Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16987768
label
District of Columbia (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16987768
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
District of Columbia (2)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Affirmative action programs
Crime
Home rule
Legislation
Local transit
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16987768
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-31
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-02-01
month
2
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
4ec3237b838ce7cc
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 10, folder "District of Columbia (2)" of the
James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Cc: June Connor
THE WHITE HOUSE
Dist Columbia of
WASHINGTON
March 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JUDY HOPE
ROGER ATKINS - 3133
FROM:
WILLIAM NICHOLSON w WN
SUBJECT:
Invitation to the President to participate in
the inauguration of METRO service in Washington
on March 27
BERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
I would appreciate your comments and recommendation on the
attached invitation.
Recommendation: Thank you. Scheduling permitted, the President
COMMENTS: On march 27, the first 4½ miles
should participate
of and MSTRO relevated will open. portions. including The President woder ground has
been supportine and decerves credit for
this happy exect.
although the delaeps in the extire
septem and the projected bee d get oversuns
these days) about the size of the completed
raise questions (particularly in Conguess
METRO septem the event on the 27th should
be a happy one -- a first D. step in serious this
long awaited solution to bone of C's
problems
Roger atkins and Bab Patricelli (adminis -
teator of UMTA concur in this recommendation.
Rendith Hpre
Digitized from Box 10 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
600 FINA Street NW Washington 00 20001
MAR i
(202 537-1234
B.N. of Directors
STERLING TUCKER
RAMAGES WHITE
OperChairman
JOSEPHIS WHOLEY
Virginia
Second Vice Charrman
February 27, 1976
WALTER E WASHINGTON
District of Columbia
CLEATUS E. BARNETT
Maryland
The Honorable John 0. Marsh, Jr.
JOSEPH ALEXANDER
Counsellor to the President
Vrging
The White House
Alternate Directors
Washington, D.C. 20500
JAMES S COATES
JERRYA MOORE.JR
Discription Columbia
Dear Jack:
CARLEON = SICKLES
NORMANE CHRISTELLER
On the morning of March 27, 1976, Metro will reach its
Mercead
most significant milestone when we begin regular service of
CHARLESE BEATLEY R.
the National Capital Area's Rapid Rail System.
JOHN SHACOCHIS
The Board of Directors wishes to extend an invitation
Officers
to the President to participate in inauguration of the service.
However, before doing so it seemed to me more appropriate that
Active General Manager
i should seek your advice as to the possibility and the steps
MARKEN QUENSTED
300 General Manager
to be taken by us. We would also be pleased if you, too,
could take part.
WILLIAMA BOLEYN
E Other
Sincerely,
DELVER SON
Transport
CHNR
THEREOF
haven
Warren Quenstedt
21
FORD & LIBRARY
D.C.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES CANNON
FROM:
JUDY JOHNSTON judy
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill Reports
The following enrolled bill reports were due from OMB
by cob Tuesday, September 1 and have not yet been
received.
Earn
H.R. 12261 - Act to extend the period during McConahe
which the Council of the District of Columbia
is prohibited from revising the criminal laws
of the District.
H.R. 12455-Act to amend title XX of the Social
Security Act so as to permit greater latitude by
the States in establishing criteria respecting
eligibility for social services, to facilitate
and encourage the implementation by States of
child day care services programs, etc.
Both of the above bills bear a last day for action
of Tuesday, September 7.
FORD i LIBRARY 076839
L.
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
file
September 2
Date:
Time:
500pm
FOR ACTION: Steve McConahey
CC (for information): Jack Marsh
Dawn Bennett
Jim Connor
Max Friedersdorf
Ed Schmults
Ken Lazarus
Robert Hartmann (veto message attached)
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Time:
September 3
100pm
SUBJECT:
H.R. 12261-DC Criminal Laws
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
FORD i 07VH39 LIBRARY
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
James M. Cannon
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
for
the
President
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SEP 2 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 - District of Columbia
Criminal Laws
Sponsor - Rep. Diggs (D) Michigan
Last Day for Action
September 7, 1976 - Tuesday
Purpose
To extend the period during which the Council of the District
of Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District by direct amendment of the D.C. Criminal Code or
through changes in police regulations.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
District of Columbia Government
Disapproval (Veto
Department of Justice
message attached)
No objection
Discussion
The District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973,
delegates to the Council of the District of Columbia the authority
to make changes in the criminal laws of the District, but not
until January 3, 1977. The Congress, in a related action, enacted
the District of Columbia Law Revision Commission Act, approved
August 21, 1974, which established the District of Columbia Law
Revision Commission to examine the District's laws and to recommend,
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
2
in annual reports to the Congress, changes in them. The
Commission--a D.C. Government body-- did not become opera-
tional until a year later and now expects its work on the
revision of the criminal laws to be completed within the
next two years.
The enrolled bill would extend for two additional years, until
January 3, 1979, Congress' sole jurisdiction over the criminal
laws of the District for the purpose of giving the Commission
adequate time to complete its work and make its recommendations
to the Congress. The bill also contains a provision intended
to preclude the Council's amendment of police regulations in a
manner which, effectively, alters the Criminal Code. The
provision was added by amendment on the House floor by
Representative Dent of Pennsylvania, and was apparently directed
at the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulations Act,
approved by the Mayor on July 23, 1976, which is presently being
considered by Congress. Mr. Dent explained that he wanted to
prohibit any criminal code changes by "
any subterfuge or
any roundabout, off-the-street method by any departmental police
regulation."
The Dent amendment was passed 262 to 92 and the amended bill
was then approved by voice vote. Twenty-four hours later,
the bill was passed by the Senate without debate on a voice
vote.
In its report on the bill, the House D.C. Committee maintains
that extension of the prohibition on the Council's changing
the Criminal Code is necessary because completion of the
comprehensive revision and recodification of the District's
Criminal Code by the Congress was intended to be a prerequisite
to the transfer of jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C.
Criminal Code. The Committee report points out that the
conference report on the Home Rule Act stated:
It is the intention of the conferees that
their respective Committees will seek to
revise the District of Columbia Criminal
Code prior to the effective date of the
transfer of authority referred to. (Emphasis
added.)
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
3
The House D.C. Committee report further notes that the conferees
on the Home Rule Act provided for a single House veto of
Criminal Code changes that might be made by the Council once
the jurisdiction was transferred from the Congress to the
Council. The report states:
This reinforces the commitment of the Congress
to maintain exclusive jurisdiction over amend-
ments to the Criminal Code until the Law Revision
Commission has completed its study and made its
recommendations, and the Congress has acted on the
totally revised Criminal Code.
The District of Columbia Government, in its attached views
letter, agrees that a major revision of the D.C. Criminal
Code is necessary and should not be undertaken without the
benefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. It
points out, however, that empowering the D.C. Council to enact
changes in the D.C. Criminal Code should not be delayed fur-
ther, because there are a number of, additions or revisions
to the criminal laws which are urgently needed.
A number of such provisions have been proposed by the District
to the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit the
unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile homes
within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to make it
unlawful to obtain telecommunication services through misrepre-
sentations. Moreover, the D.C. Government maintains that
enactment of such changes would not interfere at all with the
work of the Commission.
The effect of the Dent amendment in the enrolled bill is unclear.
As noted earlier, it was apparently intended to prohibit the
Firearms Control Regulations Act which would ban possession of
handguns to anyone who does not, on the date of its enactment,
possess a valid registration for a handgun. That measure will
become effective unless Congress disapproves it within 30
legislative days, a period which will elapse sometime at the
end of September. However, the Department of Justice advises,
in its attached views letter, that the enrolled bill, in
and of itself, would not invalidate the gun control measure.
credite public
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
4
Moreover, the effect of the bill is also uncertain in other
respects. First, the amendment references articles regulated
under Title 22 of the D.C. Criminal Code. However, it is not
clear whether licensing of firearms would be affected by
the amendment because under the District of Columbia Code,
the licensing of firearms is carried out pursuant to authority
found in Title I of the D.C. Code, a provision which predates
home rule. Second, the amendment references "criminal offenses."
