Mr. HANSON. And this is an imperfection, but one that cannot be resolved under the reorganization powers.

Senator BAKER. I have no further questions.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, Mr. Hanson. We appreciate your being here.

Mr. HANSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator RIBICOFF. Mr. Rusk.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID RUSK, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE

Mr. Rusk. Mr. Chairman, I am David Rusk, associate director of the Washington Urban League. And I am here to present a statement in behalf of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 for the District of Columbia.

I have a prepared text, which I will happily submit for the record. Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection, the statement will be inserted. in the record as if read.

Mr. RUSK. I would like to summarize my remarks.

We believe that the adoption of the reorganization plan is essential for the District to provide a more effective and efficient municipal government.

We believe the President's reorganization plan will do this through: One, unifying executive authority and responsibility in the office of the single Commissioner;

Two, transferring quasi-legislative functions to the proposed nineman Council where the heavy workload can be more equitably carried out and can receive greater public scrutiny; and

Three, permitting the single Commissioner to reorganize the internal organization of the District government to improve day-to-day administration, and to advance a coordinated attack on the city's many problems.

In this respect we would like to call attention to many of the plans which are underway for major social programs in the District, such as the community renewal program, the model cities program, the current war on poverty, the many and expanded manpower and development training programs, and the new resources being sought to improve public education-all of these represent important prospects for change. They require much greater support from the Federal Government and the Congress than is presently available. But even with that support they could not become reality unless we had an effective municipal government. And we see the reorganization plan as a step toward this effective municipal government.

The District government at the present time lacks what such massive social planning needs, the development of a coordinated, flexible sys tem of municipal planning and execution. Such internal reforms within the District government, we believe, can only succeed under strong executive leadership. Yet since 1954 this sort of broad reorganization power has been denied the Board of Commissioners. We do not believe that the reorganization plan as such represents a major step toward self-government. Under this reorganization the District is still administered by Presidentially appointed officials, the chief of whom are approved by the Senate. Very vital municipal functions-the con

trol of taxation, budget, and legislation-will continue to remain in the hands of Congress. Only when local citizens have a direct electoral voice in the selection of their city officials, as well as in important matters of taxation, budget, and legislation, do we truly move toward home rule.

We urge the Congress, after the reorganization plan goes into effect, to look at much of the unfinished business of restoring selfgovernment to the District of Columbia. Such things would include a focal election of the Board of Education, voting representation in the Congress, which is currently before Congressman Celler, and the regularization of the Federal payment according to an equitable formula, which is also being discussed in the halls of Congress now. Most of all, we urge the Congress to continue the effort to return to District residents our right to self-government. No package of partial measure can provide as effective and representative government as local self-determination. We hope that this subcommittee will not only in their individual capacity support the reorganization plan, but continue to fight for home rule for the District of Columbia. That concludes my summary of my remarks. (The prepared statement of Mr. Rusk follows:)

WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE

TESTIMONY OF THE WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S: REORGANIZATION PLAN FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee:

I am here today to present testimony on behalf of the Washington Urban League. The Washington Urban League is a non-partisan, non-profit social agency and community planning organization. Since 1938, we have worked in the Nation's Capital to improve race relations, expand equal opportunity, eliminate poverty and channel urban growth into patterns which enhance the lives of all citizens. In this work we are strengthened by many local community organizations as well as our own membership which now surpasses 14,500 active members.

We come today to urge the support of Congress for the President's Reorganization Plan for the District of Columbia.

The Commission form of government is based on the concept of divided executive authority. It was inadequate when adopted by Congress in 1874 as a "temporary" measure for a city of 15,000 people. Today Washington's population surpasses 800,000. The Commission form of government simply cannot provide the vigorous, decisive, and efficient administration of a city government that is at the hub of the fastest growing metropolitan complex in the nation.

That the system has ever functioned at all is testimony to the caliber and dedication of the men who have served the Board of Commissioners. Without their willingness to struggle with an unworkable form of government, Washington would have a history of municipal chaos.

