And I might state to you that we have had two or three bills very similar to what you have had here. In 1968, we even got one so far as passing the Senate and the House, but it never got out of conference, on equal time. But we could perhaps control the limits of time of a campaign by saying that no one could accept contributions or make payments prior to a certain date.

What would you think of that as an alternative?

Mr. PAGE. I think that would be a good step. However, I believe in the District of Columbia, since we use it as a prototype for so many things, I think probably we ought to take the opportunity and go a few steps further and try out some of these ideas that all of us have around the country, about how to improve the political process. Therefore, I think probably the media in the District of Columbia, as a way of cooperating with the community, might be interested in selfregulations in some way, as it relates to that.

Mr. ADAMS. It is my understanding now, though-and I ask this as a question, because if you have different information I would like to have it that the media do require and I cannot remember whether this is by statute or if it is by their cooperative efforts when they sell time, that the same amount of comparable time is offered to the opposing candidate; and that both are charged the same rate.

Now, if this is not so, I would appreciate hearing from you about that.

Mr. PAGE. I do not know if that is true. But what I do know, to offer time-one candidate being able to buy time and another not being able to buy time I have some problem with that, and I think probably people ought to be able to have the ability to buy whatever is needed. But it creates a terrific imbalance, and I guess maybe that is why I am supporting some kind of subsidies so that a candidate who is not financial able might be able to buy a certain amount of time.

Mr. ADAMS. Now we have, by general statute, limited the amount of media time that can be used in Federal elections.

Would you favor that kind of a limit?

Mr. PAGE. I certainly would. I am not sure what the time should be; I used one hour for citywide mayoralty and City Council, but I am not sure that amount of time is the appropriate amount. First of all, I doubt if very many people in this city could pay for that kind of time. But I just wanted to share this with the Committee so you could begin to think about what would be an appropriate amount of time. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Page.

Mr. Hogan, do you have some questions?

Mr. HOGAN. Just one question.

These are non-profit corporations that you are affiliated with?

Mr. PAGE. Yes.

Mr. HOGAN. Do they get any Federal grants or funds or anything? Mr. PAGE. Well, no Federal grants. The Bicentennial Corporation, we had a contract with the National Park Service, but it was not in the term of a grant.

Mr. HOGAN. Do they endorse any of these-will they be endorsing candidates or anything like that?

Mr. PAGE. Normally they do not endorse candidates as organizations. Individuals may endorse candidates. Of course there is always the

possibility-you see, what has happened in the District of Columbia, we have been babes in the woods. Something is coming up here that people who have not been close to campaigns cannot anticipate.

So, in answer to your question, I do not know what they will do whenever the big guns are brought out.

Mr. HOGAN. Off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Page, your statement is very helpful, and I think— are you finished, Mr. Hogan? I am sorry.

Mr. HOGAN. I did indeed.

Mr. ADAMS. The committee appreciates it, and I think your comment is very well taken that the elections in the District, and particularly such as the Board of Education elections, I do not think are relevant as to what is going to occur. That is why we are trying to pass a bill to at least put some perimeters around the election so that it will not be simply bought outright by someone.

I do not guess you were probably here yesterday at the opening statement when we started the hearings. It is the belief of a number of us on the committee that we should not try to place permanent legislation into effect, waiting for the elective government to decide and fight out among themselves, with the experience that they will have had, what kind of a law they may eventually want. But that we should try to prevent gross abuses at this time, and I think your comments you have made are helpful; and it may be that we will try to approach the media and see if we can get something to balance this out a little bit, as you mentioned.

Mr. PAGE. All right, thank you.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Page.

The subcommittee will stand adjourned until 7:30 this evening, when it will meet in Room 500 in the District Building, which are the City Council chambers, at which time we will proceed with the Board of Education, the D.C. Republican Committee, Common Cause and as many others as we can hear at that time.

[Whereupon, at 12:55 o'clock p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 7:30 p.m. the same day.]

