"Change Puts D. C. Voice in Congress on Shaky Ground," Washington Post, October 2, 1967, p. B-2, col. 1.

"Congress Seat Seen Aid To D. C. Financial Woes," Washington Star, October 27, 1967, p. C-4, col. 1.

"Congressmen for D. C.," ed., Washington Post, September 25, 1967, p. A-18 col. 3. "D. C. Representation Hearings Nov. 8-9," Washington Post, October 21 1967, p. B-1, col. 4.

"District Day," ed., Washington Star, September 25, 1967, p. A-12, col. 1. Elder, Shirley, "Voice Drive For District Resuming," Washington Star, July 16, 1967, p. 1, col. 4.

"D. C. Vote in House Is Urged by Celler As Hearing Opens," July 19, 1967, p. 1, col. 1 [Washington Star].

"D.C. Vote Push Rolls at Last," July 23, 1967, Washington Star, p. D-1, col. 1.

"House Unit to Start Drafting Vote Bill," August 11, 1967, p. B-1, col. 1 [Washington Star].

"A Voice for D.C. in Congress Favored by Senators in Poll," Washington Star, September 24, 1967, p. 1, col. 4.

"House Begins Drafting Bill for District Seat," Washington Star, September 26, 1967, p. 1, col. 6.

"Two D.C. Senators Added to Bill for Voice in Congress," September 28, 1967, p. 1, col. 1. [Washington, Star].

"Congress Seats for D.C. Backed," Washington Star, p. 1, col. 8.

"House Unit Clears D.C. Seating Plan," October 26, 1967, Washington Star, p. B-1, col. 6.

"Equality for D.C.," Washington Post, October 1, 1967, p. F-6, col. 1 [Editorial]. "Full Representation," ed., Washington Star, September 29, 1967, p. A-14, col. 1. Lindsay, John J., "House Would Vote in Lack of 269 Electors," Washington Post, November 10, 1960, p. A-20, col. 1.

"Louder Voice for D.C.?," Washington Daily News, September 29, 1967, p. 3, col. 6. MacKenzie, John P., "Presidential Succession Plan Is Law," Washington Post, February 11, 1967, p. 1, col. 1.

Mintz, Morton A., "Drive for District Vote May Stumble Over Criticism of Electoral College," Washington Post, December 8, 1960, p. B-1, col. 2.

Odell, Rice, "Bill Give D.C. Full Vote on Hill," Washington Daily News, October 11, 1967, p. 18, col. 1.

"On to the House!," ed., Washington Star, October 11, 1967, p. A-18, col. 1. Raspberry, William, "D.C. Delegate Seen in Congress in '67," Washington Post, January 1, 1967, p. B-1, col. 1.

"Representation and the Senate," ed., Washington Star, October 27, 1967, p. A-14,

col. 1.

"Senator Assails Amendment To D.C. Representation Bill," Washington Post, September 30, 1967, p. B-2, col. 1.

Stafford, Sam, "O. K. on Amendment on D.C. Seen Near," Washington Daily News, September 27, 1967, p. 27, col. 1.

"The Amendment Progresses," ed., Washington Star, September 27, 1967, p. A-14, col. 1.

"The District Defect," ed. Washington Star, February 3, 1966, p. A-10, col. 1. "The 25th Amendment," ed. Washington Post, February 12, 1967, p. E-6, col. 1. "Triumph of Principle," ed., Washington Post, October 13, 1967, p. A-24, col. 3. United States Congress, District of Columbia Representation and Vote, Hearings Before Subcommittee No. 5 of the Committee On the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 89th Congress, 2nd Session, on House Joint Resolution 529 (April 6, and 7, 1960).

D.C. Representation in Congress, Hearings Before The Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 90th Congress, 1st Session, on House Joint Resolution 396 (July 19, 20, 26, and August 2, 1967). [Cf. pp. 130–132].

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

"Clark Urges Congress Seats For District," Washington Star, November 8, 1967, p. 1, col. 1.

"D.C. Representation Debate Is Taxing," Washington Daily News, November 9, 1967, p. 26, col. 3.

Elder, Shirley, "Atty. Gen. Clark to Lead Off D.C. Representation Hearing," Washington Star, November 5, 1967, p. E−1, col. 1.

"Mayor Makes Plea for D.C. Representation," Washington Star, November 9, 1967, p. 1, col. 1.

"Pre-Adjournment Vote On D.C. Voice Doubtful," Washington Star, November 10, 1967, p. B-1, col. 3.

"Mayor Backs Voice for D.C. on Hill," Washington Post, November 10, 1967, p. B-16, col. 1.

United States Congress, Providing Representation Of The District of Columbia In Congress, Report to Accompany H.J. Res. 396 [Report No. 819], House of Representatives, 90th Congress, 1st Session, October 24, 1967.

"Rep. Abernethy Urges D.C. Voice in Senate," Washington Star, April 28, 1970, p. B-3, col. 1.

