insisted that all the members should be elected. We do not share that feeling. We feel the Congress has a legitimate interest, as does the Executive Branch, in seeing that the Federal interest is represented in any Charter Commission which considers the future role and the future procedure for governing the District of Columbia.

We do support these bills. We do believe they have bipartisan support from both political parties. And we hope that they will be enacted.

One final point, with the Chairman's permission. There is another bill on which we have testified before which does not relate directly to home rule, but which is now before conference in the House and Senate. And I refer to the anticrime and the court reorganization legislation. And I have been directed by the D.C. Republican Committee to reiterate our strong support for basically the House version of the bill. And although there are one or two provisions in which we agree with the Senate version, we would hope that particularly with respect to the pre-trial detention, the electronic eavesdropping and the no-knock search provisions of the bill, we would hope that you would inform the House members of the Conference Committee that the D.C. Republican Committee continues to support that version of those bills, and hope that they will be reported.

The District of Columbia Republican Committee strongly endorses President Nixon's plan as embodied in H. R. 11215 and H. R. 11216 to provide meaningful Congressional representation for the citizens of the Nation's Capital, as well as local representation in the form of a Charter Commission to draft appropriate self-government legislation. Congressional representation and the principle of self-government have consistently received Republican support in city-wide referendums, party statements, and in local and national Republican Party platforms.

Voting representation in the Congress is long overdue for the District. We would hope that a Congressional representation bill would permit the Congress to grant at least two Representatives in the House, reflecting the District's present population. The complexity of urban problems requires full time advocacy in the Congress on behalf of our residents. Although we view a non-voting delegate as an interim measure, we will work for the speedy enactment of any Constitutional amendment to provide full voting Congressional representation.

The Charter Commission for the drafting of appropriate selfgovernment legislation is also a sensible first step.

It will provide a voice for the various interested elements of our Federal City to collaborate as partners on a model form for our future government. The Federal interest must be protected just as the local interest must not be subject to taxation without representation. We fear that both proponents and opponents of selfgovernment have done a disservice to such legislation in the past by offering plans which were unacceptable to Congress at the outset. In that regard, we welcome the statesmanlike position of the D.C. Democratic Central Committee in joining to provide bipartisan support for the President's proposal. The Charter Commission represents a solid commitment by the Nixon Administration to the enactment of model government legislation once it is drafted.

It would be our hope that a substantial number of the Charter Commission can be elected. But we also feel that in addition to Congressional representation on the Commission, the President ought to be able to appoint members who can bring a particular expertise to the drafting of a model self-government bill for the District of Columbia.

We recall that it was during the last Republican Administration, under Dwight Eisenhower, that statehood for Hawaii and Alaska was achieved. The Republican Party can now take similar pride that the citizens of the District of Columbia are moving toward meaningful participation in the political process under President Richard Nixon. I shall be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. Dowdy. Mr. Abernethy?

Mr. ABERNETHY. What versions of the Senate bill do you prefer over the House bill?

Mr. BERLINER. There are only two provisions that we prefer. One has to do with the mandatory sentencing provisions for recidivist offenders. We generally adopt the approach that we feel that discretion is something that we ought to give to our judges. And that is one provision.

The other is the Lorton prison transfer which at this time we do not feel is justified without somewhat further study.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Are you speaking of your personal views or the views of the Republican Party?

Mr. BERLINER. These are the views that the Republican has in discussing this bill in some detail.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Are they satisfied with the situation at Lorton? Mr. BERLINER. I do not think it would be fair to say that we are satisfied, but I think that progress has been made in the last few years. Mr. ABERNETHY. What kind of progress?

Mr. BERLINER. We do not believe that, compared with other prisons in the country, there have been any major riots in the D.C. Jail, as compared to some areas. That is not to say that it cannot be improved or should not be.

Mr. DOWDY. You are not talking about the jail?

Mr. BERLINER. Or the Lorton Reformatory. The last major difficulty was with the so-called Black Muslim riot. And I think that was back in 1966 or 1967.

We are not satisfied. But we do not believe as part of an anticrime legislation or court reorganization that the Lorton Reformatory situation ought to be embodied in that bill. It was not asked for by the Administration. It merits further consideration, but we do not believe it should be in that bill, respectfully.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you think the Congress should limit itself to that which the Administration requested?

Mr. BERLINER. Not at all. And certainly many of the improvements that have been made in this legislation have been made right here in this committee.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Even though the Administration did not ask for it, the fact that Congress itself recommended it, that is, the House of Representatives, does not put any ugliness on it, does it?

Mr. BERLINER. I would say that it would elevate it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ABERNETHY. So then you feel that since the House did put its stamp of approval on it that it may have some merit?

Mr. BERLINER. There is no question but what the House recommendation will have some merit, or there would not have been any members to vote for it.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Recognizing that there is a problem out thereand you do recognize it

Mr. BERLINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. (Continuing). The question is, what do we want to do about it? We want to do what is best for the prison system. And the citizens of the District feel that they should have good law enforcement. The object at present is to incarcerate wrong-doers as examples for other possible offenders. What do you think we ought to do with it?

Mr. BERLINER. I think it is recognized in every prison in the country that prisons get the last bit of appropriations that are available. That is true throughout the States.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You want to give them some more money, is that what you want?

Mr. BERLINER. For particular purposes which I hope in the long run will result in less expenditures being made on the system.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Where does the money come from?

Mr. BERLINER. From two sources: from the general revenue funds, which is in effect all the citizens of the United States and from the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Then if the people of the United States do make a substantial contribution toward the support of the District Government which they do over and beyond what they do for other local governments, there might be some merit in the people of the United States having something to say about the prisons as well as other matters around here; would you agree with that?

to

Mr. BERLINER. There is no question but what they have something say, Mr. Chairman.

