Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MCMILLAN. I personally would like to learn the attitude of the Maryland State Legislature and the State Department of Education. Mrs. GREEN. If the State of Maryland wouldn't, would the State of Virginia?

Mr. BROYHILL. I pointed out earlier in the hearing, Mrs. Green, that the State of Virginia has shown itself to be a great deal more liberal than the State of Maryland, in that we did cede to the District of Columbia an area which was one-third of its original size, and then we took it back in 1846. And I have suggested that the State of Maryland may want to consider doing the same thing.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Broyhill, you failed to answer the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon's question—that is, would Virginia consider accepting this valuable tourist attraction?

Mr. BROYHILL. I responded to the gentlewoman's question, that we did take back

Mr. FAUNTROY. No, the present District of Columbia.

Mr. BROYHILL. Well, of course, we didn't cede all that in the beginning.

Mr. FAUNTROY. But would you want to

Mr. BROYHILL. No, we don't want it. And I would say that the people of Virginia, as a whole, are not advocating complete home rule. either.

Mr. FAUNTROY. I see.

Well, I would like for the record to show that at least two other members of the Committee have joined us, and unfortunately, the member from the State of Maryland is not here to respond to the very eloquent statement

Mr. BROYHILL. Don't worry about the gentleman from Maryland. He can take care of himself, without any assistance from the Delegate from the District of Columbia.

Mr. FAUNTROY. That's what I'm saying. It's unfortunate he's not here to take care of himself.

Mr. MCMILLAN. General Harris, you may proceed, then.

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL CHARLES S. HARRIS, USA, RETIRED; PRESIDENT, CATHEDRAL HEIGHTS-CLEVELAND PARK CITIZENS ASSOCIATION

General HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I am Charles Harris, President of the Cathedral Heights-Cleveland Park Citizens Association, and here representing them. The main purpose of our association, as you know, is to promote good government by arousing citizen interest and participation in government.

I would like to add, too, that we appreciate very much this opportunity to appear before you and present our views on home rule. The main argument for home rule is that the citizens of this capital city should be allowed to elect their own officials and thus, to handle their own affairs. The distinguished member and Delegate from the District has developed that theme, and so have the newspapers and the press, and I would say that offhand, throughout the country, you've got to assume that they would be for self-government.

Now, in talking of this home rule bill, I think that a great many of them overlook the fact that the District belongs to the people of all the states. It was created for this purpose, to serve as the seat of government for the entire country, and I would like to review that, the development that.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF FEDERAL CITY

As our Founding Fathers labored to establish the framework for the government of this new nation, they gave particular attention to the selection of a site for the seat of government for the republic. They remembered well some embarrassing experiences in the cities where the Continental Congresses had convened.

I suppose one of the best-known instances of that kind is when the soldiers, unpaid Continental soldiers, demonstrated around the convention hall where they were convened and they had their bayonets fixed, and the Continental Congress didn't like it and tried to get authority to stop it, but couldn't get any response from any of the authorities in the State of Pennsylvania.

Anyway, they were determined not to locate the seat of government in Philadelphia, New York, Trenton, Annapolis, or other cities. Instead, they were determined to provide for the seat of government a local government responsive to the Federal needs; a setting favorable to the operation of the government; a suitable home for the chief officials and subordinate employees; and an atmosphere favorable to the development of loyal devotion to the Administration in power, regardless of party affiliation. Accordingly, the District of Columbia was selected as the site and given its sole mission to provide a proper seat for the Federal Government. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) gave the Congress the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District.

In the development of the District of Columbia, the people in all the states, through the Congress, have shown their pride in their Capital City by generously providing the necessary funds in the form of Federal appropriations. The Federal investment has been and still is truly tremendous. The very life blood of Washington flows from the Federal pay rolls and appropriations. In comparison, our investments as individual citizens are trivial.

Thus, the District of Columbia was originally established by the Federal Government for the sole purpose to serve as its Federal City and with the positive provision that the Congress have the power to exercise exclusive legislative control. And it has been developed and still is being developed and maintained largely at Federal expense. So, the requirements and rights of the Federal Government must remain paramount in the District Government. The rights of the District citizens are well respected in that leading citizens of the District, under Federal supervision, are prominent officials in the active direction of the District Government operations. True, these officials are appointed, whereas, it may be well now to elect some of them. However, the control of the District Government should remain clearly and positively in the hands of the Congress, as provided in the Constitution.