CAMPAIGN PRACTICES IN THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1974

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8 p.m., in room 500, District Building, Washington, D.C., the Honorable Walter E. Fauntroy, acting Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Representative Fauntroy (presiding),

Also present: Harley Daniels, Legislative Assistant to Rep. Fauntroy; Jacques DePuy, Subcommittee Counsel; John Hogan, Minority Counsel; Dale MacIver, Full Committee Counsel; and Ralph Ulmer, Professional Staff.

Mr. FAUNTROY. The third of a series of hearings by the Subcommittee on Government Operations of the District of Columbia Committee will come to order as we consider campaign reform and financing reform legislation.

It is a privilege to hold this hearing in the District Building in the Council Chambers. And as we begin the hearings, I want to state first that my colleagues on the Committee, who vote as members of the House of Representatives, are all on the floor at this time as the House is in session this evening considering the supplemental defense appropriations bill. And our distinguished Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Brock Adams, was therefore unable to be with us tonight.

At the hearings, however, are Mr. Jacques DePuy, who is the Counsel for the Subcommittee on Government Operations, to my left. On my right is Mr. Daniels, who is Legislative Assistant in my office. To his right is Mr. John Hogan, who is our minority Counsel on the District Committee; and finally, the minority staff man, Mr. Ralph Ulmer.

The witness list has been prepared, and we call as our first witness Mr. Marion Barry, Jr., the President of the Board of Education, who will be accompanied, I suspect, by Mr. John Gibson, and perhaps joined at some point by Ms. Virginia Morris, Member of the D.C. Board of Education for Ward 7.

Mr. Barry?

STATEMENT OF MARION BARRY, JR., PRESIDENT, D.C. BOARD OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN GIBSON

Mr. BARRY. Thank you, Congressman Fauntroy.

Let me first indicate that Ms. Morris will not be present tonight. She decided to go to Houston earlier than she anticipated for the National Association of School Boards. I will be leaving tomorrow night.

All of us will be representing the District of Columbia School Board, so she will not be here. And I would like to just give my statement. I think a lot of the views that I have reflect her views, because we talked about this before she left, so I am not speaking for her but she, perhaps, agrees with many of the things I am going to say.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Governmental Operations Subcommittee, my name is Marion Barry, Jr., and I am President of the D.C. Board of Education, in addition to a lot of other things. As you all know, members of the Board of Education are the only locally elected public officials of the city and as such we belong to a small number of individuals who have thus far experienced the campaigning expense for an elected office.

ELECTION OF DELEGATE

Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Barry, I did take note of your statement here, but I just wanted to clarify the fact that under H.R. 12638 the Delegate would be subject to the same restrictions as imposed on other candidates in the District of Columbia locally, and the only restriction is with respect to reporting. And as I have indicated in the record heretofore, it seems to me that rather than simply duplicate the reporting forms, that the reports made under the Federal law would be made available for the local.

Mr. BARRY. My concern in reading the bill is that I do not think the present Federal law is stringent enough. In fact, your bill and even Congressman Diggs' bill in my view goes beyond, in some instances, the Federal applications of the law as applies to Congressmen and Senators. My own view is since Washington is unique and that since we are shaping legislation, it ought to be spelled out more specifically that the Congressional seat, no matter who holds it, would come under the same extent to the letter of the law as other local offices, because Washington, as you know, has a strange situation.

We are half a State sometimes, and halfway a city sometimes, and halfway a county. And so we get all mixed up. I thought all of us should come under the same requirement. That was my intent there recognizing that you do come under the Federal law, but I do not think the Federal law is decent at this point. This is sort of a lot left to be desired in my view.

Mr. FAUNTROY. You may proceed.

H.R. 12638 AND H.R. 13539

Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state my general opinion concerning campaign finances before I speak on the merits of H.R. 12638 introduced by Congressman Fauntroy and H.R. 13539 introduced by Congressman Diggs. I had thought of appearing before the Committee with a plea for your consideration of tabling the entire matter until the newly elected legislative body of the District of Columbia has a chance to deliberate on the matter and take appropriate action, for I feel that the time has long since passed when the Congress of the United States should burden itself with the direct government of the 800,00 people of the District of Columbia.