I have listened all day to the testimony, and I do not think there is much I can add except to say that on this question of the delegate to Congress there was one legal question raised. How valid it is I do not know. The question was: When people vote on this dual voting question, where they vote in a territory and they vote elsewhere, it might be that some people who have a vote in the States would not be eligible to vote for a delegate-that is, that we might have to have a separate election for the delegate as well as the other election, and I think that is one point to keep in mind-one legal question-on this question of the delegate. In general, I think that the position of the Central Committee has been that we do not favor a delegate; we do not think it necessary. I think Mr. Bryan has gone over the reasons, but in the same way we favor the reorganization provisions. However, as has been voiced here earlier, we think it is a political decision. As you have said so well, Senator, it is something in the practical picture that you have to look into and make a decision, rather than for us to try to lay down a mandate as to what you shall do. I have been assigned by the committee to title I, which is "Definitions." title II which is "Status of the District," title III, which is the "District Council," and then down at the end title XVII, which is "Temporary Provisions," title XVIII, "Effective Dates," title XIX, "Submission of Charter for Referendum," and title XX, "Federal Contribution." Due to the lateness of the hour I shall not go into those titles, but I shall try to answer any questions that the committee migh have to ask on those titles. Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Smith? Senator SMITH. I have no questions, but I just want to comment on how very reasonable Mr. Turner is. He feels, as I do, that we have the same objective, but we do not know how fast we can get there and what the procedure is. I think that is the important point: The question of whether we want to take all and drive through for it until we get it, or whether we want to take it step by step. Senator KEFAUVER. It is very encouraging to know that the central body here is for this general program. Also we have heard from CIO and other labor organizations. Do you think your group would really put on a campaign to help get representation? Mr. TURNER. I am sure they will. They have had that as a part of their platform for 50 years, trying to fight for suffrage. Senator KEFAUVER. We are very grateful to you, Mr. Turner. We are sorry to have brought you back twice, but we will probably call on you again. Mr. TURNER. Thank you very much. Senator KEFAUVER. Now, Mr. McKee? STATEMENT OF JEROME B. MCKEE, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE Mr. MCKEE. I will try to make this shorter than 10 minutes. Mr. MCKEE. Jerome B. McKee, legislative chairman, American Legion, Department of the District of Columbia. Senator KEFAUVER. You have one Legion post here; is this the one! Mr. McKEE. Embodied in this, sir, are 59 posts. The membership at the close of 1948 was 19,929 members. Under date of February 5, 1948, nine pages of testimony in opposition to the original H. R. 4902 of the Eightieth Congress was filed with the committee holding hearings thereon, and a copy is herewith filed for the record. (The document referred to is as follows:) THE AMERICAN LEGION, DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, February 5, 1948. JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE MEMBERS: A subcommittee was assigned the task of analyzing H. R. 4902 in the following manner. E. W. Luther of the Kenneth H. Nash Post took the first portion of the bill ending with section 710; Charles Tittman in collaboration with Gibb L. Baker, both of Gardner Post, took sections 711 to 1105, inclusive; Edward B. Williams of Thad Dulin Post took sections 1106 to 1322, inclusive; Abner C. Lakenan of Labor Post took sections 1323 to 2201, inclusive. To the chairman, Jerome B. McKee was delegated the task of covering the mandate of Congress as embodied in article 1, section 8, of the Constitution together with defining the purpose of the proposed H. R. 4902, together with the findings of the full committee. A special meeting of the full committee to discuss the bill was held Thursday, January 29, 1948, at the American Legion Headquarters and 34 posts were represented. Each member of the subcommittee thoroughly analyzed the various sections of the bill with full discussion on its parts as set forth herein. Upon conclusion of discussion the following motion was approved by 27 mem bers the other 7 members being recorded as not voting. "Resolved, That the legislative committee of the American Legion, Department of the District of Columbia is opposed to H. R. 4902 in toto and that the Chairman Jerome B. McKee so advise the department executive committee of its findings." An additional motion was voted upon wherein 33 voted in favor and 1 was recorded as not voting, which motion was as follows: "Resolved, That our Chairman Jerome B. McKee be authorized to appear be fore the joint committee holding hearings on H. R. 4902, and that he be empowered to insert his findings as read by him to the committee, and the findings of the committee, also prepare his report for our department executive committee meeting to be held Thursday, February 26, 1948, for their approval or disap proval in compliance with procedure of this department." The findings of the executive committee will thereafter be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Home Rule for the District of Columbia by our Department Commander Owen C. Holleran in conformity with our procedure. Our committee recognized that H. R. 4902 could be discussed intelligently unless they had also studied the report of the subcommittee pursuant to the House Resolutions 195 and 228, because embodied in it are the conclusions reached that created H. R. 4902. Unfortunately only a few have had the opportunity of studying the statements of all who appeared before the subcommittee and we doubt if very many will tackle this arduous task. The three objectives sought by your committee were enumerated as follows: 1. Relieving Congress as much as possible of the burdensome housekeeping function of the District of Columbia while still retaining essential control in Congress as required by the Constitution. 2. Creating a representative local government for the District chosen by qualified electors. 