the problems that it faces that it is essential that the authority to decide within the executive side be strengthened and be unified and be placed under the control of one official who is responsible for the conduct of the activities under him. I would not pretend for an instant that it may not be necessary, once its reorganization plan becomes law, to undertake further reorganization below that level within the District of Columbia government which is provided for in the plan, and to move toward improvement, strengthening, consolidation of the myriad of other agencies in this city that have a vital effect on its development and on the performance of its functions.

Senator RIBICOFF. In other words, your feeling is that although this plan is not perfect, and there are many other plans that can be devised, it would be most unfortunate if we miss the opportunity to take a few steps forward?

Mr. HANSON. I think it would be tragic, Mr. Chairman, if this plan is bypassed on the theory that somewhere in the future there is a better plan that might be devised. Of all the alternatives provided for this plan, I have seen none that appear to me to be superior to it. Certainly within the limitations of the Reorganization Act, I believe that this plan achieves about as much as we could hope.

Senator RIBICOFF. Senator Baker.

Senator BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize for getting in after the commencement of your state

ment.

I have only one or two questions. The first one is: Does it create any problem in your mind for the orderly administration of this plan and the implementation of its purposes in that it provides that the Commissioner of the District of Columbia may be removed by the President, at the pleasure of the President, as well as be appointed by the President subject to confirmation?

Mr. HANSON. No; it does not. This is because of the unique legal constitutional status of the District of Columbia. If I could have my personal preference, I would, of course, prefer to see a mayor elected by the people.

Senator BAKER. And then beyond that would it be your preference to see one appointed for a specific term?

Mr. HANSON. No, I think if you are going to the practice of appointment, as one must under the reorganization powers, then I think that an appointee, serving in an executive capacity, should serve at the pleasure of the officer who appoints him. I think the vital relationship in this city that must exist between the White House and the District of Columbia government virtually requires a relationship based on trust and confidence between the President and the person whom he appoints to administer the District of Columbia.

Senator BAKER. There is no corresponding right-or is there, I am not sure-for the President to remove at pleasure the members of the Council of the District of Columbia under the proposed plan?

Mr. HANSON. I don't believe so.

Senator BAKER. Only for cause or malfeasance, as distinguished from removal at the pleasure of the President, as in the case of the Commissioner?

Mr. HANSON. That is correct.

Senator BAKER. What would be the basis and justification for the distinction in the nature of these two offices?

Mr. HANSON. I think the justification for this is that the members of the Council perform no executive functions. Their functions are political, representational, and legislative. And in this sense I think there is probably considerable value in permitting them to serve for a term with removal only for cause, because these are areas in which I think a great value can be placed upon an independence of the appointing officer contrasted with the role of the executive officer, and the kind of relationship that he must have with his superior executive. Senator BAKER. In your view, to whom is the Commissioner of the District of Columbia primarily responsible, the Council, or the President?

Mr. HANSON. I think he is primarily responsible to the President, just as a Commissioner is at present primarily responsible to the President.

Senator BAKER. In your view, to whom would the Council of the District of Columbia be primarily responsible, to the people of the District of Columbia, or the President?

Mr. HANSON. I think this poses a very difficult question. Legally I assume to the President. Politically, probably to the people and to their own consciences. This, I think, is a very difficult problem, because of the fact that they are not elected and are expected to perform functions similar to those that are normally performed by elected officials.

Senator BAKER. But would an appointment for a specific term of years, as in the case of members of the Council, who may not be removed except for neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, or when found guilty of a felony, or conduct involving moral turpitude, doesn't it necessarily imply that the Council itself is an independent force not "legally" responsible to the appointing authority, the President, but rather a quasi-legislative council responsible to the people and for the purpose of representing the people of the District of Columbia?

Mr. HANSON. Yes, I believe that is correct.

Senator BAKER. Might not the difference in the nature of the tenure of the Commission and the members of the Council, as we have just discussed, create the potential and the very real probability of conflicts between the Council and the Commissioner?

Mr. HANSON. Yes, indeed. But I do not think this is a disqualification of the plan. In fact, one of the basic concepts, I think, of the general theory of separation of powers is that it does create a conflict between the executive and legislative branches or of functions of the government.

By and large, I think this can be a very creative conflict, if the mechanism is provided for resolving it. I believe that the reorganization so provides.

Senator BAKER. But, of course, in the general, broad theory of the separation of powers and checks and balances, the ultimate authority for the resolution of conflicts is the polling place, the electorate? Mr. HANSON. That is correct.

Senator BAKER. And that element is missing in this system.

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 local 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.