Mr. TRASK. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. About how many members do you have? Mr. HARSHA. Four hundred paid members? Mr. TRASK. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. And it is your position that the citizens of the District of Columbia should not have a vote? Mr. TRASK. That question in the abstract is difficult. It would depend in what political jurisdiction the vote was exercised, whether in an established state or whether the District would become a new state. Mr. HARSHA. I believe that is all I have. Mr. DowDY. That concludes the hearing for this morning, gentlemen. Thank you very much. We will insert into the record at this point letters from the League of Women Voters of the United States; Mr. J. Leon Herson; Mrs. Janice Eichhorn; and the Northeast Council of Citizens Associations, and the American Association of University Women. (The documents referred to follow:) STATEMENT TO THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON REPRESENTATION in Congress and Self-GovernMENT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (By Mrs. Bruce B. Benson, President, League of Women Voters of the United States) The League of Women Voters of the United States supports full representation n Congress for the District of Columbia and self-government for its residents. That almost a million citizens have no voice and no vote in the Congress of the United States-their governing body—or in their City Council is a blot on our national image at home or abroad. The League firmly believes that injustices which defy any rational defense have been imposed upon the residents of our nation's capital by Congress and by the nation. Since the Congress assumed authority over the newly created District of Columbia in 1801, its residents have had NO representation in Congress except for a three year period beginning in 1871. And for just short of one hundred years since 1874-the Congress has denied to District of Columbia residents the self-government enjoyed by other U.S. citizens. To delay correction of these injustices any longer is unthinkable. REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS Full representation in Congress for the District of Columbia is a top priority for the League of Women Voters. In April 1970 the League of Women Voters will launch a nationwide drive for signatures on a citizens' petition to Congress to initiate a Constitutional Amendment for such representation. In communities across the country this petition drive will focus attention on the plight of the citizens of our nation's capital and on the cause of their plight-the refusal of past Congresses to begin the process which will grant to Washington, D.C. citizens what the League of Women Voters considers a citizen's inalienable right-a voice and a vote in his government. The League believes the American Revolution was fought for this right. And the Declaration of Independence speaks of "the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable [to the people] and formidable to tyrants only." "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," says the Declaration of Independence. But District of Columbia residents cannot give consent or dissent to what Congress does or does not do for the District or for the nation. They have no representation in Congress. No. U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative can or should have the interests of the District of Columbia as his prime concern. The District needs its own voice and vote. 47-573-70-23 President Nixon's recommendation of a non-voting delegate to Congress is supported by the League of Women Voters only as an interim measure toward its goal of full voting representation in Congress for the Diwtrict of Columbia. As a first step such a delegate will serve a good, though a limited, purpose. SELF-GOVERNMENT For 32 years the League of Women Voters has urged Congress to grant selfgovernment to the District of Columbia. The League agrees with those members of the Congress who have stated that self-government for the District of Columbia is a moral, social, and political issue. It is abhorrent to the League of Women Voters that nearly a million Americans almost within sight of the U.S. Capitol dome have no right either to elect their local government officials or to have a local government with power to legislate-within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. One example of the urgent need for self-government is the adoption procedure for the annual budget for the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia budget goes through many steps from the time it is submitted by the mayor to the City Council (which has 30 days to act on it), proceeds through the federal Bureau of the Budget to first the House Appropriations Committee's Subconmittee on the District and then the full House Committee to the floor of the House, through the same steps in the Senate, and then, if necessary, through a joint conference committee before it goes to the White House to be signed (or vetoed) by the President as the District of Columbia Appropriations Act. Last year these steps consumed the period between September 1968 to December 1969. Meanwhile, the city had been operating since July 1, 