Mr. DOWDY. Now, the first witness on our list this morning is Mr. John Hechinger. We will be glad to hear from you, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. HECHINGER, FORMER CHAIRMAN, CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. HECHINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared testimony in writing and request to have it entered in the record. Although, it is rather brief and I believe that perhaps I have added a few points from my peculiar vantage point as first Chairman of the City Council in support of the need for a non-voting delegate and for the charter commission and the Hoover Commission, I believe that I would like to summarize in order to keep it as short as possible for you.

Mr. Chairman, over the years this committee must rate as the alltime least responsive committee in Congress. Imagine, in the past few years six home-rule type bills-six-have passed not only the Senate District Committee, but the full Senate, and all but one has died a cruel, smothering death within this committee.

For God's sake, isn't it time to act? Can't you see the turmoil within our country resulting from the struggle of the unrepresented to obtain a voice? To paraphrase what President Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

You say you can't get to this matter till such-and-such is out of the way. This time it is the Crime bill. Well, that's the whole point of the non-voting delegate and charter commission bills, a responsive Washingtonian will serve his or her constuents with an adequate staff whose interest will be to serve us, not to smother us. While we continually argue for these measures-while you listen to selfish, specialinterests within the city who persuade you not to act-the city is going down the drain. Where is the 1971 Revenue Bill? Both Appropriations Committees have finished their hearings, but will not report out the D.C. Government full requested appropriations until the Revenue Bill is reported.

This is not all. Where is the Tax Conformity Bill? The Conditional Zoning Bill? Consumer Legislation? Seed Money for Low-Income Housing? D.C. Health Improvement Act? Public Ownership of D.C. Transit? .. The city is going down the drain. There are 30 pieces of legislation bottled up in this Committee.

I beg you to allow the Non-Voting Delegate and Charter Commission Bill to reach the floor of the House.

NON-VOTING DELEGATE TO HOUSE AND CHARTER COMMISSION

Now, Mr. Chairman, I certainly am not representative of the alienated youth. That is obvious. I am certainly not a militant white or black. As a member of the Business community in a business that is 80 years old in this town, I cry out that the fact that what we have seen even in these past weeks of Kent State, of Augusta, Georgia, of Jackson State in Mississippi are representative of the very thing that is going on in this town of people without the least shred of representation, of a population of between 800 to 850,000 people, larger than 11 States in this Union without a shred of representation. Now, these two very modest proposals counting the little Hoover Commission three are really very, very modest, and it would be a great act immediately to see that the citizens of Washington are granted this first step towards representation.

Mr. Dowdy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. HECHINGER. Thank you.

Mr. DOWDY. Your whole statement will be made a part of the record with the words you added.

Mr. HECHINGER. Thank you.

(The prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. HECHINGER

As former Chairman of the City Council, I can speak with authority on the need of a representative in an official capacity to sit among this distinguished body for the following reasons:

A. To relieve Congressmen, who have the heavy responsibility of representing their own constituencies and who have the burden of the great affairs of the nation, of the chores relating to—

1. The housekeeping job of liaison between the problems of the City and the Committees of Congress.

2. The attention to the petitions of all the District citizens and their orga nizations on the multiplicity of concerns that arise daily.

3. The need to interpret to the citizens the congressional process in order that individual zeal for specific causes is properly directed.

4. The need to maintain a smooth flow of information to the Mayor and the Council on legislation that may affect the City, but which may be beyond so-called District of Columbia bills.

5. The need to have liaison with all officials of the city government to interpret and implement the will of Congress on specific D.C. legislation. 6. To eliminate time-wasting of Congressmen and staffs of Congress on bills requiring the numerous items of almost trivial consequence that now reside within Congressional duties.

7. To interpret and research background material for Congress on City affairs.

B. A second category of reasons is

1. To serve the 535 Members of Congress just as the Congressmen serve their constituents-for I feel the Members of Congress are honorary citizens in our town and should be cordially and hospitably treated.

2. To act as liaison for Members of Congress with the various facets of the City Government.

I have listed this number of practical reasons whereas, of course, the most important thing that will be accomplished by the authorization of a non-voting delegate is to give the citizens of the District of Columbia a modest beginning toward the full rights of citizenship. The addition of a spokesman will do much to bring the sometimes diverse elements within our community together. I urge you to report out favorably the Non-Voting Delegate Bills. I also endorse the Charter Commission bills-even though over 46 different home-rule proposals have been before this Committee over many years. I personally have a strong preference for moving ahead on one of these specific past home rule pieces of legislation, but realistically I believe the time to act is now, and the

Charter Commission is the only measure that will enable us to bring back to Congress the voice of the people through the dedication of a highly thoughtful commission who will have studied exhaustively all previous attempts at home rule. Mr. Chairman, over the years this Committee must rate as the all-time least responsive Committee in Congress. Imagine, in the past few years 6 home-ruletype bills-6-have passed not only the Senate District Committee, but the full Senate, and all but one has died a cruel, smothering death within this Committee. For God's sake, isn't it time to act? Can't you see the turmoil within our country resulting from the struggle of the unrepresented to obtain a voice? To paraphrase what President Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."