In the District of Columbia it is not clear what constitutes a
"criminal offense" since District of Columbia law, as interpreted
by the courts, is not settled in regard to whether or not
criminal sanctions imposed pursuant to police powers translate
civil violations into criminal matters.
We agree with the District of Columbia recommendation that the
bill be disapproved. It can be argued that a further extension
of the limitation on the D.C. Council is consistent with the
original intent of Congress that a thorough revision of the
D.C. Criminal Code be completed before the D.C. Council is
empowered to enact changes in the criminal law. However, we
believe the basic issue presented by the bill is whether the
two-year extension is necessary to protect the Federal interest
in the District of Columbia and if it and the Dent amendment
are consistent with the purpose of the Home Rule Act, namely
the grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of
powers of local self-government.
In our view, the bill is not consistent with the right of self-
government for the citizens of the District of Columbia under
the Home Rule Act. Extending the limitation on the D.C. Council's
authority to change the Criminal Code is unnecessary. Additions
to the D.C. criminal laws are needed now to enable the District
to meet the challenges of a changing society. Granting the
power to the D.C. Council to legislate on local matters under
the Code would not interfere with the work of the Law Revision
Commission and the Council does not require the results of the
Commission's study to weigh the need for such legislation.
Further, this bill is not necessary to enable the Congress to
protect the Federal interest in the District of Columbia. The
FORD & LIBRARY CERALD
Home Rule Act gives the Congress clear authority to disapprove
D.C. Government legislative acts. Finally, the Dent amend-
ment, as noted above, is both an unnecessary erosion of the
home rule concept and uncertain in its effect on other actions
of the D.C. Government.
A proposed veto message is attached for your consideration.
Jam Director James T. Lynn Z.Rg
Enclosures
FORD & GERALD LIBRAR
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12261, a bill
"To extend the period during which the Council of the District
of Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District."
The purpose of the bill is to give the District of
Columbia Law Revision Commission additional time, until
January 3, 1979, within which to make recommendations to the
Congress for the comprehensive revision of the District of
Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission, which was established
subsequent to the enactment of the District of Columbia Self-
Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, has begun the
task of reviewing the criminal laws of the District but will
not be able to complete its work by January 3, 1977, when,
under current law, the D.C. Council will be able to amend
the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
I agree that no major revision of the District's criminal
laws should be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's
recommendations. I do not agree, however, that it is either
wise or necessary to delay further the time when the citizens
of the District of Columbia, through their elected representa-
tives, may exercise the right of self-goverment in an area
that affects their daily lives.
The Congress should not prohibit changes in the District
of Columbia's criminal laws which may be needed now to meet
the problems of the community. A number of such changes have
been proposed by the District and are pending before Congress.
Granting the power to the District of Columbia Council to legislate
on local matters such as these would not interfere with the
work of the Commission. Furthermore, the Council does not require
GERALD FORD
-2-
the results of the Commission's study to weigh the need for
such legislation. Nor is this bill necessary to enable the
Congress to protect the Federal interest in the District of
Columbia. The home rule law gives the Congress clear authority
to disapprove District of Columbia legislative acts.
Finally, an amendment to H.R. 12261, added on the floor
of the House with hasty and inadequate consideration, would
prohibit the Council from taking any action "with respect to
any criminal offense pertaining to articles subject to
regulation under chapter 32 of title 22 of the District of
Columbia Code" (relating to weapons), until January 3, 1979.
This provision is objectionable on two grounds: first, like
the bill as a whole, it is an unnecessary erosion of the home
rule concept; second, it is ambiguous and its potential effect
on other actions of the District of Columbia Goverment is unclear.
For these reasons, I am returning H.R. 12261 without my
approval.
THE WHITE HOUSE
September , 1976
BERALD FORD
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WALTER E. WASHINGTON
MAYOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004
AUG 27 1976
Mr. James M. Frey
Assistant Director for Legislative
Reference
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Frey:
This is in reference to the facsimile of the enrolled
enactment of Congress entitled:
H.R. 12261 - To extend the period during
which the Council of the District of
Columbia is prohibited from revising the
criminal laws of the District
which you transmitted on August 25, 1976. The enrolled
bill would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District of
Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganiza-
tion Act (the "Self-Government Act") [D.C. Code, § 1-
147 (a) (9) ] by extending for two years the prohibition
against the Council of the District of Columbia taking
any action "with respect to any provision of title 23
of the District of Columbia Code (relating to criminal
procedure), or with respect to any provision of any law
codified in title 22 or 24 of the District of Columbia
Code (relating to crimes and treatment of prisoners) . 11
Section 602 (a) (9) currently provides that the Council
may exercise such authority on January 3, 1977; this
bill would postpone the date on which the Council could
exercise this authority to January 3, 1979. Addition-
ally, the bill, as amended during debate on the floor
of the House of Representatives upon the adoption of
the "Dent Amendment", prohibits the Council from taking
any action "with respect to any criminal offense per-
taining to articles subject to regulation under chapter
32 of title 22 of the District of Columbia Code" (re-
lating to weapons), until January 3, 1979. The bill's
provisions are totally inconsistent with the principal,
stated purpose of the Self-Government Act, namely the
"grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of
powers of local self-government", P.L. 93-198, $ 102
(a), 87 Stat. 777; it therefore is unacceptable.
An essential aspect of the right of self-government is
presently denied to the citizens of the District, as
they still are denied the authority to enact criminal
laws and those relating to judicial procedure and
the treatment of prisoners. Notwithstanding that the
proper subjects of such laws are of paramount concern
to the inhabitants of this City, this bill seeks a
further postponement of the citizen's authority to ad-
dress these concerns, for another two years. It would
deny to the citizens of the District the exercise of a
right - through its elected officials -- explicitly
granted to them seventy years ago, when Congress pro-
vided:
The Council is hereby authorized and
empowered to make
...
all such usual and
police regulations
...
as the Council may
deem necessary for the regulation of
firearms, projectiles, explosives, or
weapons of any kind. D.C. Code, $ 1-227.
The original purpose of the bill, as stated by Chairman
Diggs, its author, was to give the District of Columbia
Law Revision Commission sufficient time within which to
make recommendations to the Congress for the comprehen-
sive revision of the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
The Commission, which was established subsequent to the
enactment of the Self-Government Act by P.L. 93-379,
88 Stat. 480, has begun the task of reviewing the crim-
inal laws of the District and has made significant
FORD
- 2 -
ERALD
progress. The District agrees that no major revision
of its criminal laws should be undertaken without the
benefit of the Commission's recommendations, and so
informed the House District Committee by letter of
June 29, 1976. However, there are additions to the
criminal laws which are needed to enable the District
to meet the challenges of a changing society. A number
of such provisions have been proposed by the District
to the Congress --- for example, proposals to prohibit
the unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile
homes within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to
make it unlawful to obtain telecommunication services
through misrepresentation. Nonetheless, these proposals
are still pending before the House District of Columbia
Committee.
The enactment by the Council of provisions such as the
foregoing would not interfere with the work of the Com-
mission. And it cannot be said that the Council requires
the result of the Commission's study to weigh the need
for such legislation. Nor can it be said that in the
absence of the provisions of the subject bill there would
be no Congressional "oversight" of acts of the Council
pertaining to the criminal laws: § 602(c) (2) of the
Self-Government Act provides that such act of the Council
shall take effect only if not disapproved within thirty
days by either the House or the Senate.
The discussion of the amendment on the floor demonstrates
that it was premised on a fundamental misunderstanding
of the Self-Government Act. Its stated purpose is to
"prohibit
...
