receives 40 percent of the total votes cast in the election for delegate nominee or for delegate. Section 7 provides further necessary, technical amendments to the District Election Act. Notably, pursuant to section 7, the number of signatures required on a nominating petition, for an election to fill party office, is increased from 100 to 200; the District Board of Elections is authorized to provide for the casting of nonabsentee ballots in District precincts other than those of the voters' residences; instead of any candidate (as under existing law), any group of qualified electors interested in the outcome of an election would be entitled to apply for credentials authorizing the posting of watchers at the polling places of the District; the Board of Elections is affirmatively authorized to regulate the number and conduct of poll watchers; the board is authorized to declare winners in advance of certain elections, when the number of qualified candidates or nominees does not exceed the number of offices to be filled; the per diem compensatin of board members, for time spent in the performance of board business, is increased from $25 to $50, but with an annual maximum of $2,500; and the period following an election within which candidates must file financial statements is extended from 10 to 30 days. Section 8 renders the delegate act effective upon enactment, and sets the first Tuesday in May 1970 as the date of the first party primary election for the Office of Congressional Delegate from the District of Columbia. Section 9 provides that funds necessary to carry out the provisions of the District Election Act as amended by the delegate act are authorized to be appropriated. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW In the opinion of the committee, it is necessary to dispense with the requirements of subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate to expedite the business of the Senate. о S. Rept. 91-433 91ST CONGRESS 1st Session SENATE { REPORT No. 91-434 ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEPTEMBER 25, 1969.-Ordered to be printed Mr. TYDINGS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 2164] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to which was referred the bill (S. 2164) to establish a Commission on Government for the District of Columbia, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. The amendments are as follows: On page 1, beginning with line 3, strike out all through line 9 and insert in lieu thereof the following: That there is hereby established the Commission on Government for the District of Columbia (referred to hereafter as the "Commission" to examine the feasibility and desirability of various methods by which (1) the structure of the District government may be improved, (2) the District of Columbia may be granted a greater measure of self-government than presently exists, and (3) the District of Columbia government can promote economy, efficiency, and improved service in the transaction of the public business in the departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities of the District government. On page 3, beginning with line 7, strike out all through line 13 and insert in lieu thereof the following: SEC. 3. (a) The Commission shall examine the feasibility and desirability of various methods by which (1) the structure of the District government may be improved, (2) the District of Columbia may be granted a greater measure of self-government than presently exists, and (3) the District government can promote economy, efficiency, and improved On page 4, line 18, strike out "and". On page 4, line 24, strike out the period and insert a semicolon and the word "and". On page 4, between lines 24 and 25, insert the following: "(11) the means and extent to which the District government can (A) limit expenditures to the lowest amount consistent with the efficient performance of essential services, activities, and functions; (B) eliminate duplication and overlapping of services, activities, and functions; (C) consolidate services, activities, and functions of a similar nature; and (D) abolish services, activities, and functions not necessary to the efficient conduct of the District government. On page 5, line 3, strike out "six" and insert the word "eighteen". PURPOSE OF BILL The purpose of the bill S. 2164 is generally to create a home rule study commission for the District of Columbia, to serve at the same time as a local investigative commission (a local Hoover Commission) to study in detail the operations of the District of Columbia govern ment. More specifically, the purpose of S. 2164, (as stated therein), is to establish a Commission on Government for the District of Columbia to examine the feasibility and desirability of various methods by which (1) the structure of the District government may be improved, (2) the District of Columbia may be granted a greater measure of selfgovernment than presently exists, and (3) the District of Columbia government can promote economy, efficiency, and improved service. in the transaction of the public business in the departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities of the District government. The Commission on Government is to consist of 15 memberstwo Senators, two Members of the House of Representatives, five Presidential appointees, and four members elected by the people of the District of Columbia, along with, ex officio, the District Commissioner and the Chairman of the District of Columbia Council. While being charged with reasonable expedition, the Commission is allowed 18 months to submit its findings and recommendations to the President and to the Congress. NEED FOR LEGISLATION S. 2164 reflects, first, the awareness of this committee of the continued anomaly of the disfranchisement of Washington's 850,000 citizens. Unique among the constituent jurisdictions of the United States, the District of Columbia as such is governed entirely by appointed officials and employees. S. Rept. 91-434 In such a setting, in the National Capital, the move toward greater self-government is as inevitable as the ideal of democracy is cherished. The Senate District Committee, moreover, was persuaded that selfgovernment can enhance good government by assuring