of foreign nations in the District of Columbia so as to conform with the general practice among nations of requiring the observance by countries with which they maintain diplomatic relations of their laws and zoning regulations in the location of such buildings.

Stopping at that point of the section, the Commissioners are of the opinion that that would be rather difficult if at all possible to carry out in practice.

While the Commissioners have not made a survey of the countries or the regulations of all of the countries with which the United States maintains diplomatic relations, they do assume that there is quite a variation in how the foreign countries deal with the subject, and it does appear difficult as an administrative matter to attempt to accommodate all of the variations in one set of regulations in the District. of Columbia.

But in any event, we feel that the probable intent is to bar from residential districts the location of chanceries and office-type buildings of foreign governments, and if that be the intent, as I indicated before, Commissioner Tobriner as a minority member would favor this type of legislation.

The majority of the two Boards that I referred to, the Board of Commissioners and the Zoning Commission, feel that it would be preferable to deal with the subject in the form of a regulation which, incidentally, has been considered in some detail by both the Board of Commissioners and the Zoning Commission in consultation with a representative of the Department of State and a regulation generally along that line, which is considered would be appropriate, has been attached as an enclosure to this letter.

I think the committee has copies of the proposed regulation which, of course, would be subject to a public hearing before it could be adopted.

Mr. MULTER. We have made that part of the record. It is part of the Commissioners' report.

Mr. BRYAN. Yes, sir. That is part of their report and should be part of the record. If the members of the committee do not have copies, I have additional copies.

This proposed regulation, if adopted by the Zoning Commission, would vest in the Board of Zoning Adjustment, a statutory body of five persons, the authority to grant special exceptions for chancery uses in residential districts subject to the conditions laid down in the proposed regulation.

Speaking generally the conditions laid down in the proposed regulation are somewhat more restrictive than those that are now in force and effect but are designed to ameliorate and to possible mitigate the conditions which have been complained of during the course of hearings held by the Board of Zoning Adjustment under the existing regulations. It would still be possible for those nations which do not yet have chancery locations in residential districts to locate in residential districts under these proposed regulations, subject, however, to complying with the regulations, that is, proposed regulations.

One of the principal features I think of the proposed regulations is the requirement for offstreet parking spaces on the property of the proposed chancery building, and also the requirement proposed for locating chanceries in relation to existing chanceries, also to eliminate to a large extent the traffic and parking problem.

For example, paragraph (c) specifies that in existing buildings which do not have a site area of 2 acres or more, the requirement of subparagraph (a) here must be met, and no existing chancery in such districts may be closer than 400 feet to the lot upon which such building is located.

In other words, a new chancery to be located in a residential district may not be closer than 400 feet to the lot upon which the building is located.

The Zoning Commission has not concluded that this specific regulation is what will ultimately come if the Congress should decide to leave the matter to the Zoning Commission to handle by regulation, but this is a general approach to the type of regulation that they would submit to a public hearing.

Going now to-if there are no questions concerning the Commissioners' views on section 4 of H.R. 679, I will proceed to H.R. 5882.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Bryan, excuse me. When did the Commissioners first give consideration to this matter of zoning for chanceries? How long ago?

Mr. BRYAN. When did the District Commissioners or the Zoning Commissioners?

Mr. HUDDLESTON. The Commissioners first.

Mr. BRYAN. The District of Columbia Board of Commissioners. Mr. HUDDLESTON. Is this a recent development on the part of the Commissioners or had they had this matter under consideration for some time?

I know this much.

Mr. BRYAN. I really am not sure. Their views as set forth in their June 5 report are in some respects similar to what the Board of Commissioners and the Zoning Commission reported to the Senate District Committee on a bill which is identical to H.R. 5882. The Senate bill is S. 646 and the report to the Senate District Committee was made on May 3 of this year. The report on H.R. 5882 is dated June 3, a month later.

I do know for a fact that the Commissioners acted on or about May 3. Now, when they first considered it I am not able

Mr. MULTER. At the time of the hearings before the Senate on S. 646 on May 3, this regulation had not yet been prepared. Mr. BRYAN. That is correct.

Mr. MULTER. And the Senators evidenced their impatience with the District government for not having come up with it long before the date set for their hearing. I think the indication there was that you had been studying and studying this problem for many years and on May 3 still didn't have any regulations, and I think the Senators did indicate it was high time you did, and even if you now did, on the Senate side at least, some of the members would not be satisfied with your trying to do it now by ordinance or regulation after all these years of having sat on it and done nothing.

Mr. BRYAN. If that is a question, I will try to answer it.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. How would you answer Mr. Multer's comment there?

Mr. BRYAN. I just want to say that is correct, a correct statement, sir, that the proposed regulation was not in existence at the time of the Senate hearing and one or two members of the subcommittee of the Senate District Committee did indicate that some

Mr. MULTER. They indicated some impatience.