1969 without an approved budget. This is an untenable situation for the ninth largest city in this country. Adoption of the District of Columbia budget should not have tied to the pace of congressional consideration designed for far-reaching national legislation. be The League believes that a Charter Commission to study home rule for the District of Columbia can be a positive step forward and therefore we support enactment of such legislation this spring. We support such a Charter Commission as a prelude to our goal of self-government for the District of Columbia, but not as a delaying tactic to a long overdue correction of a national injustice. CHEVY CHASE, MD., March 30, 1970. HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, GENTLEMEN: I have recently read with great interest an account in the Washing ton Post concerning the plan presented by Repr. John Kyl of Iowa for the return of the District of Columbia to the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland. To my mind the governmental set up of the District always looked like a political anomaly which has no justification in modern times. Here is a small arca of 60 square miles, 1/20 of the smallest state of the Union with a government structure as complicated and extensive as that of many large states. Are the reasons for establishing a separate Federal District in the first place still valid today? It would be of interest to compare the cost of governing the District of Columbia with that of other cities which are under the jurisdiction of States. After all, the installations of the Federal Government are not confined to the District alone. Why could not the principle of extrateritoriality be applied to Federal establishments here as well as in other states. I hope that the Committee and Congress will proceed with this problem ol jectively free from group influences and do what is logical and best for the nation. Sincerely, J. LEON HERSON. Hon. DON FUQUA, U.S. House of Representatives, WASHINGTON, D.C., April 22, 1970. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FUQUA: Attached is a petition which was signed by persons from 37 states, including 36 mayors from 20 states in support of "self-government and voting representation in Congress for citizens of the District cluding the Mayor of Haines City, Florida; city councilmen from Gainesvill ."-in and Dania, Florida; and city managers from Gainesville and South Miami, Florida. It specifically asks that you support the Administration bills now before the House District Committee. This petition shows the widespread support not only of citizens across the country, but of citizens who are entrusted with the governing of the municipalities in which they live. It has been over a month since the House District Committee began hearings on these bills. Isn't it time to give the full House a chance to vote on them. May we have your comments and hopefully your support for prompt committee action on the Administration bills. Attached is a mimeographed list of signers of the petition, which is in the hands of Mr. Clark at the Committee office. Sincerely yours, (Miss) JAN EICHHORN. PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES CONGRESS "Citizens of the District of Columbia are entitled, as American citizens, to the same rights as all Americans. I support self-government and voting representation in the Congress for citizens of the District of Columbia and wish to urge the House District Committee and the House fo Representatives to pass the President's bills to give the District a non-voting representative in the Congress and to provide for a charter commission study of methods of self-government. I respectfully request that my endorsement of the Administration's bills be included in the record of the House District Committee's nearings on these bills." NOTE: The National League of Cities (which has endorsed Home Rule) held a conference in Washington on March 9 and 10. On March 8, a Sunday evening, they held a reception for early arrivals. Three D.C. residents approached persons at that reception and about 3/4 signed the above petition-persons from 37 states, including 36 Mayors from 20 States. The signers are partially listed below: Alabama-an official of the Alabama League of Municipalities Arizona-1 Mayor; 3 city councilmen; 1 city manager California-5 Mayors, 10 city councilmen; 2 city managers; an official of the League of California Cities Colorado-1 Mayor; 1 city councilman Delaware-1 Mayor; 1 city councilman Florida-1 Mayor; 2 city councilmen; two city managers Georgia-1 Mayor Illinois-an official of the Illinois Municipal League Indiana-an official of the Indiana Association of Towns & Cities Kentucky-2 city councilmen Maine-3 city managers and 3 officials of Maine Municipal League Massachusetts-3 Mayors, 5 city councilmen Michigan-4 Mayors, 2 city councilmen; 2 city managers; an official of the Mich igan Municipal League Minnesota-3 city councilmen; an official of the League of Minnesota cities Missouri-1 Mayor Nevada 2 Mayors; 1 city councilman New Hampshire an official of the N.H. Municipal League New Jersey-1 Mayor New York-3 Mayors, 1 city councilman, an official of the N. Y. State Conference of Mayors North Carolina-1 city councilman; 