Criminal Code changes by any subterfuge
or any roundabout, off-the-street method by any depart-
mental police regulation". Cong. Rec. H. 8798 (Aug. 23,
1976, daily ed.). These considerations aside, the
impetus for the amendment -- the passage of the Council
of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 --- was
an exercise by the Council of explicit police power
conferred on it by D.C. Code, § 1-277. Its legislation
does no more than to amend similar police power
i
FORD
- 3 -
GERALD
regulations adopted by the prior appointed Council, in
1969, under the same authority. Thus, the amendment
seeks to strip the City's elected Council of an author-
ity which Congress conferred long prior to its grant of
home rule, and permitted an appointed Council to exer-
cise.
In conclusion, this bill would extend, for an additional
two years, the period during which the people of the
District may not enact, regardless of manifest need,
any criminal laws, nor any police regulations with res-
pect to any weapon mentioned in D.C. Code, § 22-3201,
et seq. Its provisions are inconsistent with the spirit
of the Self-Government Act and the principle of self-
determination. It does not serve any Federal interest;
rather it is addressed to a matter which is essentially
local in nature. Therefore, the District Government
strongly urges that H.R. 12261 be disapproved. A pro-
posed message of disapproval is attached.
Sincerely yours,
WALTER E. WASHINGTON
Mayor
Starling Duch
STERLING TUCKER
Chairman
Council of the District of Columbia
Attachment
- 4 -
GERALD 717 R. FORD
PROPOSED MESSAGE OF DIAPPROVAL
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12261, a
bill "To extend the period during which the Council of
the District of Columbia is prohibited from revising
the criminal laws of the District." This bill would
extend for two years, or until January 3, 1979, the
prohibition against the taking by the Council of the
District of Columbia of any action with respect to any
provisions of the laws codified in the District of
Columbia Code relating to crimes, criminal procedure,
and the treatment of prisoners. Additionally, the bill
would prohibit the Council from taking any action "with
respect to any criminal offense pertaining to articles
subject to regulation under chapter 32 of title 22 of
the District of Columbia Code" (relating to weapons),
until January 3, 1979.
I view the provisions of this bill as totally
inconsistent with the principal, stated purpose of the
District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act, namely the "grant to the inhabitants
of the District of Columbia powers of local self-
government." I am therefore unable to accept these
provisions.
FORD
&
RALD
An essential aspect of the right of self-govern-
ment, which is fundamental to our system of democracy,
is presently denied to the citizens of the District,
as they still are without authority to enact criminal
laws and those relating to judicial procedure and the
treatment of prisoners. Notwithstanding that the proper
subjects of such laws are of paramount concern to the
inhabitants of the District, this bill seeks a further
postponement of the citizen's authority to address
these concerns, for another two years. It also would
deny to the citizens of the District the exercise of a
right -- through its elected officials -- explicitly
granted to them seventy years ago, when Congress pro-
vided:
The Council is hereby authorized and
empowered to make
all such usual and
police regulations
...
as the Council may
deem necessary for the regulation of fire-
arms, projectiles, explosives, or weapons
of any kind.
The original purpose of the bill was to give the Dis-
trict of Columbia Law Revision Commission sufficient time
within which to make recommendations to the Congress
- 2 -
GERALD R. LIMBIT FORD
for the comprehensive revision of the District of
Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission, which was
established subsequent to the enactment of the Self-
Government Act has begun the comprehensive task of
reviewing the criminal laws of the District and has
made significant progress. I agree that no major
revision of the District's criminal laws should be
undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's
recommendations. However, there are additions to the
criminal laws which are needed to enable the District
to meet the challenges of a changing society. A number
of such provisions have been proposed by the District
to the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit
the unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile
homes within the scope of the crime of burglary, and
to make it unlawful to obtain telecommunication ser-
vices through misrepresentation.
The enactment by the Council of provisions such as
the foregoing would not interfere with the work of the
Commission. And it cannot be said that the Council
requires the result of the Commission's study to weigh
the need for such legislation. Nor can it be said that
in the absence of the provisions of H.R. 12261 there
would be no Congressional "oversight" of Section 602 (c)
- 3 -
(2) of the Self-Government Act provides that such acts
of the Council shall take effect only if not disapproved
within thirty days by either the House or the Senate.
The impetus for the amendment relating to weapons--
the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 - was
adopted by the Council in an exercise of the explicit
police power granted it by D.C. Code, § 1-277, and
for the purpose of amending similar regulations adopted
by the prior appointed Council in 1969. Thus, the amend-
ment seeks to strip the City's elected Council of an au-
thority which Congress conferred in 1906 - long prior
to its grant of home rule.
This bill would extend, for an additional two
years, the period during which the people of the
District may not enact, regardless of manifest need,
any criminal laws, nor any police regulations with re-
spect to weapons. Its provisions are inconsistent with
the spirit of the Self-Government Act and the principle
of self-determination. It does not serve any Federal
interest; rather it is addressed to a matter which is
essentially local in nature.
For these reasons I am returning H.R. 12261 and
asking the Congress to reconsider this bill.
GERALD 2817 FORD
- 4 -
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
August 30, 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
In compliance with your request, I have examined a
facsimile of the enrolled bill H.R. 12261, "To extend
the period during which the Council of the District of
Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws
of the District."
The legislation embodied in the enrolled bill involves
issues of policy which are of primary interest to the
Congress and the District of Columbia Government. However,
as to the specific issue of what effect Executive approval
of H.R. 12261 would have on the Council of the District
of Columbia enactment, the "Firearms Control Regulations
Act of 1975", (act 1-142), it is the opinion of the
Department that H.R. 12261, in and of itself, would not
render the above referred to measure invalid.
The Department of Justice has no objection to Executive
approval of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Wichael
Michael M. Uhlmann
Assistant Attorney General
GERALD R. 1817 FORD
Tab A
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SEP 2 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 - District of Columbia
Criminal Laws
Sponsor - Rep. Diggs (D) Michigan
Last Day for Action
September 7, 1976 - Tuesday
Purpose
To extend the period during which the Council of the District
of Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District by direct amendment of the D.C. Criminal Code or
through changes in police regulations.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
District of Columbia Government
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
Department of Justice
No objection
Discussion
The District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973,
delegates to the Council of the District of Columbia the authority
to make changes in the criminal laws of the District, but not
until January 3, 1977. The Congress, in a related action, enacted
the District of Columbia Law Revision Commission Act, approved
August 21, 1974, which established the District of Columbia Law
Revision Commission to examine the District's laws and to recommend,
FORD i LIBRARY 076839
2
in annual reports to the Congress, changes in them. The
Commission--a D.C. Government body-- did not become opera-
tional until a year later and now expects its work on the
revision of the criminal laws to be completed within the
next two years.
The enrolled bill would extend for two additional years, until
January 3, 1979, Congress' sole jurisdiction over the criminal
laws of the District for the purpose of giving the Commission
adequate time to complete its work and make its recommendations
to the Congress. The bill also contains a provision intended
to preclude the Council's amendment of police regulations in a
manner which, effectively, alters the Criminal Code. The
provision was added by amendment on the House floor by
Representative Dent of Pennsylvania, and was apparently directed
at the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulations Act,
approved by the Mayor on July 23, 1976, which is presently being
considered by Congress. Mr. Dent explained that he wanted to
prohibit any criminal code changes by " any subterfuge or
any roundabout, off-the-street method by any departmental police
regulation."
The Dent amendment was passed 262 to 92 and the amended bill
was then approved by voice vote. Twenty-four hours later,
the bill was passed by the Senate without debate on a voice
vote.
In its report on the bill, the House D.C. Committee maintains
that extension of the prohibition on the Council's changing
the Criminal Code is necessary because completion of the
comprehensive revision and recodification of the District's
Criminal Code by the Congress was intended to be a prerequisite
to the transfer of jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C.