You say you can't get to this matter till such-and-such is out of the way. This time it is the Crime Bill. Well, that's the whole point of the non-voting delegate and charter commission bills, a responsive Washingtonian will serve his or her constituents with an adequate staff whose interest will be to serve us, not to smother us. While we continually argue for these measures-while you listen to selfish special-interests within the city who persuade you not to act-the city is going down the drain! Where is the 1971 Revenue Bill? Both Appropriations Committees have finished their hearings, but will not report out the D.C. Government full requested appropriations until the Revenue Bill is reported.

This is not all. Where is the Tax Conformity Bill? The Conditional Zoning Bill? Consumer Legislation? Seed Money for Low-Income Housing? D.C. Health Improvement Act? Public Ownership of D.C. Transit?. . . . The city is going down the drain. There are 30 pieces of legislation bottled up in this Committee. I beg you to allow the Non-Voting Delegate and Charter Commission Bill to reach the floor of the House.

Mr. DowDY. Next, The Bar Association of the District of Columbia, represented by Mr. Lyon, who is Chairman of the D.C. Affairs Committee, and by Mr. Craig Bamberger for the Suffrage Committee. STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. LYON, CHAIRMAN, D.C. AFFAIRS SECTION; ACCOMPANIED BY CRAIG BAMBERGER, CHAIRMAN, SUFFRAGE COMMITTEE, D.C. BAR ASSOCIATION.

Mr. LYON. Mr. Chairman, I am Richard K. Lyon, and I am Chairman of the District of Columbia Affairs Section of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia.

Our section, as its name indicates, has been recently established to concern itself primarily with legal problems involving the District of Columbia.

We have a number of constituents, some 16 committees and 18 hundred lawyers who are members of the District of Columbia Affairs section, one of which is our Suffrage Committee. We have taken a position as a section and we are represented here today by Mr. Craig Bamberger, who is the Acting Chairman of our Suffrage Committee, and he will present the testimony of the Bar Association to you today,

sir.

Thank you.

Mr. Downy. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BAMBERGER. Mr. Chairman, our committee undertook on behalf of the Association a careful analysis of the Nixon Administration's proposed legislation for a charter commission and a non-voting delegate for the District of Columbia, in the context of the broader issues of home rule and full Congressional representation. In March of this year the Board of Directors of the Bar Association considered and approved without a dissenting vote the Committee's recommended positions on the two Administration bills, thereby constituting them

the official positions of the Association. We are grateful to the House District Committee for giving us the opportunity to make the views of the Bar Association known to you.

CHARTER COMMISSION

First, I would like to speak to the proposed legislation establishing a Commission on Government for the District of Columbia. The D.C. Bar Association strongly endorses, and hopes that this committee soon will act favorably upon, H.R. 11215. The Association has been on record for many years in support of the principle of home rule for the District of Columbia, and we favor H.R. 11215 because we believe it will advance the District toward that goal. Moreover, a charter commission reporting back to Congress and to the President would have an unusual opportunity to consider from a fresh perspective the question of the best form of urban government for this great Federal City. We do, however, wish to suggest one change in the bill. Section 3(b) now provides that the Commission shall submit to Congress and to the President a report of its "findings and recommendations." The Association is concerned that the bill stops short of commencing implementation of the Commission's recommendations. Accordingly, we take the view that it would be a constructive change were the bill amended to provide that the Commission's recommendations shall include proposed implementing legislation.

NON-VOTING DELEGATE TO THE HOUSE

Let me turn now to the question of a non-voting Delegate for the District of Columia. The D.C. Bar Association is for passage of the Administration's H.R. 11216, providing for such a Delegate, as an interim measure pending the granting of full congressional representation to the District. We welcome this authorization of a truly representative District spokesman on Capitol Hill, who could devote himself fully to legislative problems of interest to the citizens of the District. Surely there can be no defensible reason for denying an American jurisdiction which the Census Bureau estimates have more residents than eleven of our fifty states, and whose resident individuals are shown by the most recent Internal Revenue statistics to pay more Federal income taxes than the resident individuals of seventeeen states, even a single voteless voice in the body which governs it. Therefore, just as the Bar Association encouraged passage of a non-voting Delegate bill in our appearance before this committee in November of 1963, so also do we endorse this bill.

Notwithstanding our enthusiastic support for H.R. 11216, we're concerned about several technical aspects of the bill, where we think that clarifications or changes may be indicated. I do not propose to take the time of the committee by enumerating these in the course of this presentation, but I have attached to my written statement a memorandum discussing these problems and I ask that this be included in the record along with my remarks.

In conclusion let me express the earnest conviction of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia that the interests of the citizens