Combining this vagueness with the threat of a veto, do you think that these two elements are healthy in a city like ours?

Mr. BERLINER. Well, most respectfully, I would say that if the Congress retains the power or the President or both, that the problem is really virtually the same. That is, you might make the same argument and say it is not healthy for Congress to retain the power but I don't propose to make that argument and I don't propose to make the argument that it is unhealthy for the President to retain a similar power.

I do believe that in the case of unwise legislation I am sure it would be easier for the President to act as a single individual with executive authority, than it is to get the Congress to step in and to get both Houses to agree to an affirmative piece of legislation.

Of course, as you indicate, Senator, that does have a danger that the President will step in in an unwise fashion. As in most cases, that is a question of human frailty.

But, I would like to make one point in referring to your question of the State of Hawaii. We have tried the all-out approach. We tried it in 1965, and 1966, even to the point of a discharge petition in the House of Representatives which certainly, as you Senators know, is a very difficult matter. And these failed.

Now, the piecemeal approach has worked for the District of Columbia over the last 15 years. We now have delegates to our parties conventions. We now cast votes for the President and Vice President. We have an elected school board, we have a nonvoting delegate in the House of Representatives, and these are small bites. But with small bites we hope that we will achieve the whole pie.

Senator INOUYE. If I may most respectfully submit that it would take in addition to congressional support, a clear commitment from the Chief Executive of the United States. And I am sorry to say that I do not view the President's most recent message as a clear commitment to home rule. I think it is most essential.

In the case of Hawaii we were fortunate because we did have not only the clear commitment of the parties involved in the convention, but a clear commitment of the Chief Executive.

It should be noted that Hawaii achieved statehood under a Republican administration.

Mr. BERLINER. I noted that in my statement, sir.

Senator INOUYE. And so, it might well happen that the District of Columbia will receive home rule under a Republican administration if the Chief Executive comes forth without equivocation and strongly commits himself to home rule. I would hope that in your capacity as one who has the ear of the White House, that you would indicate to the President that this is essential.

At the present time I am certain you are aware that the personnel system of the city is tied directly to the Federal civil service. What are your thoughts on divorcing this?

Mr. BERLINER. I favor a District of Columbia civil service local type of system. I think that every movement that we make in the District of Columbia towards autonomy is a healthy one. We have been making moves in that direction with our court reorganization and certainly civil service locally created would fill that same function.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Let me announce at this time that I intend to continue the hearings through the lunch hour so as to accommodate the sizable number witnesses that we have.

Senator INOUYE. You are not eating today?

The CHAIRMAN. I am not eating today. If any potential witness doesn't know where he or she is on the witness list, they can check with Mr. Harris. You can go out and get lunch on your own, but we will continue this hearing straight through until the witnesses are completed.

Our next two witnesses will appear together, Mr. Bruce J. Terris, chairman, Democratic Central Committee and Mr. Channing Phillips, Democratic national committeeman.

Welcome to both of you gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF CHANNING E. PHILLIPS, DISTRICT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEEMAN; ACCOMPANIED BY BRUCE J. TERRIS, CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

Mr. PHILLIPS. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the District of Columbia Democratic Party.

We, like virtually everyone else in this city, strongly support selfgovernment. It is therefore gratifying to see this committee acting so promptly and strongly at the beginning of this Congress to consider legislation providing for home rule.

I must state frankly that we do not prefer the legislation now before this committee. If adopted, this bill would establish a city government closely modeled after that which has existed for years in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, and numerous other cities. This traditional form of city government has not worked well in recent years as even a cursory glance at almost any major American city demonstrates. The problem of city government is not simply a matter of money.

I believe that we must try new ideas. I particularly want to explore decentralized city government which gets government close to the people it is supposed to serve. It is possible that we can establish a city government which gives neighborhoods direct control over their own schools, their trash collection, their health clinics, and other important services. At the same time, we can retain on a citywide basis government activities which should not be decentralized because of the need for efficiency, uniformity, and coordination.