Criminal Code. The Committee report points out that the
conference report on the Home Rule Act stated:
It is the intention of the conferees that
their respective Committees will seek to
revise the District of Columbia Criminal
Code prior to the effective date of the
transfer of authority referred to. (Emphasis
added.)
FORD i LIBRARY 078870
3
The House D.C. Committee report further notes that the conferees
on the Home Rule Act provided for a single House veto of
Criminal Code changes that might be made by the Council once
the jurisdiction was transferred from the Congress to the
Council. The report states:
This reinforces the commitment of the Congress
to maintain exclusive jurisdiction over amend-
ments to the Criminal Code until the Law Revision
Commission has completed its study and made its
recommendations, and the Congress has acted on the
totally revised Criminal Code.
The District of Columbia Government, in its attached views
letter, agrees that a major revision of the D.C. Criminal
Code is necessary and should not be undertaken without the
benefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. It
points out, however, that empowering the D.C. Council to enact
changes in the D.C. Criminal Code should not be delayed fur-
ther, because there are a number of, additions or revisions
to the criminal laws which are urgently needed.
A number of such provisions have been proposed by the District
to the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit the
unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile homes
within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to make it
unlawful to obtain telecommunication services through misrepre-
sentations. Moreover, the D.C. Government maintains that
enactment of such changes would not interfere at all with the
work of the Commission.
The effect of the Dent amendment in the enrolled bill is unclear.
As noted earlier, it was apparently intended to prohibit the
Firearms Control Regulations Act which would ban possession of
handguns to anyone who does not, on the date of its enactment,
possess a valid registration for a handgun. That measure will
become effective unless Congress disapproves it within 30
legislative days, a period which will elapse sometime at the
end of September. However, the Department of Justice advises,
in its attached views letter, that the enrolled bill, in
and of itself, would not invalidate the gun control measure.
FORD i LIBRARY 03NALD
4
Moreover, the effect of the bill is also uncertain in other
respects. First, the amendment references articles regulated
under Title 22 of the D.C. Criminal Code. However, it is not
clear whether licensing of firearms would be affected by
the amendment because under the District of Columbia Code,
the licensing of firearms is carried out pursuant to authority
found in Title I of the D.C. Code, a provision which predates
home rule. Second, the amendment references "criminal offenses."
In the District of Columbia it is not clear what constitutes a
"criminal offense" since District of Columbia law, as interpreted
by the courts, is not settled in regard to whether or not
criminal sanctions imposed pursuant to police powers translate
civil violations into criminal matters.
We agree with the District of Columbia recommendation that the
bill be disapproved. It can be argued that a further extension
of the limitation on the D.C. Council is consistent with the
original intent of Congress that a thorough revision of the
D.C. Criminal Code be completed before the D.C. Council is
empowered to enact changes in the criminal law. However, we
believe the basic issue presented by the bill is whether the
two-year extension is necessary to protect the Federal interest
in the District of Columbia and if it and the Dent amendment
are consistent with the purpose of the Home Rule Act, namely
the grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of
powers of local self-government.
In our view, the bill is not consistent with the right of self-
government for the citizens of the District of Columbia under
the Home Rule Act. Extending the limitation on the D.C. Council's
authority to change the Criminal Code is unnecessary. Additions
to the D.C. criminal laws are needed now to enable the District
to meet the challenges of a changing society. Granting the
power to the D.C. Council to legislate on local matters under
the Code would not interfere with the work of the Law Revision
Commission and the Council does not require the results of the
Commission's study to weigh the need for such legislation.
Further, this bill is not necessary to enable the Congress to
protect the Federal interest in the District of Columbia. The
BERALD FORD LIBEARY
Home Rule Act gives the Congress clear authority to disapprove
D.C. Government legislative acts. Finally, the Dent amend-
ment, as noted above, is both an unnecessary erosion of the
home rule concept and uncertain in its effect on other actions
of the D.C. Government.
A proposed veto message is attached for your consideration.
Jam Director James T. Lynn L.Rg
Enclosures
GERALD 78817 R. FORD
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WALTER E. WASHINGTON
MAYOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004
AUG 27 1976
Mr. James M. Frey
Assistant Director for Legislative
Reference
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Frey:
This is in reference to the facsimile of the enrolled
enactment of Congress entitled:
H.R. 12261 - To extend the period during
which the Council of the District of
Columbia is prohibited from revising the
criminal laws of the District
which you transmitted on August 25, 1976. The enrolled
bill would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District of
Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganiza-
tion Act (the "Self-Government Act") [D.C. Code, § 1-
147 (a) (9) ] by extending for two years the prohibition
against the Council of the District of Columbia taking
any action "with respect to any provision of title 23
of the District of Columbia Code (relating to criminal
procedure), or with respect to any provision of any law
codified in title 22 or 24 of the District of Columbia
Code (relating to crimes and treatment of prisoners) =
Section 602 (a) (9) currently provides that the Council
may exercise such authority on January 3, 1977; this
bill would postpone the date on which the Council could
i
FORD
GERALD
knair
exercise this authority to January 3, 1979. Addition-
ally, the bill, as amended during debate on the floor
of the House of Representatives upon the adoption of
the "Dent Amendment", prohibits the Council from taking
any action "with respect to any criminal offense per-
taining to articles subject to regulation under chapter
32 of title 22 of the District of Columbia Code" (re-
lating to weapons), until January 3, 1979. The bill's
provisions are totally inconsistent with the principal,
stated purpose of the Self-Government Act, namely the
"grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of
powers of local self-government", P.L. 93-198, § 102
(a), 87 Stat. 777; it therefore is unacceptable.
An essential aspect of the right of self-government is
presently denied to the citizens of the District, as
they still are denied the authority to enact criminal
laws and those relating to judicial procedure and
the treatment of prisoners. Notwithstanding that the
proper subjects of such laws are of paramount concern
to the inhabitants of this City, this bill seeks a
further postponement of the citizen's authority to ad-
dress these concerns, for another two years. It would
deny to the citizens of the District the exercise of a
right -- through its elected officials -- explicitly
granted to them seventy years ago, when Congress pro-
vided:
The Council is hereby authorized and
empowered to make
...
all such usual and
police regulations
...
as the Council may
deem necessary for the regulation of
firearms, projectiles, explosives, or
weapons of any kind. D.C. Code, § 1-227.
The original purpose of the bill, as stated by Chairman
Diggs, its author, was to give the District of Columbia
Law Revision Commission sufficient time within which to
make recommendations to the Congress for the comprehen-
sive revision of the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
The Commission, which was established subsequent to the
enactment of the Self-Government Act by P.L. 93-379,
88 Stat. 480, has begun the task of reviewing the crim-
inal laws of the District and has made significant
- 2 -
FORD & LIBRAY 078830
progress. The District agrees that no major revision
of its criminal laws should be undertaken without the
benefit of the Commission's recommendations, and so
informed the House District Committee by letter of
June 29, 1976. However, there are additions to the
criminal laws which are needed to enable the District
to meet the challenges of a changing society. A number
of such provisions have been proposed by the District
to the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit
the unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile
homes within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to
make it unlawful to obtain telecommunication services
through misrepresentation. Nonetheless, these proposals
are still pending before the House District of Columbia
Committee.
The enactment by the Council of provisions such as the
foregoing would not interfere with the work of the Com-
mission. And it cannot be said that the Council requires
the result of the Commission's study to weigh the need
for such legislation. Nor can it be said that in the
absence of the provisions of the subject bill there would
be no Congressional "oversight" of acts of the Council
pertaining to the criminal laws: § 602(c) (2) of the
Self-Government Act provides that such act of the Council
shall take effect only if not disapproved within thirty
days by either the House or the Senate.
