Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

HOME RULE LEGISLATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 1603 and S. 1626

TO PROVIDE AN ELECTED MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

APRIL 28, 1971

Printed for the use of the

Committee on the District of Columbia

UA GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON. 1971

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Daugherty, Phillip J., Greater Washington Central Labor Council, AFL-
CIO..

262

Terris, Bruce J., chairman, District Democratic Central Committee_
Tunney, John V., a U.S. Senator from California____

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Section-by-section analysis of S. 1603 by the government of the District of
Columbia..

Terris, Bruce J., chairman, District Democratic Central Committee:

Letter to the chairman, May 4, 1971, submitting a memorandum with respect to partisan elections for mayor and council.

Letter to the chairman, May 6, 1971.

Letter to Senator Mathias, April 27, 1971..

Page

193

219

218

232

HOME RULE LEGISLATION

MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1971

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 6226, New Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas F. Eagleton, chairman of the committee, presiding.

Present: Senators Eagleton, Inouye, Mathias, and Stevenson.

Also present: Robert Harris, staff director; Gene E. Godley, general counsel; James S. Medill, minority counsel; and Judy Ward, clerical assistant.

The CHAIRMAN. This morning we are again beginning hearings on home rule legislation for the District of Columbia. Some people have asked why the District should have home rule. Many have forgotten that the District had home rule when originally created. James Madison, who had a large role in the creation of the Constitution, clearly indicated the intent of its writers when he stated in Federalist Paper No. 43 that the inhabitants of the proposed District "will have had their voice in the election of the Government, which is to exercise authority over them" and that "a municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrages will, of course, be allowed them." It is my hope that these words will soon become a reality.

We have before us two bills, one which I introduced, the other by my very distinguished colleague from Maryland. If I may say so, the bills are quite similar in scope and intent. They each provide for an elected mayor and city council. My bill provides for a 4-year term for mayor and 2 years for the members of the council; Senator Mathias' bill would provide for staggered 4-year terms for council members. My bill provides for a Federal payment based upon the taxes the local government would receive from the Federal Government were it able to levy a real estate tax on the property used by the Federal Government. Mr. Mathias' bill would have a percentage payment such as is presently used, set at 30 percent when the bill becomes law and rising. to 35 percent in 6 years. Each of the bills would allow the District government to issue bonds for capital improvements and in effect to function as other cities do.

At this time I will place in the record copies of S. 1603 and S. 1626, the two bills to which I have been referring, and a section-by-section analysis of S. 1603.

(The material referred to follows:)

« ÎnapoiContinuă »