the support of the people to be governed. The committee recognized that the important position which the District of Columbia occupies-as a model for the Nation, the National Capital, as well as the residence of nearly a million persons-requires that the form of government in this city be acceptable at once to the Congress, to the President, to the Nation, and to Washingtonians. Yet, to date, proposals for particular forms of government, fashioned or approved by this committee, have not in fact achieved full acceptance The committee concluded that some novel approach is necessary. The committee further noted that recent developments in political thinking appear to pose, as never before, conflicting trends in the field of urban government. While some would urge an expansion of interjurisdictional cooperation, others urge decentralization or diffusion of governmental services. While some would urge increased professionalization of local government, others urge increased citizen participation. With this in mind also, the committee opted to create a study commission, whereby disparate thinking might more easily be tapped, reconciled, and implemented. In specifically charging the Commission on Government (in S. 2164) with a review of the operations of the District government, the Senate committee was mindful of the need for shoring up the administrative underpinnings of any new form of city government. The committee likewise sought to institutionalize intensive oversight and reform, as the logical counterpart of its approval of increased Federal moneys for the support of the District of Columbia government, and of the committee's repeated authorization for an expansion of local governmental activities. HISTORY OF LEGISLATION The Senate Committee on the District of Columbia had pending efore it four bills relating to home rule-S. 1971, providing for the election of the existing District of Columbia Council, S. 1972 and . 1991, updated versions of the home rule measure (S. 1118) passed by the Senate in the 89th Congress, first session (providing immediate home rule with a Mayor-Council form of government), and S. 2164, introduced on behalf of the administration, providing a home rule study commission. A public hearing was held by this committee on April 30, 1969, at which time the committee had before it S. 1971, S. 1972, S. 1991, and the message of the President to the Congress of the United States, dated April 28, 1969. That message outlined the substance of the provisions of S. 2164, which was introduced thereafter, on May 13, 1969. Testimony was received from 31 witnesses, and further statements and communications were submitted for the record. (See the publication, "Home Rule," Hearing before the Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. Senate, 91st Cong., first sess., 1969. Also, see the appendix herein for a brief history of the District government and home rule.) S. Rept. 91-434 SUMMARY OF BILL Section 1 provides for the establishment of a Commission on Government for the District of Columbia, to examine the feasibility and desirability of various methods by which: (1) the structure of the District government may be improved, (2) the District of Columbia may be granted a greater measure of self-government than presently exists, and (3) the District of Columbia government can promote economy, efficiency, and improved service in the transaction. of the public business in the departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities of the District government. By charging the Commission in particular with an investigative role as to the matter contained in item (3) aforementioned, S. 2164 assigns to the Commission on Government a role akin to that played by the Federal Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (the Hoover Commission). The Senate District Committee is advised, moreover, that the precedent Hoover Commission did not render findings or make recommendations regarding the organization of the District of Columbia government. Section 2 provides that the membership of the Commission on Government shall consist of the following, recognizing at once, with regard to the governance of the District, the interests of the Nation, the President, the Congress, and the local citizenry: (1) two Senators, of different party affiliations, to be appointed by the President of the Senate; (2) two members of the House of Representatives, of different party affiliations, to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (3) five persons, to be appointed by the President of the United States, one of whom the President shall designate as chairman, another of whom he shall designate as vice chairman, and not more than three of whom are to be of the same party affiliation; (4) the Commissioner of the District of Columbia and the chairman of the District of Columbia Council, as ex officio, nonvoting members of the Commission; and (5) four persons, voting members, to be elected by the people of the District of Columbia. A vacancy in an appointed office of the Commission is to be filled in the same manner in which the predecessor in office was appointed, and such vacancy is subject to the same limitation as to party affiliation. A vacancy in the office of an elected member is to be filled by appointment by the President of the United States. Seven members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a fewer number may conduct hearings. Section 3 provides that the Commission shall examine the feasibility and desirability of various methods by which: (1) the structure of the District government may be improved, (2) the District of Columbia may be granted a greater measure of self-government than presently exists, and (3) the District government can promote economy, efficiency, and improved service in the transaction of the public business in the departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities of the District government. In this connection, the Commission is authorized to study, among others, the following matters: (1) the basic structure of the District government and its relation to the Federal Government; (2) the legislative authority to be delegated to the District government in order to carry out its powers of self-gov S. Rept. 91-434 |