2 city managers; an official of the North Carolina League of Municipalities Ohio-2 Mayors; 1 city councilman, an official of the Ohio Municipal League Oklahoma-1 city councilman; 1 city manager, 1 vice mayor; an official of the Oklahoma Municipal League Oregon-1 Mayor Pennsylvania 5 Mayors, 1 vice Mayor; 1 city manager, an official of the Penn. State Assoc. of Boroughs South Carolina-1 Mayor, 1 city manager Tennessee-1 Mayor, 2 city councilmen Texas-1 Mayor Vermont-1 Mayor Washington-1 city councilman, an official of the Assoc. of Wash. Cities W. Virginia-1 Mayor Among the Mayors signing were those of the following cities: Haines City, Fla., Marietta, Ohio, Lancaster, Pa., Las Vegas, Nev., Vergennes, Vt., San Diego, Calif., El Paso, Tex., Florissant, Mo., Gainesville, Ga., Tucson, Ariz., Greenwood, S.C., and Rochester, N. Y. These cities are the heartland of America and their Mayors, the chief represen tative of the local government of these cities, believe that citizens of D.C. should also have the privilege of local self-government. Hon. JOHN MCMILLAN, NORTHEAST COUNCIL OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR CHAIRMAN MCMILLAN: This is to advise you that at its April meeting, the Northeast Council of Citizens Associations went on record as favoring the bill which seeks to give a non-voting delegate to the District of Columbia. We feel that it is a step in the right direction. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM MORELAND, President. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: We are writing to you as a member of the House District Committee to express the interest of the American Association of University_Women in Home Rule and representation in Congress for the residents of the District of Columbia. For the past three decades the Association has supported these concepts as the constitutional right to representation of every American citizen, a right which had been wholly denied for many years until the enactment of the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution which gave the right to vote for the President and Vice President to residents of the District. The passage early this month in the Senate of S. 2163 and S. 2164 encourages us to urge hearings as soon as possible upon these and the House bills now before your Committee. Sincerely yours, JEAN ROSS, Chairman, Legislative Program Committee. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on District of Columbia, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Washington Branch of the American Association of University Women supports H.J. Res. 326 (introduced by Congressman Gude which would amend the Constitution to allow the District of Columbia to elect one Senator and Representatives. As a first step toward home rule, we support H.R. 4290 (introduced by Congressman Nelsen and others) which would provide for representation of the District of Columbia by a nonvoting Delegate in the House. Washington, D.C. is taxed by Congress but has not had representation in Congress since 1802. The city's population of over 810,000 is greater than that of eleven states. We think that representation in Congress for the District of Columbia is long overdue. Sincerely yours, Dr. Elizabeth O'HERN, President. Mr. DOWDY. We are now adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:05 the Subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.) HOME RULE FRIDAY, MAY 8, 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 10:45 a.m., in Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Honorable John Dowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Dowdy (Chairman of the Subcommittee), Adams, Cabell, and Broyhill. Also Present: James T. Clark, Clerk; Sara Watson, Assistant Counsel; and Leonard O. Hilder, Investigator. Mr. DOWDY. The Committee will come to order. We will continue our hearings on the various bills concerning the Home Rule Proposals. First, I want to put into the record a statement that has been sent to Mr. McMillan by-well, it is a joint statement of Commissioner Washington and the Chairman of the City Council, Gilbert Hahn, Jr., concerning legislation to establish a Commission on Government for the District of Columbia, and provide a delegate in the House of Representatives in the District of Columbia, dated April 28, 1970. (The statements follow :) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1970. Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Government of the District of Columbia desires to submit a statement to your committee concerning legislation to establish a Commission on Government for the District of Columbia and to provide for a nonvoting Delegate in the House of Representatives to be elected by the citizens of the District. As you know, subcommittee No. 3 of your committee has been holding hearings on various proposals concerning self-government for the citizens of the District of Columbia. In order to be assured that the subcommittee has the views of the District of Columbia Government, we are submitting the enclosed statement to be made a part of the record on the proposals for self-government for the District of Columbia. Sincerely yours, WALTER E. WASHINGTON, GILBERT HAHN, Jr. Enclosure. Chairman, City Council. |