I know that this would be the first such municipal government in the United States. But we cannot be content with old ideas which have failed. If self-government in the District is to serve District citizens and to be a true model for the country-as so many Presidents and others have urged-we must try new ideas. It is significant that decentralized city government exists in London and works.

These ideas should be explored and decided upon by representatives of the residents of this city. No matter how sympathetic they may be to the District, Congressmen do not represent us. They respond to their own constituents' needs, not ours. We are entitled to having the constitution of a self-governing District of Columbia, the charter of our city government, written by ourselves through our elected representatives, rather than by others.

Self-government under a charter written by foreigners is a contradiction. It is inconsistent with the history through which selfgovernment has been obtained by States, cities, and counties through

out this country. When Prince Georges County got self-government, its charter was developed by its own elected charter commission.

It is for these reasons that we, and the District Democratic Central Committee, and the National Democratic Party support a charter commission. We believe that a charter can be drafted providing for decentralized city government and other modern methods of city government, which would be immeasurably superior to any home rule bill.

We also believe that a charter commission bid has a considerably better chance of getting through the House of Representatives. We are not for idle gestures. We are not for fighting for legislation which cannot be enacted when other legislation could be adopted. And we are not for legislation which can pass the Senate easily but has little chance in the House.

A charter commission is the traditional route toward self-government for cities and counties throughout the country. It is, in other words, the traditional, one might say, American way to self-government. And a charter commission bill has once already passed the House of Representatives.

I want to make clear that we are talking about a real charter commission. We are not for a commission which will simply issue a study. We do not support a commission which will take years to report. We do not support a commission made up of persons who are appointed by the President or Congress and do not represent the people of this city. Instead, we support a charter commission which is required to report in 6 months to a year, whose charter will automatically take effect unless vetoed by Congress, and which is composed largely of persons elected by District voters. That kind of charter commission will almost guarantee self-government through a charter written by the elected representatives of the people of this city rather than by Congress.

That is our preference. We believe a charter commission is right both because it has the best chance of getting us self-government and of getting us the best form of self-government. But if this committee disagrees with our preference, we of course still want the committee to act. We strongly support a home rule bill such as that now before this committee instead of no bill at all. For self-government is so important, so vital, so basic to the people of Washington that no person can justifiably demand that either his approach be adopted or that none be.

We would therefore like to make comments specifically about this legislation in the event that this committee decides to pursue a traditional home rule bill rather than a charter commission.

It is vital that all normally State and municipal functions be given to the new city government. Self-government should be essentially the same in the District as in other places throughout the country. Otherwise, we will have the appearance of self-government without the power to make it a reality.

The bill should make clear that the members of all local commissions, like the Public Service Commission, and all local judges are appointed by the Mayor and not the President. Similarly, the local, nonfederal responsibilities of the U.S. Attorney should be assumed by the Corporation Counsel and those of the U.S. Marshal by a similar city official. Otherwise, our system of justice will continue to be divided and

the effort to reduce crime will continue to be hampered because of the lack of a unified program.

The CHAIRMAN. May I break in here, Mr. Phillips? You mentioned that a charter commission bill has already passed the House of Representatives. The one that passed the House of Representatives was of the type that you have described. It became automatically operative unless vetoed by the Congress.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes; that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the record will speak for itself. My vague recollection, and I underscore "vague", was that it was not of that mandatory and operative type. I would agree that it was a strong type of a charter bill. My recollection was that it was more of advisory, it had to go to Congress first before it became ratified by Congress. But, anyway, the record will speak for itself because there is a big difference. Mr. PHILLIPS. There is a big difference, we would agree, and it is our recollection, Senator, that it was operative.

(Subsequent to the hearing the following letter was received:)

Hon. THOMAS F. EAGLETON,
United States Senate,

Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 6, 1971.

DEAR SENATOR EAGLETON: At the recent hearings on home rule legislation, you mentioned the statement of Channing Phillips and myself that the charter commission bill which passed the House of Representatives (the Sisk bill) provided that the charter would automatically go into effect if not vetoed by the Congress.