72-762-72-18

FEDERAL INTEREST

Congressional leaders and students of government, in studying the problems here, have stressed the fact that the District Government and the Federal Government are so interlaced, it is hard to divide them. In other words, it's hard to say what are the affairs of local citizens and what are the affairs of the country, the people of the country. The people of the country are interested in all important affairs that affect the District.

I wish to stress particularly that in recent years, the President has required immediate control of the District Police and Fire Departments, Courts, Corrections, all public safety agencies, to help in the control of demonstrations that have become rather usual around here. This was well illustrated in the May Day riots of last year.

It is also well illustrated in the April, 1968, riots in Washington which resulted in extensive break-ins, arson, burning and looting, which also required the assistance of Federal troops before it was quelled.

Our next consideration is the need to streamline the government and economize, stop the spread of bureaucracy, stop the rapid increase in our taxes, and increase the efficiency of service. We trust that the study and report of Congressman Nelsen's "Little Hoover" Commission may result in definite improvement in the efficiency of the District Government.

FINANCING THE DISTRICT

We have no desire to criticize any particular individuals. I am of the opinion that the Mayor and the Council are struggling as best they can to at least try to take care of the interests of the citizens in the District. But I want to point out that the present Mayor-Council District Government has resulted in fancy organization, increases in personnel, and increased expenses. The District operating budget in Fiscal Year 1967 was $368,457,261. With the District Budgets plus pertinent Federal grants, the operating expenses in Fiscal Year 1972 will probably exceed $1 billion, about three times the expenses of 1967.

Taxes have increased accordingly. My own home taxes increased 125 percent from 1961 to 1971. The income tax used to be limited to 5% and now it goes up to 10%. Service has not improved.

Now, I mention this because the Mayor-Council form of government is indicative of what we might expect under home rule. In fact, we might expect greater expenses under home rule because the Congress is not there to prune the budget and cut it down to size.

We are inclined toward returning to the commission form of government. Each commissioner directed some elements of the governments and was familiar with the practical operations. As a group, the commissioners were better informed and better fitted to formulate policy and regulations than are the Council members, who lack the practical contact.

S. 2652

With reference to the Senate Bill, S. 2652, Senator Eagleton's bill, we oppose it for the reason outlined below. It creates an elective Mayor and 11-member Council to relieve and take over functions of the present Commissioner and Council, and also the functions of the D.C. Public

Service Commission, Zoning Commission, and other like District bodies.

It gives to the Council and Mayor, with minor exceptions, the same broad legislative power over the District as that given to Congress by the Constitution.

It authorizes the Council and Mayor, without reference to Congress or to the President, to exercise control over: (1) the preparation and approval of the annual District budget; (2) the establishment of tax rates, fees, and other revenue raising means; (3) the financial operations of the District; (4) the issue of bonds or short term

notes.

Now, the Bill provides some limitations on the issue of bonds and short-term notes, but I would like to invite your attention to the fact that the territorial government in 1871 to 1874 also had limitations of the District Police, the Department of Corrections, Welfare, moved in to settle the bankruptcy and close out that form of government.

The Bill also gives the Mayor and Council control over the operations of the District Policy, the Department of Corrections, Welfare, Schools, and all important activities in the District.

The bill gives the Council and Mayor broad jurisdiction over the District municipal courts. The Mayor appoints the judges with advice and consent of the Council.

It provides automatic Federal payment to the District on its annual budget beginning at 35% of the District contribution and increasing to 40% by Fiscal Year 1976. This payment is made without any further appropriation by Congress.

Now, that builds up to an estimated contribution of some $233 million. The contribution in 1967 was $58 million, and that was a great deal more than it had been. If we go back to 1950, the contribution was $11 million or less.

The Congress has properly delegated to the District Government power over many matters and should extend this practice when full cooperation is maintained. However, the above matters should require specific Congressional approval. In particular, Congress should control budget appropriations, taxes and all forms of public indebtedness. The bill makes no provision for any Presidential veto of District Government acts. It makes the Mayor the chief executive officer of the District Government and vests in him broad executive authority for the administration of District affairs.

The bill recognizes that the Congress has the ultimate authority, but it can exercise that authority only by enacting a resolution by either house within 30 days disapproving the District action, or by an act of Congress at any time repealing the District action. If enacted, this bill would probably lead to tremendous confusion, with two different bodies exercising the same legislative control over the seat of the Federal Government. Congress can delegate its authority, we don't debate that. I believe the judges and others studying this have said that they cannot delegate authority to pass general legislation, similar to what states pass.

But we don't debate the issue that they can delegate authority to the Ditrict Government, but the Congress cannot shed its responsibility given to it under the Constitution.