NON-VOTING DELEGATE TO SENATE

Mr. ABERNETHY. I note you recommend two nonvoting Delegates in the House. You are familiar with the fact and this may sound a bit sarcastic, but I do not mean it that way-you are familiar with the fact there is another body in the Congress called the Senate? Mr. BERLINER. I understand that to be the case.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you have any objection to putting one of those delegates over there?

Mr. BERLINER. We have no objection to it. But I think we have to speak in politically realistic terms.

Mr. ABERNETHY. What is the difference? You are recommending one for the House or two for the House and none for the Senate. Is the Senate so holy and so pure, and is its status such that it should not be diluted, whereas the House should set another chair in and just absorb this new delegate or delegates?

Mr. BERLINER. No. On the contrary, Mr. Congressman, I believe that the House is more progressive and more representative to innovation, and therefore it is more fruitful to present this to the House than to the Senate.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You support putting a Delegate in the House because the House is more progressive, is that right?

Mr. BERLINER. Because it is more receptive.

Mr. ABERNETHY. More receptive. By the same theory, would you just abolish the Senate because it is not very receptive?

Mr. BERLINER. No. We would feel that if progress were made and we could convince the Senate of the wisdom of the House's action in allowing us to have one or two Delegates that that evidence would be so overwhelming that even the Senate would accept that as a viable principle for the District of Columbia.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Really, now, the reason that you and others do not recommend a Delegate for the Senate is because the Senate just would not tolerate it and would reject it, that is true, is it not? Mr. BERLINER. I am not sure about that.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Then why is it that no one ever suggests putting one in the Senate?

Mr. BERLINER. I believe Bill suggested one. I believe Congressman Sisk

Mr. ABERNETHY. There have been several Congressmen that have introduced it, but the poeple here do not support it, not even the Senate supports it. Why is the Senate so holy that it cannot set up another desk over there, if we are to have delegates, and have one in the Senate?

Mr. BERLINER. I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that we believe that this is a more realistic approach.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Isn't the fact about it that you know the Senate would reject it, it would not stand for it, isn't that the truth? Mr. BERLINER. I cannot say that.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You know the Senate have passed a bill two or three times enlarging the House—which I think is a rather presumptuous move on their part. And I think the bills were for a free talking, nonvoting delegate, isn't that right?

Mr. BERLINER. Yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you know of any legislative body-and there are not but two on this Hill-where the privilege of free talking is enjoyed any more than it is in the Senate?

Mr. BERLINER. No, sir-the United Nations, perhaps.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And they do have unlimited debate, they have what they call free talk in the Senate. Now, would you agree with me that a free talking, nonvoting delegate, in view of the procedures of the Senate, might fit in over there a little better where they pratice both of those with considerably more efficiency-wouldn't the delegate fit in better there than he would in the House?

but

Mr. BERLINER. It might by the standard of only free talking, in terms of realistic legislation I think it would fit in better in the House. I respectfully say that.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Then you do not think that the Senate realistically legislates?

Mr. BERLINER. No, I do not believe I said that. I do not believe I said that. I do not believe that this legislation can realistically be accepted in a form which includes one nonvoting delegate in the

Senate.

Mr. ABERNETHY. If you were a member of the Senate would you vote to have a delegate in the Senate?

Mr. BERLINER. Yes, I believe I would.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you know of any Senator that would so vote?

Mr. BERLINER. I have not had any discussions with any Senator on this measure, so I do not know one way or the other.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you know of any Senator who has ever introduced a bill to put a free talking, nonvoting delegate from the District of Columbia into that body?

Mr. BERLINER. I know of one, who is no longer a member of that body-not for that reason-Senator Wayne Morse, who did introduce a bill to that effect.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And he departed the scene?

Mr. BERLINER. Yes, he did. He is no longer with the Senate.

HOME RULE

Mr. ABERNETHY. When we get the so-called home rule-now, you recognize, of course, this is generally referred to as old hash, what the Constitution says about Home Rule, don't you?

Mr. BERLINER. Yes, sir, I have read the words.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And our President has just disagreed with the idea of taking another shortcut to home rule by granting the vote to eighteen-year-olds. He says it should be done by constitutional amendment. Do you agree with that?

Mr. BERLINER. I read the report in the papers today. I have not read the statement.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you agree that that is the way it should be done from a legalistic standpoint?

Mr. BERLINER. Yes, sir, as a lawyer I believe it should be done that way.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And although the Constitution says that the Congress shall legislate for the District in all cases whatsoever, you still think Congress can pass a law granting home rule to the District of Columbia?

Mr. BERLINER. Yes, sir, I believe you can.

I want to point out, Mr. Congressman, that I have never referred to this legislation as home rule legislation. I think it is unfair to characterize it as home rule legislation. I recognize there are some who would like to make it home rule legislation. But I believe the approach of the Administration and some members on this committee is a good deal more modest. All they are asking is the appointment of a Charter Commission.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I understand that.

Mr. BERLINER. And I do not believe, and I think it is unfair to prejudge, that having members appointed either by the President, or elected at large, or appointed by this Congress, is prejudging and predetermining this issue that it will be home rule legislation, I am not at all sure.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is what it contemplates, is it not, home rule? Mr. BERLINER. I do not believe it is fair to say that.

Mr. ABERNETHY. What does it contemplate?

Mr. BERLINER. I believe one of them, one has been retrocession to the State of Maryland of the non-Federal portion of this city.

Senator ABERNETHY. Surely the President did not recommend this Charter Commission with any idea of retroceding the District of Columbia to Maryland, did he? Do you have any information to that

effect?