The discussion of the amendment on the floor demonstrates
that it was premised on a fundamental misunderstanding
of the Self-Government Act. Its stated purpose is to
"prohibit Criminal Code changes by any subterfuge
or any roundabout, off-the-street method by any depart-
mental police regulation". Cong. Rec. H. 8798 (Aug. 23,
1976, daily ed.). These considerations aside, the
impetus for the amendment -- the passage of the Council
of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 -- was
an exercise by the Council of explicit police power
conferred on it by D.C. Code, § 1-277. Its legislation
does no more than to amend similar police power
- 3 -
FORD i LIBRA 07V87
regulations adopted by the prior appointed Council, in
1969, under the same authority. Thus, the amendment
seeks to strip the City's elected Council of an author-
ity which Congress conferred long prior to its grant of
home rule, and permitted an appointed Council to exer-
cise.
In conclusion, this bill would extend, for an additional
two years, the period during which the people of the
District may not enact, regardless of manifest need,
any criminal laws, nor any police regulations with res-
pect to any weapon mentioned in D.C. Code, § 22-3201,
et seq. Its provisions are inconsistent with the spirit
of the Self-Government Act and the principle of self-
determination. It does not serve any Federal interest;
rather it is addressed to a matter which is essentially
local in nature. Therefore, the District Government
strongly urges that H.R. 12261 be disapproved. A pro-
posed message of disapproval is attached.
Sincerely yours,
WALTER E. WASHINGTON
Mayor
Studing Duch
STERLING TUCKER
Chairman
Council of the District of Columbia
Attachment
FORD is LIBRA SERALD OTHER
- 4 -
file
ACTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Last Day: September 7
September 3, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON Jun
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 -
District of Columbia Criminal Laws
This is to present for your action H.R. 12261, a bill
which would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District
of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act (the "Self-Government Act").
BACKGROUND
The Self-Government Act provides that the City
Council of the District of Columbia will have
authority to revise the District's criminal laws
beginning January 3, 1977. H.R. 12261 would
extend Congress' sole jurisdiction over these
criminal laws for two additional years so that
the Council would not have authority to revise
the laws until January 3, 1979.
The purpose of H.R. 12261 is to give the District
of Columbia Law Revision Commission until
January 3, 1979 to make recommendations to the
Congress for the comprehensive revision of the
District's criminal laws. The Commission, which
was established subsequent to the enactment of
the Self-Government Act, has begun to review
these laws but will not complete its work by
January 3, 1977.
H.R. 12261 also contains an amendment by
Congressman Dent of Pennsylvania which was appar-
ently intended to nullify the District of Columbia's
Firearms Control Act. The Firearm's Control Act was
enacted on July 23, 1976 by the District of Columbia
to ban possession of unregistered handguns.
ANDED 1817 R. FORD
-2-
However, in the opinion of the Justice Department
the Dent Amendment does not nullify the Firearms
Control Act. Nevertheless, many groups which
oppose gun control maintain that H.R. 12261
invalidates the District's ban and therefore are
strongly urging its approval.
ARGUMENTS FOR APPROVAL
1. H.R. 12261 is consistent with Congress' original intent
that a thorough revision of the D.C. Criminal Code be
completed before the Council is empowered to enact
changes in the criminal law.
2.
A major revision of the District's Criminal Code should
not be undertaken without the benefit of the Law
Revision Commission's recommendations.
ARGUMENTS FOR DISAPPROVAL
1. H.R. 12261 improperly restricts the right of self-
government of the citizens of the District of Columbia
under the Self-Government Act.
2. In the opinion of the Justice Department, the Dent
Amendment would not invalidate the District's Firearms
Control Act. H.R. 12261 is solely prospective in
application and consequently irrelevant to the
District's Control Act.
3. The District agrees that no major revision of its
criminal laws should be undertaken without the benefit
of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. How-
ever, the Council should not be delayed further from
enacting urgently needed changes in the D.C. Criminal
Code.
4. If Congress disapproves of the Firearms Control Act,
it has the power to employ a one-House veto of the
Act. The exclusive method of disapproving an enact-
ment of the District is by "concurrent resolution"
within a period of 30 legislative days after final
District action.
5. H.R. 12261 does not involve a substantial Federal
interest in the District.
GERALD FORD LIBRAFT
-3-
AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval
Department of Justice
No Objection
COMMENTS
Lynn:
"In our view, the bill is not consistent with the
right of self-government for the citizens of the
District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act.
Extending the limitation on the D.C. Council's
authority to change the Criminal Code is unneces-
sary. Additions to the D.C. criminal laws are
needed now to enable the District to meet the
challenges of a changing society. Granting the
power to the D.C. Council to legislate on local
matters under the Code would not interfere with
the work of the Law Revision Commission and the
Council does not require the results of the
Commission's study to weigh the need for such
legislation."
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Counsel's Office:
"Approval of the measure would be
Ken Lazarus
fundamentally inconsistent with
with Phil Buchen's
the President's announced posi-
concurrence
tion on his role with respect to
the legislative powers of the
District government."
Max Friedersdorf,
"Recommend approval. Both Houses
Assistant to the
passed by voice vote and veto
President for
would likely be overridden. John
Legislative Affairs
Rhodes strongly recommends sign-
ing because Presidential veto
would incite anti-gun control
lobbyists to oppose President.
Gun lobby perceive bill as very
favorable to them because of
Dent Amendment."
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend approval of H.R. 12261.
The Department of Justice, the White House Counsel's Office
and the Congressional Research Service of the Library of
ERALO FORD
-4-
Congress state that the Dent Amendment would not negate the
District of Columbia's Firearms Control Act.
My recommendation is based on the fact that Congress intended
that the D.C. Criminal Code be completely revised before
the City Council be given the authority to enact changes
in the criminal law. Without this legislation, the D.C.
City Council would be able to act in a piecemeal way without
the benefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations.
Jim Lynn's memorandum, which includes a letter from Mayor
Walter Washington and Sterling Tucker, together with a letter
from Michael M. Uhlmann, Assistant Attorney General, is at
Tab A.
DECISIONS
1. Sign H.R. 12261 at Tab B.
Issue signing statement at Tab C.
Approve
Disapprove
2. Disapproval H.R. 12261 and sign veto message at Tab D.
to
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12261, a bill
to extend the period during which the Council of the District
of Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District". This bill would extend for two years, or until
January 3, 1979, the prohibition against any action by the Council
of the District of Columbia on any provisions of the present
District laws relating to crimes, criminal procedure, and the
treatment of prisoners.
The bill would give the District of Columbia Law
Revision Commission additional time within which to make
recommendations to the Congress for the comprehensive revision
of the District of Columbia Criminal Code. The Commission,
which was established subsequent to the enactment of the District
of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization
Act, has begun the task of reviewing the criminal laws of the
District but will not be able to complete its work by January
3, 1977, when, under current law, the D.C. Council will be
able to amend the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
I agree that no major revision of the District's criminal
laws should be undertaken without the benefit of the Commission's
recommendations. I do not agree, however, that it is either
even
wise or necessary to delay further the time when the citizens
X
of the District of Columbia, through their elected representative
this
may exercise the right of self-government in 20 area that
which
(affects their daily lives.
will affect
from taking any action "with respect to any criminal
offense pertaining to articles subject to regulation
under charter 32 of title 22 of the District of
Columbia Code" (relating to weapons) until January 3,
1979.
Although some confusion has arisen regarding the
intended force and effect of H.R. 12261, I am advised
only
by the Department of Justice that the measure is
a applicable in the future and is irrelevant is
and
the
Ta the enactment of the "Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975" (act. 1-142), recently adopted
by the District of Columbia.
Consistent with the right to self-government
of District citizens, I have in the past supported fully
the legislative powers of the District, subject only to
2 -
the constraints imposed by the Home Rule Act itself
or some overriding Federal interest. This operating
principle properly should apply regardless of the views
of the Executive on the merits or shortcomings of
individual legislative items. In the circumstances
involving H.R. 12261, d there find is no
simply nd pasis to
interference with this principle of self-
determination.
