the only popularly elected representatives in this city. We were elected by the 90,000 Voters who participated in the 1968 Democratic primary. HOME RULE I came here today to ask this Committee for its help. We who live in the District of Columbia do not have the basic right of every human being, the right to help govern himself. We are the only capital city in the free world which does not elect its officials. We are the only bit of land governed by this country which does not have the right of self-government. Gentlemen, this is wrong. It is wrong because America stands not for beautiful countrysides or magnificent buildings, but for democracy. It is wrong because hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives over the last 200 years to protect democracy. It is wrong because this country, as the Declaration of Independence loquently states, was founded because taxation without representation is tyranny. |