Baptist Ministerial Conference Bibleway Church B'nai B'rith Capitol Hill Community Council Catholic Archdiocese College Alumnae Club Committee of Forward Looking Republicans Democrats for the District D.C. Business League D.C. Chamber of Commerce D.C. Citizens for Better Education D.C. Education Association D.C. Federation of Civic Associations Episcopal Diocese of Washington Far Northeast Democratic Organization Greater Washington Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO Health and Welfare Council of the National Capital Arca Hospitality House Housing Development Corporation Jewish War Veterans, Washington Posts League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia Lutheran Churches Task Force on Self-Government for the District Metropolitan Community Aid Council National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees National Association for the Advancement of Colored People National Baptist Conference of Washington National Capital Area Civil Liberties Union National Capital Voters Association National Council of Jewish Women, D.C. Section Northeast Neighborhood Council Peoples Congregational Church Presbyterian Washington Synod Prince Hall Masons Southern Christian Leadership Conference United States Conference of Mayors Virginia White Speel Republican Club Washington Home Rule Committee Washington Independent Tavern Owners Association Washington Planning and Housing Association Washington Urban League Washington and Vicinity Federation of Women's Clubs Officials who support the President's Reorganization Plan: John Layton, Chief, Metropolitan Police Department, District of Columbia Newspapers and Radio-Television Stations which support the President's Reorganization Plan: Catholic Standard Christian Science Monitor Louisville Courier-Journal New York Times Washington Informer Washington Observer Washington Post Wichita Eagle WMAL-Evening Star Broadcasting Co. WWDC 17. Which organizations are known to oppose the Reorganization Plan? District of Columbia Bankers Association D.C. Federation of Citizens Associations Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade Senator RIBICOFF. The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, July 26, 1967.) REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1967 WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1967 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m. in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Abraham Ribicoff presiding. Present: Senators Ribicoff and Javits. Also present: James R. Calloway, chief clerk and staff director; Ann M. Grickis, assistant chief clerk; and Eli E. Nobleman, professional staff member. Senator RIBICOFF. The committee will be in order. Senator Tydings was to testify, but his plane is late, and he has asked us to put his testimony in the record as if read. Without objection the testimony of Senator Tydings will be placed in the record as if read. TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Senator TYDINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support fully President Johnson's plan to reorganize the government of the District of Columbia. While it cannot secure the improvements that would be possible under home rule, it can provide for some of the basic changes necessary to cope with our increasingly complex urban problems. As we have come to realize just how complex urban problems are— not just in Washington, but in every large city-we have passed legislation to assist these cities in solving these problems. The poverty program, the demonstration cities program, the neighborhood centers program-all require certain things of municipal government. Any city government to take maximum advantage of these new farsighted programs must Have strong executive leadership; Provide for the development of effective coordination mechanisms; Have the internal organization flexibility to respond rapidly to change; and Provide for effective representation of vital community interests. Insofar as possible, President Johnson's plan provides these necessary ingredients for the District government. The District government now is multiheaded-no clear lines of executive authority and responsibility exist. As a result, its ability to develop effective coordination mechanisms is severely limited. Further, its basic organizational format is literally frozen and internal adjustments are made only with great difficulty. The plan offers the means to eliminate these problems. The single Commissioner can provide the necessary executive leadership and provide a focus for coordinated action on the part of District departments and agencies. The plan provides him with the authority to make internal organizational adjustments that are from time to time necessary. The nine-member Council can provide a much better reflection of the needs and interests of the 800,000 District residents. Other cities have these capabilities, and where they do not, State governments are rapidly acting to provide the necessary municipal authority. I think the Congress can do no less for the Nation's Capital City and I urge it to support this reorganization plan. Without the more flexible and streamlined leadership structure that it provides, we cannot move forward in creating the kind of government the Nation's Capital needs and the citizens of the District deserve. In my view, the President's reorganization plan in no way contravenes the authority of the Congress. Under the Reorganization Act, chapter 9 of title 5 of the United States Code, the Congress gave the President clear authority to submit reorganization plans to the Congress with respect to a number of agencies, including the government of the District of Columbia. The act provides that the reorganization plan shall go into effect 60 days after its submission to the Congress, unless either House acts to veto the plan. Thus the President, in submitting the District of Columbia reorganization plan, is acting under clear authority which Congress has granted to him. In addition, the reorganization plan will not deprive either the Senate or the House District of Columbia Committees of any jurisdiction regarding the governing of the District. If it appears, after the plan goes into effect that it should be modified in any respect, then legislation can be considered for that purpose by the Senate and House District Committees. I believe that the plan as proposed by the President will work effectively and successfully, and that no changes in this plan will prove necessary short of genuine home rule for the District of Columbia. But approval of the plan will in no way forestall future action by the Congress with regard to it. I should point out that this reorganization plan is no real substitute for home rule for the District of Columbia. I know that the President did not intend it as a substitute. The need for giving the citizens of the District of Columbia controlling voice in their own civic affairs will remain paramount. But the plan will streamline and modernize the present structure of government so that the citizens of the District will be better served in the interim-a very brief one, I hope-until Congress acts to give home rule. Nor does adoption of this plan in any way minimize the need for direct congressional representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. I wholeheartedly support the constitutional amendment which is currently the subject of hearings in the House Judiciary Committee to give voting representation in the House to the citizens of the District. I also support the President's proposal for legislation to give the District a nonvoting delegate, as an interim measure pending approval of the necessary constitutional amendment. |