Senator INOUYE. How many members of the council represent labor organizations?

Mr. HECHINGER. There are none at the present time.

Senator INOUYE. And you are still in favor of the President's nominees?

Mr. HECHINGER. I say that in the context of the nominees that have been made by the President that as far as the integrity of the three members that have been selected-I back them 100 percent; yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Don't get me wrong, sir. I don't question the integrity of any one of them. I believe they are fine citizens, but I'm just bothered by this section of the reorganization plan. It seems to be a mandate on the United States that the council membership should be broadly representative but as you indicated, the make up should be different to match the political conditions.

Mr. HECHINGER. I would say that is exactly right.

Senator INOUYE. Although I well appreciate the political facts of life, the President of the United States is a Republican and that is the way it has been done in the past.

Mr. HECHINGER. (1) The process is an incorrect one-there should be a move as early as possible to establish true home rule. (2) They should be broadly representative. (3) The appointments have been made and I was here to address myself to the individuals who have been selected.

Senator INOUYE. I concur with you. I hope this will be the last time this committee will be called upon to confirm nominees. I hope you will soon have elections in this city.

Mr. HECHINGER. With your help I know it will come about.
Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Weicker?

Senator WEICKER. Mr. Hechinger, I gather, aside from the criteria of integrity, another prime criteria to you is a sensitivity to the powers of the city-specifically this city. I gather from your evaluation of all three candidates that they do have knowledge of the problems and of our city. They have come in contact with them either formally on the council or in a semiofficial capacity in various ways. Is that right?

Mr. HECHINGER. That is right, sir. I believe Mr. Yeldell and Mrs. Haywood have demonstrated that with their work on the council. I am sure that even insofar as those matters which have come before the committee today regarding Henry Willard and those matters which I have disagreed with in the past, that he is so sensitive to the needs of the city that you will see a change in some of these points of view. Senator WEICKER. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hechinger.

Our next witness is Mr. Bruce J. Terris, Chairman, Democratic Central Committee.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE J. TERRIS, CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

Mr. TERRIS. At its last meeting, the Democratic Central Committee carefully considered the President's nominations for the city council. I come before you this morning to give you our views and I believe the views of many other citizens of the District of Columbia.

The Central Committee urged that the President reappoint Joseph Yeldell to the city council. He is a major District leader and has a broad base of support, as the recent delegate race proved. We therefore strongly support his confirmation.

Mrs. Margaret Haywood has served creditably on the city council. While there are already too many Republicans on the city council in comparison to their support in the city, five even without Mr. Willard, we do not oppose her confirmation. A case for argument can be made that the President can return an incumbent to office as long as the council does not end up any more unrepresentative than before.

The Democratic Central Committee strongly opposes confirmation of Henry Willard. I want to make clear that we have no opposition to Mr. Willard personally. We have no reason to doubt his character, his dedication or ability. Nevertheless, we believe that his appointment is both harmful to the city government and illegal.

I know this committee agrees that it is deeply wrong that this city is denied self-government, this most basic right of every American and every human being. While all of us work on the achievement of selfgovernment as soon as possible, we still continue to be ruled by an appointed city government. Obviously, no appointed city government can be truly representative; but at least an effort can be made to make it as representative as possible.

Representative government is not merely a fine objective of social scientists. It is essential to good government. If the city council is to pass regulations and budgets which reflect the desires of the people of this city, it must be representative. If it is to have the respect of the public, it must be representative. Without this respect, the District government will find it even more difficult to govern than at present to govern through consent rather than force.

The cynicism, frustration, and bitterness in this city is already far too pervasive. Our citizens all too often have the feeling that nothing can be done, that our streets will stay unsafe, our children will continue to become addicts, our housing will remain dilapidated. No colonial government will ever overcome this problem. But at least we need not contribute to it through a city council which is not even remotely representative of the city it is supposed to govern.

President Johnson told the first city council that it should act as if it were elected. The same rule ought to apply to presidents, they should appoint people who should approximate the kind of people who would probably be elected if self-government existed.