For these reasons, I am returning H.R. 12261
without my approval.
THE WHITE HOUSE
September
, 1976
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
SEP 2 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 - District of Columbia
Criminal Laws
Sponsor - Rep. Diggs (D) Michigan
Last Day for Action
September 7, 1976 - Tuesday
Purpose
To extend the period during which the Council of the District
of Columbia is prohibited from revising the criminal laws of
the District by direct amendment of the D.C. Criminal Code or
through changes in police regulations.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
District of Columbia Government
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
Department of Justice
No objection
Discussion
The District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973,
delegates to the Council of the District of Columbia the authority
to make changes in the criminal laws of the District, but not
until January 3, 1977. The Congress, in a related action, enacted
the District of Columbia Law Revision Commission Act, approved
August 21, 1974, which established the District of Columbia Law
Revision Commission to examine the District's laws and to recommend,
2
in annual reports to the Congress, changes in them. The
Commission--a D.C. Government body-- did not become opera-
tional until a year later and now expects its work on the
revision of the criminal laws to be completed within the
next two years.
The enrolled bill would extend for two additional years, until
January 3, 1979, Congress' sole jurisdiction over the criminal
laws of the District for the purpose of giving the Commission
adequate time to complete its work and make its recommendations
to the Congress. The bill also contains a provision intended
to preclude the Council's amendment of police regulations in a
manner which, effectively, alters the Criminal Code. The
provision was added by amendment on the House floor by
Representative Dent of Pennsylvania, and was apparently directed
at the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulations Act,
approved by the Mayor on July 23, 1976, which is presently being
considered by Congress. Mr. Dent explained that he wanted to
prohibit any criminal code changes by "
any subterfuge or
any roundabout, off-the-street method by any departmental police
regulation."
The Dent amendment was passed 262 to 92 and the amended bill
was then approved by voice vote. Twenty-four hours later,
the bill was passed by the Senate without debate on a voice
vote.
In its report on the bill, the House D.C. Committee maintains
that extension of the prohibition on the Council's changing
the Criminal Code is necessary because completion of the
comprehensive revision and recodification of the District's
Criminal Code by the Congress was intended to be a prerequisite
to the transfer of jurisdiction to the Council over the D.C.
Criminal Code. The Committee report points out that the
conference report on the Home Rule Act stated:
It is the intention of the conferees that
their respective Committees will seek to
revise the District of Columbia Criminal
Code prior to the effective date of the
transfer of authority referred to. (Emphasis
added.)
3
The House D.C. Committee report further notes that the conferees
on the Home Rule Act provided for a single House veto of
Criminal Code changes that might be made by the Council once
the jurisdiction was transferred from the Congress to the
Council. The report states:
This reinforces the commitment of the Congress
to maintain exclusive jurisdiction over amend-
ments to the Criminal Code until the Law Revision
Commission has completed its study and made its
recommendations, and the Congress has acted on the
totally revised Criminal Code.
The District of Columbia Government, in its attached views
letter, agrees that a major revision of the D.C. Criminal
Code is necessary and should not be undertaken without the
benefit of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. It
points out, however, that empowering the D.C. Council to enact
changes in the D.C. Criminal Code should not be delayed fur-
ther, because there are a number of, additions or revisions
to the criminal laws which are urgently needed.
A number of such provisions have been proposed by the District
to the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit the
unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile homes
within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to make it
unlawful to obtain telecommunication services through misrepre-
sentations. Moreover, the D.C. Government maintains that
enactment of such changes would not interfere at all with the
work of the Commission.
The effect of the Dent amendment in the enrolled bill is unclear.
As noted earlier, it was apparently intended to prohibit the
Firearms Control Regulations Act which would ban possession of
handguns to anyone who does not, on the date of its enactment,
possess a valid registration for a handgun. That measure will
become effective unless Congress disapproves it within 30
legislative days, a period which will elapse sometime at the
end of September. However, the Department of Justice advises,
in its attached views letter, that the enrolled bill, in
and of itself, would not invalidate the gun control measure.
FORD
4
Moreover, the effect of the bill is also uncertain in other
respects. First, the amendment references articles regulated
under Title 22 of the D.C. Criminal Code. However, it is not
clear whether licensing of firearms would be affected by
the amendment because under the District of Columbia Code,
the licensing of firearms is carried out pursuant to authority
found in Title I of the D.C. Code, a provision which predates
home rule. Second, the amendment references "criminal offenses.' "
In the District of Columbia it is not clear what constitutes a
"criminal offense" since District of Columbia law, as interpreted
by the courts, is not settled in regard to whether or not
criminal sanctions imposed pursuant to police powers translate
civil violations into criminal matters.
We agree with the District of Columbia recommendation that the
bill be disapproved. It can be argued that a further extension
of the limitation on the D.C. Council is consistent with the
original intent of Congress that a thorough revision of the
D.C. Criminal Code be completed before the D.C. Council is
empowered to enact changes in the criminal law. However, we
believe the basic issue presented by the bill is whether the
two-year extension is necessary to protect the Federal interest
in the District of Columbia and if it and the Dent amendment
are consistent with the purpose of the Home Rule Act, namely
the grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of
powers of local self-government.
In our view, the bill is not consistent with the right of self-
government for the citizens of the District of Columbia under
the Home Rule Act. Extending the limitation on the D.C. Council's
authority to change the Criminal Code is unnecessary. Additions
to the D.C. criminal laws are needed now to enable the District
to meet the challenges of a changing society. Granting the
power to the D.C. Council to legislate on local matters under
the Code would not interfere with the work of the Law Revision
Commission and the Council does not require the results of the
Commission's study to weigh the need for such legislation.
Further, this bill is not necessary to enable the Congress to
protect the Federal interest in the District of Columbia. The
Home Rule Act gives the Congress clear authority to disapprove
D.C. Government legislative acts. Finally, the Dent amend-
ment, as noted above, is both an unnecessary erosion of the
home rule concept and uncertain in its effect on other actions
of the D.C. Government.
A proposed veto message is attached for your consideration.
Jam James Director T. Lynn L.Rg
Enclosures
DISTRICT
OF
VIRATUD
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WALTER E. WASHINGTON
MAYOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004
AUG 27 1976
Mr. James M. Frey
Assistant Director for Legislative
Reference
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Frey:
This is in reference to the facsimile of the enrolled
enactment of Congress entitled:
H.R. 12261 - To extend the period during
which the Council of the District of
Columbia is prohibited from revising the
criminal laws of the District
which you transmitted on August 25, 1976. The enrolled
bill would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District of
Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganiza-
tion Act (the "Self-Government Act") [D.C. Code, § 1- -
147 (a) (9) ] by extending for two years the prohibition
against the Council of the District of Columbia taking
any action "with respect to any provision of title 23
of the District of Columbia Code (relating to criminal
procedure), or with respect to any provision of any law
codified in title 22 or 24 of the District of Columbia
Code (relating to crimes and treatment of prisoners) - "
Section 602 (a) (9) currently provides that the Council
may exercise such authority on January 3, 1977; this
bill would postpone the date on which the Council could
exercise this authority to January 3, 1979. Addition-
ally, the bill, as amended during debate on the floor
of the House of Representatives upon the adoption of
the "Dent Amendment", prohibits the Council from taking
any action "with respect to any criminal offense per-
taining to articles subject to regulation under chapter.
32 of title 22 of the District of Columbia Code" (re-
lating to weapons), until January 3, 1979. The bill's
provisions are totally inconsistent with the principal,
stated purpose of the Self-Government Act, namely the
"grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia of
powers of local self-government", P.L. 93-198, § 102
(a), 87 Stat. 777; it therefore is unacceptable.