3. Providing an efficient and economical government for the District of Columbia. In its report your subcommittee had this to say: If all three of these objectives are to be achieved, it is obvious that the problems of home rule and reorganization of the District government are inextricably tied together. Home rule by itself might accomplish the first and second objective, but would not guarantee the third. Reorganization by itself might achieve the third aim, but would not affect the first and second. Therefore, the subcommittee has considered home rule and reorganization in combination. But your subcommittee did not say that it could streamline its functions and streamline the functions of the District by combining one (1) and three (3). However, it makes reference to such an idea when it states: "If it were decided that the District should not have local home rule, our recommendations as to reorganization of the District government would be different in several material respects. For example, the subcommittee would be considerably less concerned about a clear separation between Federal and District agencies,, if there were no local home rule in the District because District residents would have nothing to say with respect to either type of agency. I now present to you the findings of the committee in chronological order. Webster's Dictionary defines home rule as: "Government of a district, colony, territory, etc., by the inhabitants themselves, particularly with regard to local matters." We concur that a reorganization of the District government should be instituted and our reasons for saying this is embodied further on in this presentation, but for the most part we discussed home rule provisions. Title I, section 1, states: This act may be cited as the "Charter of the District of Columbia.” Title II, section 201 states for government purposes, but governing powers will still lay in the hands of Congress, and the President of the United States. Therefore the charter does not truly create a body politic. Title III, section D, gives a blank check to spend money which money comes from the taxpayers of the District of Columbia. Section D, chapter 2: Lines 12 to 14 also gives a blank check. Section 303 also gives a blank check. Section 304 (1) (2) and (2B) places control in Congress, not control by the citizens. Title IV permits Federal employees to serve on the elected council. What special privileges will be granted them to spend the time to attend 48 meetings a year? Will these meetings be full-day meetings, or a couple of hours in the evening each week? If an Army officer is elected to the council, and failed to please some one in power, would he soon find himself transferred to another jurisdiction? If a lame-duck Member of Congress having had the residence requirements were elected to the council, would party politics be submerged? Could an attorney jeopardize his clients' interests by trying to be both in court and in session with the other members of the city council? The courts might find sufficient ground to permit him to continue cases that it might deny other members of the bar this courtesy. Section 425 definitely states Congress could exercise its exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. Is this home rule? Section 426 definitely tells the taxpayers of the District of Columbia that the district council may not pass any legislative proposal or ordinance that would impose any tax on property of the United States. In its stead another formula is used to tax the United States, and that is with the consent of Congress. Section 426 (D) (1) Very well written, but nothing is said that would prevent a Member of Congress doing the same thing. We all recognize that Members of Congress are expected to help their constituents. Section 427 again creates an expense that is too elastic. Section 426: Restudy the procedure to be followed and see if this would constitute reorganization or streamlining. Title V. Definitely sets out disapproval by either House of Congress or by the President. Again is this home rule? Title VI. The District manager. Please reread the power granted unto him, one who is hired by the District Council, not one elected by the electors. You give him more power than you ever granted unto our Commissioners, who also were selected not elected. Perhaps if you had granted such powers to our Commissioners the District would be in such shape that the time would not have been spent on this bill. Section 603. (1) Is this delegating power and authority? Section 603 6B. More delegation of power. Section 605. Another blank check only this time it is given to the District Manager. 88178-49- -9 Section 606. All functions transferred to the District Manager, and as previously stated to one who was not not elected by the people. Section 702. The budget is not ready until February 1, yet it has to go through many processes so that the budget will be approved all along the line within 5 months. Section 704 permits a hearing within 7 days. What organized group of citizens could appear before this hearing and say that the budget has been studied by their groups, and they are in favor or opposed to items in this budget? Section 814. Should be better defined with an I. E. Section 1011 (C). This Commission has had an enviable record because one of its members had recourse to criminal files, but we would do away with this protection. Title XI. Board of Public Education: For this office, names have to be placed on a ballot, a proposed candidate will be subject to many phone calls, requests to appear before various groups and a candidate might be besmirched in the press, all of which he or she has to endure, than if elected serves at the magnificent sum of $10 a meeting or at the most $250 a year. "What price glory": Section 1203 abolished the office of the peoples council, and in place thereof is a three-member board at $7,500 each. The question is asked, Does this agency do sufficient work to pay the heads alone $22,500? Section 1204. From what we can ascertain this office requires the services of those capable of presenting findings of fact, and conclusions of law. Yet it is now to be administered by a three-man board whose services are limited to 40 days a year by the ceiling of $1,000 a year. Title XIV. Board of Electors: Here again we have appointees by the President, but Presidential appointment of our Commissioners is not classified home rule. In the report of the subcommittee on page 13 thereof we find qualifications of electors. Under that heading reference is made to precedent in Maryland by referring to Cheverly and Brentwood. The first mayor of Cheverly no doubt was elected when the population was no greater than 500, and those of us who have lived here any length of time knows that Brentwood does not have