The principle of representation is, of course, not simply a rule of good government, it is the law. The reorganization plan of 1967 plainly states that the city council should be "broadly representative of the District of Columbia community."

Mr. Willard's appointment is plainly not representative on two grounds. First, he is the sixth Republican on the city council. I would like to hear someone attempt to justify how it is representative of the city of Washington to have a city council which is two-thirds Republican. This city is four-fifths Democratic. While the city council need not reflect this ration exactly, it is ridiculous to ignore this fact as totally as the President has done.

I want to emphasize that the Central Committee is not pressing a narrow partisan position. We are, of course, not saying that the Democrats need come from any particular group in the Democratic Party.

Our point is that the politics of citizens does reflect to a considerable extent their views of important issues. Democrats generally are more liberal than Republicans. Within this city, they have fought harder, with, of course, some exceptions-for home rule, against freeways, for fairer welfare payments, for government housing programs, and anticrime legislation-than Republicans. We believe that the Reorganization Act requires that the city council reasonably represent the people of the District on these kinds of issues. A council which is twothirds Republican does not and cannot do this.

Mr. Willard's appointment is also unrepresentative in another respect. He is the third man representing business interests on the council. Mr. Hahn has spent his life representing business interests and he is a major owner of one of the District's largest retailers. Mr. Yeldell has long worked as an executive for a major corporation and has recently opened a business of his own. Business interests are not entitled to representation by a third of the council.

The only new group which Mr. Willard represents which was not already represented, was the Board of Trade. But the Board is not entitled to separate representation. The city council is supposed to represent the people of this city. The Board of Trade does not have a large membership and most of its members live in the suburbs.

The business community has ample representation without Mr. Willard. In contrast, far larger groups of District residents have no representation at all. There is no longer any labor repesentative on the council; there is no welfare mother or tenant of public housing. These groups are entitled to a representative long before a third business representative is appointed.

The Washington Post quotes a White House aide as justifying this appointment because of the need to strengthen the Republican Party. I can understand the White House's feelings in view of how weak the District Republican Party is. But that is no justification for weakening the city government or for violating the law.

The case for rejecting the nomination of Mr. Willard is much stronger than for the rejection of Judges Haynesworth or Carswell. No law requires the President to appoint competent and unprejudiced judges. They were rejected because the Senate made a subjective, and in my view correct, assessment that they were not fit for the Supreme Court.

In this situation, the law is clear and binding. The Senate, as much as the President, has the duty to apply it. No subjective judgments need be made; Mr. Willard's political and business affiliations are a matter of public record. We therefore urge this committee to carry out its responsibility by upholding the law and rejecting the nomination.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Terris. Pursuing your rationale to its ultimate, the council with six members Republican would be unrepresentative of the District and likewise the council with five Republicans would not be representative. So we reject your rationale concerning not only Mr. Willard but also Mrs. Haywood. Would that be a fair summary of your testimony?

Mr. TERRIS. It is not a fair summary of my testimony. Push the logical decision to its logical outcome that would be where you would come out. As I started out by saying Mrs. Haywood is a sitting member of the council, and having five Republicans on the council it seems to me that mistake was made last year, and one should not reject the

sitting member. At least that is a real argument. No one should reject the sitting member where representation does not become any worse than it was before. One could take a more extreme position, a position I do not press, and reject her nomination as well.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you prescribe to all of Mr. Hobson's theory that where the D.C. Statehood Party received 13 percent of the vote in the delegate election that one of the nine members of the council be allocated to that party?

Mr. TERRIS. I would think that would make the council more representative but as indicated in my testimony, I do not think by this provision the President is bound to follow an absolute mathematical precision in the vote in the preceding election. What I think he is supposed to do is to be reasonably close to the makeup of the city. Whether he has pulled 13 percent of the vote in the last election would entitle him automatically to one representative, I think is perhaps doubtful, but it would be more representative if there was a member of the Statehood Party. I don't think the law requires that. I don't think that the law requires that there be six Democrats on it. I'm not pressing that point that there be six Democrats. I think what it forbids is six Republicans. There is a point where enough is enough. It seems to me he did not come up last year to oppose more Republicans going on. It seems to me when it gets to be two-thirds Republican, that that is too much and is clearly in violation of the law.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Inouye.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Terris, you have suggested that Mr. Willard not be confirmed, that he is not representative of the people of the District of Columbia because he is not in favor of immediate home rule. I would like to suggest that by his candor he qualified himself as being representative of the people. I would gather, if my mail is any indication, at least 10 percent of the District are opposed to the immediate movement of any kind and to be honest, we should have someone opposed sitting on the city council.