H.R. 669, 91st Congress, 1st Session, introduced by Congressman Sisk provides (Section 6) that the charter will automatically become effective unless disapproved by either the Senate or House within 90 days. We are told by Congressman Sisk's office that this bill is identical to the bill which earlier passed the House.

Congressman Sisk plans to reintroduce this bill in the present Congress. While there are some details we oppose (for example, a requirement that the charter include a presidential veto over all District legislation), it is essentially the kind of legislation we prefer. Besides providing that the charter will become automatically effective if not vetoed by Congress, the charter would be written in less than a year and a majority (8 of 15 members) of the Commission would be elected by District residents.

I hope that your Committee will give this legislation careful study. We, of course, would be happy to give you any assistance you desire.

Sincerely,

BRUCE J. TERRIS, Chairman, Democratic Central Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you favor an elected prosecuting attorney? I mean, an elected official who is the chief criminal prosecutor for the District, such as I used to be the district attorney of St. Louis, for felonies?

Mr. PHILLIPS. I believe we would. Similarly, our local courts should have all of the authority of the State courts. There is no reason to have the power to punish contempt of the City Council in the U.S. district

court.

The provision for a Federal payment appears insufficient. It is essential for the Federal Government to pay for a much larger share of the District budget than it presently does if the District government is to provide the vital services this city needs. Self-government without the capacity to do an adequate job will only be a frustrating and embittering delusion.

Since the Federal payment is geared to what the Federal Government would pay if it were taxable, it is difficult to know what this means in dollars and cents. I hope the specific of this proposal will be thoroughly studied before it is adopted in preference to a formula which assigns the Federal Government a fixed proportion of the District budget. If the bill's present formula is retained, other elements should be added to fully recompense the citizens of this city for the Federal presence here. This element should include the equivalent of taxes on all Federal property and land without exemptions for park lands, memorials, and shrines, compensation for higher costs such as for policing demonstrations, and compensation for city decisions designed to protect the Federal interest such as the height limitations on buildings which preserves vistas of the Capitol at the expense of development which would produce higher tax revenues.

We strongly oppose the proposed nonpartisan election of the Mayor and City Council. The widespread interest and participation in the recent delegate election shows the advantages of partisan elections. In contrast, the nonpartisan schoolboard elections have produced only about one-third as many voters. We believe that nonpartisan elections, with large numbers of people running as individuals, will mean considerably less interest and participation.

We also oppose 2-year terms and inadequate salaries for members of the City Council. We have seen since 1971 that membership on the City Council is a full-time job. It will be an even bigger job with the greater authority provided under this bill. Membership should not be restricted to people with independent incomes or whose

The CHAIRMAN. Let me point out my bill calls for the partisan elections of the Mayor and Council. It is Senator Mathias' bill which calls for the nonpartisan participation.

Mr. TERRIS. Unless we have an earlier version-it is exceedingly unclear-there are no provisions in your bill regarding party primaries, for example.

The CHAIRMAN. It was my intent when we asked the bill to be drafted that it call for the partisan election of the Mayor and of the Council. (Subsequent to the hearing the following letter and memorandum was received from Mr. Terris:)

Hon. THOMAS F. EAGLETON,

United States Senate,

Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 4, 1971.

DEAR SENATOR EAGLETON: Enclosed is a memorandum in response to your request at the District Committee hearings concerning the partisan elections of a mayor and city council. If we can be of any further assistance, we would be most eager to do so.

Sincerely,

BRUCE J. TERRIS, Chairman, Democratic Central Committee.

MEMORANDUM

RE: TECHNICAL PROBLEMS IN S. 1603 WITH RESPECT TO PARTISAN ELECTIONS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL

At the Senate District Committee hearings on Home Rule Legislation held on April 26, 1971, Senator Eagleton indicated that it was his intention that S. 1603 provide for partisan elections of the Mayor and City Council. He requested Chan