but an average population for a town of its size. Yet the city of Washington with a population of 938,000 people, year ending June 30, 1947, a city with a greater population than 14 States in the Union finds the only precedent where one could serve as an elective officer and hold voting privileges elsewhere were two nearby towns in Maryland, and because of these two precedents our home rule bill would permit a voter elsewhere who paid taxes in that other jurisdiction but paid no taxes to the District to be an elective member of the City Council and permit his selection as mayor. If this is enected into law, we feel a contest will be resorted to in the courts with its ultimate results. Title XVI. Section 1601. (A) We pay for everything yet many Federal departments have been set up at Federal expense for the benefit of farmers, cotton growers, soil erosion, and everything under the sun that we in Washington have no need of because of the type of city we have. We have a population rated at 0.74 of the Nation paying taxes at the rate of 1.24 percent of all the income received by the Federal Government, yet we are to be charged for services that rightfully should be given us as the city represents the Nation in so many avenues of direction. Title XVIII. St. Elizabeths Hospital: At long last a formula is being worked out to grant relief to the taxpayers of the District of Columbia, who have for years been forced to pay for service of others than our own residents. This we sincerely appreciate. Section 2003. Much emphasis has been placed that Congress would appropriate the sum of $1,000,000 for this plan, but very little emphasis has been placed that this $1,000,000 has to be paid back out of the pockets of the taxpayers of the District of Columbia. I now present to you my personal findings as presented to our full committee which as previously indicated was authorized to be a part hereof. Our Engineering Department is as fine as any city. No other city can claim any better. This department should be retained under the leadership of an officer of the Corps of Engineers, for the protection of the Federal Government. We read many articles as to what to expect if there is another war. Atomic bombs and germ war. Our water supply originates many miles away in an adjoining State. Who would protect the original streams, the source of supply down through the distribution in event of a germ war. Imagine the responsibility of our city officials to combat bacteriological warfare or sabotage. If there is one department that belongs under the control of the Federal Government it is our water supply. Deny pure water to the Government personnel, and what would happen to that personnel? Much criticism is directed as to our pattern of operations, and a much more comprehensive plan has been evolved to streamline its functions. Why hasn't it been done before with our present Commissionership form of government? Surveys have been made in behalf of Congress in the past, but Congress has been the one that has failed to act. Senator Byrd of Virginia has been calling attention to the overlapping of bureaus of the Federal Government, but his suggestions have not been entertained. Why not approach this in a businesslike manner? Out of the budget of the District of Columbia we should hire experts, such as the Brookings Institute and from their findings let Congress reshuffle the District but retain our present form of government. Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States provides for “exclusive legislation" over the District of Columbia, and to avoid any mistakes was added "in all cases whatsoever." This clearly defined exclusive jurisdiction over the Capital of the Nation by Congress, and nothing in the Auchincloss plan can eliminate this responsibility. Let's compare this city. First and foremost it is the Capital City of the Nation. To truly make it a credit to the Nation, the L'Enfant plan was utilized for the prestige it would give to the Nation's Capital, not just for the benefit of its inhabitants. No matter what city or hamlet an American resides in, he realizes that the seat of government, his Capital, is all that he would have it. It is a city of prestige, fronting in behalf of the people of the United States. We, as citizens did not do this, Congress did this. Our wide streets and avenues, while a benefit to the citizens is also a benefit to the Members of Congress, the judiciary, the employees of Government living outside its city limits, foreign embassies (who pay no city or Federal taxes) and other tax exempt property. Imposed on the people is the mandate to keep it clean, keep its roadbeds in good condition, maintain sanitation, fire and police protection, etc., not only for the benefit of its citizens, but for the benefit of the Federal Government in all respects. Other cities have heavy industries, and the taxes imposed by those cities on heavy industries, is passed along by those heavy industries to the purchasers of those items scattered all over the United States and in many instances to countries to whom they export. We have no heavy industries of such kind in the District to provide for such taxes, the city being made up of white collar workers in Government or in retail business. Therefore what should be classified as heavy industry is the Federal Government, and it is the Federal Government that should bear an equal expense, with the citizens thereof. Last year Congress appropriated to the District of Columbia for services to be rendered the Federal Government $11,000,000 plus a charge for water. Let's suppose that the area of the Federal Government here could be isolated in one area, as was done at Oak Ridge, Tenn.; the area that conceived the atomic bomb, which area is under the control of the Atomic Energy Commission. To give you an insight as to the cost of maintaining that area I refer you to: Page 74 of the Budget of the United States Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1949. Salaries and expenses: Atomic Energy Commission calls for an appropriation of $625,000,000 to be a part of a total sum to be expended of $684,995,287. Item 4 of "Obligations by activities" shows operations of community facilities at a cost of $26,422,057, but no break-down other than this reference is had. In addition appropriation is made for the purchase, repair and cleaning of uniforms all embodied in a lump sum called Variety of Objects. We as taxpayers to the Federal Government representing 21,236 members who offered their lives in defense of this Nation are desirous that this Commission remain in being and leave to your consideration the proper appropriation. |