We support the President's Reorganization Plan because it will provide more effective and efficient city government by:

(1) unifying executive authority and responsibility in the office of the single commissioner;

(2) transferring quasi-legislative functions to the proposed nine-man council where the heavy work load can be more equitably shared and can receive greater public scrutiny;

(3) permitting the single commissioner to reorganize the internal administration of the District Government to improve day-to-day administration, and to advance coordinated and massive attacks upon the city's many problems.

In this regard our city hopes to undertake a major campaign to deal with our urban explosion and to eliminate poverty and the effects of discrimination. This effort is being made possible largely through the social legislation provided by the Congress: the Community Renewal Program, the Model Cities Program, the War on Poverty, the many and expanded manpower development

and training programs, and new resources to improve public education. Congress recently approved our local rapid transit system. The District of Columbia Crime Commission has made sweeping and imaginative proposals to advance our fight against crime and its causes. The Board of Education-initiated study of the school system has proposed far-reaching steps to improve the quality of urban education.

Each of these now is more a promise of good intentions than programs in action with political and financial muscle. For us to even make an effective start Congress must multiply many time the appropriations for these national and local programs.

But beyond this, if these measures are to succeed, each will require substantial organizational reforms within the District Government. As a whole they require the development of a coordinated, flexible system of municipal planning and execution. Such internal reforms can only succeed under strong executive leadership. Yet since 1954, broad reorganization powers have been denied the Board of Commissioners. Implementation of the present reorganization plan would restore to our city executive this essential administrative function.

Several members of Congress have publicly expressed the view that internal staff reorganization of the District Government is a superior solution to the President's proposed reorganization of the Commissioners' Office. We recognize that such staff reorganization may be necessary under the single commissioner's leadership. However, we are convinced that any staff reorganization will fall far short of its goals unless there is unification of top-level executive responsibility as proposed by the President.

Nor should reorganization be viewed as a major step toward self-government. Under reorganization the District would still be administered by Presidentially appointed officials, approved by the Senate. Vital municipal functions-control of taxation, budget and legislation-would remain in the hands of the Congress. Only when local citizens have a direct electoral voice in the selection of our city officials, as well as in important matters of taxation, budget and legislation, do we truly move toward toward Home Rule.

After implementation of the Reorganization Plan we must look to other unfinished business. We urge the 90th Congress to consider several significant proposals toward self-government and more effective administration such as the local election of our Board of Education, voting representation in Congress, and regularization of the federal payment according to an equitable formula. Above all, the Congress must continue the effort to return to District residents our right to self-government. No package of partial measure can provide as effective and representative government as local self-determination. We urge each member of this subcommittee to push forward the cause of Home Rule. You must never give up this fight. The people of Washington never shall.

Mr. RUSK. I would be very happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.

You say you have 14,500 active members in the Washington Urban League?

Mr. RUSK. Yes, as a result of this year's membership campaign. Senator RIBICOFF. What is the size of the staff?

Mr. RUSK. The size of the paid staff at this time is about 110.

Senator RIBICOFF. What does the Urban League accomplish in Washington?

Mr. RUSK. Well, we are both a broad community planning agency, and we take on certain specific program responsibilities. For example, we are the administrators of one of the city antipoverty centers and work with the citizens who live in the Northwest urban renewal area, Shaw, and others, to try to affect the directions of urban renewal planning and execution for their own benefit. We administer an on-the-job training program which in the past less than 2 years has placed over 800 disadvantaged people in job training, which has led to permanent employment.

We operate programs under the Board of Education to provide remedial tutorial services and cultural activity to the disadvantaged youngsters.

And we in a broad fashion work to influence the policies and the directions of planning which are under the control of the District Commissioners, National Capital Planning Commission, and the other people who are in charge of the major public functions of our city. Senator RIBICOFF. What is your particular position with the Urban League?

Mr. RUSK. I am the associate director for planning research and public policy.

Senator RIBICOFF. How long have you had that job?

Mr. RUSK. In that particular job, just a couple of months. Prior to that time I was the associate director for programs.