An essential aspect of the right of self-government is
presently denied to the citizens of the District, as
they still are denied the authority to enact criminal
laws and those relating to judicial procedure and
the treatment of prisoners. Notwithstanding that the
proper subjects of such laws are of paramount concern
to the inhabitants of this City, this bill seeks a
further postponement of the citizen's authority to ad-
dress these concerns, for another two years. It would
deny to the citizens of the District the exercise of a
right -- through its elected officials -- explicitly
granted to them seventy years ago, when Congress pro-
vided:
The Council is hereby authorized and
empowered to make
all such usual and
police regulations
as the Council may
deem necessary for the regulation of
firearms, projectiles, explosives, or
weapons of any kind. D.C. Code, § 1-227.
The original purpose of the bill, as stated by Chairman
Diggs, its author, was to give the District of Columbia
Law Revision Commission sufficient time within which to
make recommendations to the Congress for the comprehen-
sive revision of the District of Columbia Criminal Code.
The Commission, which was established subsequent to the
enactment of the Self-Government Act by P.L. 93-379,
88 Stat. 480, has begun the task of reviewing the crim-
inal laws of the District and has made significant
- 2 -
progress. The District agrees that no major revision
of its criminal laws should be undertaken without the
benefit of the Commission's recommendations, and so
informed the House District Committee by letter of
June 29, 1976. However, there are additions to the
criminal laws which are needed to enable the District
to meet the challenges of a changing society. A number
of such provisions have been proposed by the District
to the Congress -- for example, proposals to prohibit
the unauthorized use of credit cards, to include mobile
homes within the scope of the crime of burglary, and to
make it unlawful to obtain telecommunication services
through misrepresentation. Nonetheless, these proposals
are still pending before the House District of Columbia
Committee.
The enactment by the Council of provisions such as the
foregoing would not interfere with the work of the Com-
mission. And it cannot be said that the Council requires
the result of the Commission's study to weigh the need
for such legislation. Nor can it be said that in the
absence of the provisions of the subject bill there would
be no Congressional "oversight" of acts of the Council
pertaining to the criminal laws: § 602 (c) (2) of the
Self-Government Act provides that such act of the Council
shall take effect only if not disapproved within thirty
days by either the House or the Senate.
The discussion of the amendment on the floor demonstrates
that it was premised on a fundamental misunderstanding
of the Self-Government Act. Its stated purpose is to
"prohibit
Criminal Code changes by any subterfuge
or any roundabout, off-the-street method by any depart-
mental police regulation". Cong. Rec. H. 8798 (Aug. 23,
1976, daily ed.). These considerations aside, the
impetus for the amendment -- the passage of the Council
of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 -- was
an exercise by the Council of explicit police power
conferred on it by D.C. Code, § 1-277. Its legislation
does no more than to amend similar police power
- 3 -
regulations adopted by the prior appointed Council, in
1969, under the same authority. Thus, the amendment
seeks to strip the City's elected Council of an author-
ity which Congress conferred long prior to its grant of
home rule, and permitted an appointed Council to exer-
cise.
In conclusion, this bill would extend, for an additional
two years, the period during which the people of the
District may not enact, regardless of manifest need,
any criminal laws, nor any police regulations with res-
pect to any weapon mentioned in D.C. Code, § 22-3201,
et seq. Its provisions are inconsistent with the spirit
of the Self-Government Act and the principle of self-
determination. It does not serve any Federal interest;
rather it is addressed to a matter which is essentially
local in nature. Therefore, the District Government
strongly urges that H.R. 12261 be disapproved. A pro-
posed message of disapproval is attached.
Sincerely yours,
Mayor
Starling Duch
STERLING TUCKER
Chairman
Council of the District of Columbia
Attachment
- 4 -
at
la
of mill
. 5
A
here 1
GERALD ? FORD
whos
was alease
to blost The
P
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
THEY WANT
To SLAP
Is DC's HAND
file
D.C,
ACTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Last Day: September 7
September 3, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill H.R. 12261 -
District of Columbia Criminal Laws
This is to present for your action H.R. 12261, a bill
which would amend section 602 (a) (9) of the District
of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act (the "Self-Government Act").
BACKGROUND
O The Self-Government Act provides that the City
Council of the District of Columbia will have
authority to revise the District's criminal laws
beginning January 3, 1977. H.R. 12261 would
extend Congress' sole jurisdiction over these
criminal laws for two additional years SO that
the Council would not have authority to revise
the laws until January 3, 1979.
The purpose of H.R. 12261 is to give the District
of Columbia Law Revision Commission until
January 3, 1979 to make recommendations to the
Congress for the comprehensive revision of the
District's criminal laws. The Commission, which
was established subsequent to the enactment of
the Self-Government Act, has begun to review
these laws but will not complete its work by
January 3, 1977.
O H.R. 12261 also contains an amendment by
Congressman Dent of Pennsylvania which was appar-
ently intended to nullify the District of Columbia's
Firearms Control Act. The Firearm's Control Act was
enacted on July 23, 1976 by the District of Columbia
to ban possession of unregistered handguns.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
However, in the opinion of the Justice Department
the Dent Amendment does not nullify the Firearms
Control Act. Nevertheless, many groups which
oppose gun control maintain that H.R. 12261
invalidates the District's ban and therefore are
strongly urging its approval.
ARGUMENTS FOR APPROVAL
1. H.R. 12261 is consistent with Congress' original intent
that a thorough revision of the D.C. Criminal Code be
completed before the Council is empowered to enact
changes in the criminal law.
2. A major revision of the District's Criminal Code should
not be undertaken without the benefit of the Law
Revision Commission's recommendations.
ARGUMENTS FOR DISAPPROVAL
1. H.R. 12261 improperly restricts the right of self-
government of the citizens of the District of Columbia
under the Self-Government Act.
2. In the opinion of the Justice Department, the Dent
Amendment would not invalidate the District's Firearms
Control Act. H.R. 12261 is solely prospective in
application and consequently irrelevant to the
District's Control Act.
3. The District agrees that no major revision of its
criminal laws should be undertaken without the benefit
of the Law Revision Commission's recommendations. How-
ever, the Council should not be delayed further from
enacting urgently needed changes in the D.C. Criminal
Code.
4. If Congress disapproves of the Firearms Control Act,
it has the power to employ a one-House veto of the
Act. The exclusive method of disapproving an enact-
ment of the District is by "concurrent resolution"
within a period of 30 legislative days after final
District action.
5. H.R. 12261 does not involve a substantial Federal
interest in the District.
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
-3-
AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval
Department of Justice
No objection
COMMENTS
Lynn:
"In our view, the bill is not consistent with the
right of self-government for the citizens of the
District of Columbia under the Home Rule Act.
Extending the limitation on the D.C. Council's
authority to change the Criminal Code is unnec-
essary. Additions to the D.C. criminal laws are
needed now to enable the District to meet the
challenges of a changing society. Granting the
power to the D.C. Council to legislate on local
matters under the Code would not interfere with
the work of the Law Revision Commission and the
Council does not require the results of the
Commission's study to weigh the need for such
legislation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Counsel's Office:
"Approval of the measure would be
Ken Lazarus
fundamentally inconsistent with
with Phil Buchen's
the President's announced posi-
concurrence
tion on his role with respect to
the legislative powers of the
District government."
Max Friedersdorf,
"Recommend approval. Both House
Assistant to the
passed by voice vote and veto
President for
would likely be overridden. John
Legislative Affairs
Rhodes strongly recommends sign-
ing because Presidential veto
would incite anti-gun control
lobbyists to oppose President.
Gun lobby perceive bill as very
FORD
favorable to them because of
Dent Amendment."
GERALD
LIBRARY
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend approval of H.R. 12261. because it would
deny to the citizens of the District the right of self-
government as established under the Self-Government Act.
You have earlier expressed the view that actions of the
District. Government ought to prevail unless violative of
the Self-Government Act or harmful to a substantial
Federal interest in the District.