Mr. TERRIS. Well let me answer that in two words. First of all, we had a referendum on the subject and so I think that's probably the best way we can analyze it. I don't think anywhere near 10 percent of the city, maybe 10 percent of the letter writers but not 10 percent of the people in the city, oppose home rule. But my point is not that anyone who opposes home rule should not be a member of the city council. My point was that two-thirds of the city council should not be Republican is not merely a theoretical position, a position that goes to looking at labels. Mr. Hahn, I understand what he said was arguing, let's not look at labels, let's look at the way people stand on things. That isn't a liberal position, that isn't a conservative position-let's look where they stand. Picking him up on that it seems to me that the Republican labels do matter, and Mr. Willard's own words indicate how much they matter. It's not simply home rule, it's freeways and I suspect if you ask more questions, there are a host of other issues as well. If he were the only Republican, if he were only one of three Republicans, I wouldn't raise the point for a moment if he opposed home rule. I raised it in the context of two-thirds Republican.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Terris, this may not be a fair question but I would like to ask it. If the President of the United States were Democratic and 80 percent of the voters of the District of Columbia were Republican and you as chairman of the Central Committee were con

fronted with the situation where the President is a Democratic president and appointed six Republicans how would you react to that, sir? Mr. TERRIS. Well, it's a tough question to answer because I can obviously act brave since the situation doesn't exist. I can only tell you we have appeared before this committee to oppose Democratic appointments in the past and have been burned badly, I might say politically, for doing so. In the fall of 1968 President Johnson made an appointment to the city council of a leading labor leader in the city and a leading Democrat. We came before this committee and opposed his nomination. There are a number of Democrats in the city who have never forgiven us for it.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Weicker.

Senator WEICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Terris, did you understand Mr. Willard to say he was opposed to home rule? Didn't you understand Mr. Willard to say he thought he wanted to see home rule achieved in the decade of the seventies.

Mr. TERRIS. I understand him to say that he was opposed, to be more precise than I think I was in my earlier statement, that he was opposed to home rule now. He suspected that the city would be ready in the seventies and among the conditions for readiness were a considerably lower crime rate and a stronger tax base. I think that's more precisely what he said. But as I understand it, he is not for home rule now. I may say that I believe although one would like to think the tax base of this city is going to improve enough to satisfy him but that is going to be a very difficult proposition. As I understand it, he is opposed to it now. I take it he would be opposed to Senator Eagleton's bill and to Congressman Fauntroy's soon-to-be-proposed bill and those are all for home rule now.

Senator WEICKER. It is my understanding of the composition that home rule would be achieved in the decade. Do you think if home rule came now, you would gain such legislation?

Mr. TERRIS. Not an adequate accomplishment. I think the only adequate accomplishment is home rule this year. It should never have been taken from us or if we are talking about home rule in 1978 or something like that I don't even understand that to be consistent with President Nixon's position. As I understand his message a couple of years ago to the Congress that he is calling for home rule immediately too. I certainly don't suggest we have a lower crime rate or a stronger tax base before we are entitled to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Terris.

Mrs. Polly Shackleton, former member of the D.C. council.

STATEMENT OF MRS. POLLY SHACKLETON, FORMER MEMBER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL

Mrs. SHACKLETON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate District Committee, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak in behalf of two former colleagues on the city council, Margaret Haywood and Joseph Yeldell. Both are extremely dedicated public servants who have excellent records as council members. They have served the city well and I strongly urge their confirmation for another term. All of us who served on the original council appointed by President Johnson, which included Peggy Haywood and Joe Yeldell, made a