Senator RIBICOFF. How long have you been involved with the Urban League?

Mr. Rusk. I have been with the Urban League now for almost 4 years in Washington.

Senator RIBICOFF. From your experience in programing and jobs and what has to be done, what do you consider to be the basic problems that Washington faces, the city of Washington and its people?

Mr. RUSK. I think the basic problems are those of poverty, poverty which is compounded in Washington by its almost exclusive identification with the Negro population, so that the oppressiveness of living in poverty-stricken conditions is magnified by the oppressiveness of continued discrimination. I think this is what is building the explosive elements in this whole situation.

Probably the intensive housing crisis is that which most people in the ghetto identify as the major problem. However, I think we are facing even in these weeks now a rollback in employment opportunities in the Washington community. A summer job program was launched which promised 20,000 jobs in the summer period. Yet this fell far short of the actual need. Moreover we have not only people who are without jobs, but many young men who have jobs but can hardly make it to support their families.

Senator RIBICOFF. Would you say that the No. 1 problem of the poor Negro in Washington is employment?

Mr. RUSK. I think an adequate family income is the basis for the resolution of many other kinds of problems. An adequate family income expands the alternatives in health. An adequate family income with the kind of social power attached to it expands the opportunity of the citizen to exert influence on the school board and the quality of education. An adequate family income opens up a broader range of housing alternatives.

Now, we know that the problem of poverty in Washington is compounded by the continuing racial discrimination. A Negro must pay 20 or 25 percent more for comparable housing than a white. A Negro also often finds that he can't stretch his dollar far enough, because of essentially often discriminatory credit practices, which I think have some racial implications.

I would say that by definition the problem of poverty is largely the problem of economic resources of a family unit.

Senator RIBICOFF. Do you still find a large influx of Negroes into Washington?

Mr. RUSK. The Urban League has operated a newcomers program for several years designed to help immigrants to the city, largely from the South, adjust to urban conditions. However, I don't believe that the immigration is so substantial that it really accounts for the social problems of the District, but, rather, many of our problems are homegrown in that sense. We did a study two summers ago of school dropouts at the junior and senior high school level. Of our sample, about 800 dropouts, we found that 80 percent of them had been in the District schools all their lives. Now, there is some uncertainty in these figures, because there were large numbers that we could not locate at all in the city even with the most aggressive kind of field workers, working the neighborhoods, looking for children, and taking as a point of departure their last known address. It may be that these families are so mobile that they have become lost from sight and these might have been more recent arrivals. However, 80 percent of the dropouts in this study had been in the District schools all their lives.

So, I think many of the problems of undeveloped skills of our youth and young men for employment are homegrown problems.

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Baker.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Rusk, I am fascinated with your analysis of the problem. And I wish we had time to go into it in depth and detail. But our purpose in the committee is, of course, to consider your testimony in support of and opposition to the President's plan or reorganization for the District. And in this respect, in an effort to bridge your remarks to the matter at hand, is it your opinion that the hope for streamlining and improving of the administrative structure of the government in the District as proposed by this plan will directly or indirectly alleviate some of these problems or put us in a better position to alleviate some of these problems?

Mr. RUSK. I would support the second statement, that is, it provides the conditions and machinery whereby we may be able to take more effective action.

Senator BAKER. And this stems from the idea that with a central point of executive authority and with quasi-legislative council, we more nearly approach the concept of municipal self-determination?

Mr. RUSK. No, not self-determination. I think we approach a far better concept of effective administration and organization of municipal services and of municipal planning.

Senator BAKER. Maybe self-determination wasn't exactly what I meant. A municipal autonomy or municipal-the independence of municipal function.

Mr. RUSK. I don't really see that provision in the present plan either, in the sense that there has been no redistribution between the powers of Congress and the municipal government. In other words, the District government will still have to go to the Congress for the approval of its budget and for the passage of any major legislation. Senator BAKER. The point that appeals to me most of all about the plan, and one I think calculated to produce the most discernible result, is the idea that the Council and the Commissioner may make interdepartmental transfers of funds, of course at the given fiscal year, in