-4-
While I recognize the strong support for this bill from those
who oppose gun control, their support is misplaced since, in
the opinion of the Justice Department, this bill would not
invalidate the District's Firearm Control Act. The issue is
complex and probably will be difficult to communicate but I
do not believe these difficulties should justify a departure
from your position in support of home rule.
Jim Lynn's memorandum, which includes a letter from Mayor
Walter Washington and Sterling Tucker, together with a letter
from Michale M. Uhlmann, Assistant Attorney General, is at
Tab A. A memorandum of disapproval is attached at Tab B.. The
enrolled bill is attached at Tab C.
DECISION
1.
Approve H.R. 12261.
2.
Disapprove and issue memorandum of disapproval.
FORD LIBRARY is BERALD
THE WHITE HOUSÉ
WASHINGTON
October 20, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
D.C. Commuter Tax
Chairman Jack Herrity of Fairfax County has written to you
asking for a position on a commuter tax for Maryland and
Virginia residents working in the District of Columbia
(Attachment A). He has made the same request of Governor
Carter.
BACKGROUND
A commuter tax has been discussed frequently by the D. C.
government and certain members of Congress as a way to help
the District financially. At this point the Congress had
not acted on such a proposal. It has been strongly opposed
by local suburban Congressmen.
In July, you did make a statement in an informal meeting
with the Maryland convention delegation (Attachment B).
In that statement you indicated that under current circumstances
you would not favor such a bill and would veto it. This was
later recorded by the press (Attachment C).
At this time no formal analysis has been made of this tax
by the Administration. We have tried to remain as neutral as
possible regarding matters in the District of Columbia. In
addition, we have not received a specific proposal to review.
Given the background, we have prepared the attached letter
to Herrity for your signature (Attachment D).
RECOMMENDATION
OMB (O'Neill), Buchen (Lazarus), Marsh, Friedersdorf and I
recommend that you sign the letter to Chairman Herrity.
FORD LIBRARY a GENALD
Dear Chairman Herrity:
Thank you for your letter of September 10, 1976
regarding the question of a commuter tax for
suburban residents working in the District of
Columbia. This issue has been discussed fairly
extensively by local officials as well as
certain members of the Congress. However, at
this point a final proposal has not been
formulated and, therefore, it is impossible to
respond to your question in terms of a specific
piece of legislation.
My Administration has not proposed such a
measure and will not do so in the future.
Moreover, I have indicated that under current
conditions, and given the proposals as they now
stand, I would not support a commuter tax.
I hope that this letter clarifies my stand.
Sincerely,
Mr. John F. Herrity
Chairman
Board of Supervisors
County of Fairfax
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
cc: S McConahey/M Friedersdorf/ P Buchen/ P O'Neill
BERAL B. FORD
J Marsh
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 20, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
JACK MARSH
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM:
JIM CANNON Art Duern
SUBJECT:
D.C. Commuter Tax
Chairman Jack Herrity of Fairfax County has written to the
President asking for a position on a commuter tax for Maryland
and Virginia residents working in the District of Columbia
(Attachment A). He has made the same request of Governor
Carter.
A commuter tax has been discussed frequently by the D.C.
government and certain members of Congress as a way to help
the District financially. At this point the Congress had
not acted on such a proposal. It has been strongly opposed
by local suburban Congressmen.
In July, the President did make a statement in an informal
meeting with the Maryland convention delegation (Attachment
B). In that statement he indicated that under current
circumstances he would not favor such a bill and would veto
it. This was later recorded by the press (Attachment C).
At this time no formal analysis has been made of this tax by
the Administration. We have tried to remain as neutral as
possible regarding matters in the District of Columbia. In
addition, we have not received a specific proposal to review.
But, given the recent inquiries referring to the President's
statement, it seems advisable for us to clarify our position.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Page 2
Attached for your review and comment is a draft letter
for the President to send Chairman Herrity if the
President's opposition is formalized (Attachment D) -
I would appreciate your comments by 10:00 a.m. on
Thursday, October 21.
Oppose tax
Remain neutral
Support tax
Attachments
A.
COUNTY OF PAIRFAX
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FAIRFAX
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JOHN F. HERRITY
Chairman
VIRGINIA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JOSEPH ALEXANDER
WARREN I. CIKINS
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030
JOHN F. HERRITY
ALAN H. MAGAZINE
AUDREY MOORE
CHAIRMAN
life
MRS. MARTHA V. PENNINO
4100 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD
JAMES M. SCOTT
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030
September 10, 1976
JOHN P. SHACOCHIS
MARIE B. TRAVESKY
TELEPHONE 691-2321
thrisa
Mary
The Honorable
Gerald R. Ford
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
The citizens of Fairfax County who work in the District of
Columbia are deeply concerned over proposals which have been
made by officials of the District of Columbia Government to
assess a tax against their income - the so called commuter tax.
Under Section 602 of the District of Columbia Self Government
Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-198), such a tax could not be imposed
without Congressional legislation and the opportunity for a
Presidential veto.
Accordingly, I would appreciate hearing from you as to your
position on commuter tax legislation for the District of
Columbia Government. More specifically, I would like to know
if you intend to vigorously oppose or actively support this
commuter tax.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
JHenty Chairman
Board of Supervisors
CC: Fairfax County Democratic Committee
Fairfax County Republican Committee
B.
Remarks of the President to the Maryland Delegation - July 26, 1976
The Democratic platform suggests that the people that run the Federal
City have a right to tax Marylanders and who in Northern Virginia who
commute to the city and I think we have an obligation to speak out on
an issue. Now there's five counties in Maryland where most of the
population resides and two of those border the District and we would
hope and I'd be delighted if you would speak out on that issue, taxation
without representation does go on in other cities but those cities aren't
the Federal City. I'd appreciate your comments."
President - "I have never recommended it as President. I have listened
to the arguments on both sides. I think the fact that I have not proposed
it is indicative of my own personal feelings in this regard. Does that
take care of it?"
"No sir, I'd like to know if you're for or against it?"
"Well, I think if I had to make the decision right now and a piece of
legislation before me, I'd veto it. 11
DERMLO FORD
C.
.
\President By Michael Kiernan Ford Tells P.G. Delegates
Washington Star Staff Writer
A Prince Georges County delegate
Prince party Chairman Georges David County Forward delegate and the incomes of suburbanites who
to the Republican
Gerard Holcomb, who originally
work in the District
He Would Veto a Commuter Tax
Virginia or Maryland suburbanites cials, who noted that the President
to the 14 D.C. Republican delegates,
anything extra in taxes, since they
has made it a practice not to inter-
all of whom are pledged to Ford.
could deduct the taxes dollar for dol-
vene in controversial local issues in-
McKINNEY, also a Ford delegate
lar from their state income taxes.
volving the city's 18-month-old home
from Connecticut, said he was still
came as a surprise to some D.C. offi- against a commuter tax "an affront"
See COMMUTE; B-4
The Washington Star
Metro
FORD LIBRARY j GERALD
Obituaries
Television
2. Finance
SECTION B X
TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1976
DRAFT letter to Chairman Herrity of Fairfax County regarding
the D.C. Commuter Tax bill.
Dear Chairman Herrity:
Thank you for your letter of September 10, 1976 regarding the
question of a commuter tax for suburban residents working in
the District of Columbia. This issue has been discussed fairly
extensively by local officials as well as certain members of
the Congress. However, at this point a final proposal has
not developed and, therefore, it is impossible to respond to
your question in terms of a specific piece of legislation.
My Administration has not proposed such a measure and will not
do so in the future.
Moreover, I have indicated that under current conditions, and
given the proposals as they now stand, I would not support a
commuter tax. I hope that this letter clarifies my stand
regarding the commuter tax at this stage of development.
Sincerely,
GRF
Mr. John F. Herrity
Chairman
Board of Supervisors
RALD BERALD P. FORD
County of Fairfax
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
cc: Steve McConahey