Mr. BRYAN. Some impatience was felt there.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Bryan, would it be a fair statement to say that this proposed zoning regulation has been prepared in an effort to prevent the Congress from taking jurisdiction over this matter of zoning for chanceries?

Mr. BRYAN. I would say that is not correct, sir, and as a matter of fact, the Commissioners in their written report, which is before the committee, are leaving the matter entirely to the Congress as to whether the Congress wishes to take action by legislation and thereby preempt the field as far as the Zoning Commission is concerned or do it by regulation. Either way will be agreeable to the Commissioners.

Their views with respect to how to approach it, generally speaking, are in the regulation.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Now, Mr. Bryan, this isn't a recent problem, is it? I mean something that has developed in the last couple of months. The question of zoning for chanceries.

Mr. BRYAN. No. I think that is a fair statement, too. The matter of locating chanceries is not just a new problem. Chanceries have been located in various places in the District over a period of years and they have been-I would say this, since the effective date of the new zoning regulations in May 1958, a great many Board of Zoning Adjustment proceedings which involved public hearings for the proposed location of the chanceries had been considered and acted on by the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

Prior to May of 1958 under the then existing or preceding zoning regulations there was no specification either in the Zoning Act or in the zoning regulations as to where chanceries could or could not be located. And as a result, chanceries were in fact located, many of them, in residential districts.

Beginning in 1958, in order for a chancery to locate in a residential district, it was necessary that there be a special exception granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Well, were the District of Columbia Commissioners aware of the problem of providing some sort of zoning system for chanceries prior to the time that they submitted their report to the Senate committee on May 3 of this year?

Mr. BRYAN. Well, I really can't answer that, sir, from my own personal knowledge. I did not personally get involved in the drafting or assist in drafting any report until this year, May of this year.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. For the record, can you give us the date on which this draft of zoning regulation for chanceries was prepared?

Mr. BRYAN. I think I can. That was drafted and submitted by Brig. Gen. Frederick J. Clarke as Chairman of the Zoning Commission. It was submitted to the Senate District Committee, the subcommittee which held a hearing on S. 646 on May 14, this year. Mr. HUDDLESTON. That is the first official action that the District of Columbia Commissioners took. Dealing with chancery zonings. Mr. BRYAN. That was the first time that this particular approach, that is, this scope of regulation was actually drafted, although there was in existence beginning in 1958 and still is in existence several specifications which must be met by chanceries or when chanceries are to be located in residential districts and they must be established and acted on by the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Up until 1958 there wasn't any

Mr. BRYAN. Up to 1958 apparently there was nothing in the statutes or in the regulations dealing specifically with chanceries, neither prohibited or specifically allowed, with the result that they were able to locate in any zoning district.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Thank you.

Mr. DIGGS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Mr. MULTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DIGGS. Are you saying also in essence that the agitation for restricting the location of chanceries has come since 1958?

Mr. BRYAN. That the agitation for what?

Mr. DIGGS. Restricting the location of chanceries has come since 1958?

Mr. BRYAN. I really am not aware of when the particular agitation to which you refer, Mr. Diggs, started. The fact is that a bill was introduced on January 31 of this year by Senator Fulbright. There was also a similar bill in the 87th Congress. So I really don't know when the agitation started to restrict them.

Mr. DIGGS. You stated that up until 1958 chanceries with few exceptions could locate anywhere they wanted to but there seemed to be a beginning of a changed attitude after the date. That is what I characterize as agitation.

Mr. BRYAN. I am sorry, sir. I didn't mean to imply that I knew about attitudes at all. I was merely reciting a factual situation in respect to what the state of the law and the regulations was and is. I have no knowledge of attitudes and changes in attitudes as such. I really don't know.

Mr. DIGGS. Well, whether you have knowledge or not, as I am the only member of this committee who is a member also of the Foreign Affairs Committee and having numerous contacts in the diplomatic community, and there is no question in my mind that intentionally or not, there is an opinion which is in the diplomatic community, especially in one section of it, that this agitation for changes in the location of chanceries has just come about since the independence of the African countries beginning in 1957 and 1958.

The demand for restrictions of chanceries has implications which are quite clear and which are the basis for the concern of the State Department in wanting to have this situation controlled in a way which will permit flexibility and which will prohibit any erroneous impression being given by reason of the fact that out of the 14 nations which they expect to seek chanceries within the next 2 years, 13 of them come from the African Continent.

I think this is a very important point and we might as well put it out on the table because that is the basis for the feeling in the diplomatic community with respect to this matter. It is also the basis for the concern of the State Department. And whether those who are promoting this legislation would be candid enough to admit it or not, there is a feeling that this is the basis for the desire to suddenly begin restricting the location of these chanceries.

Mr. BRYAN. I might add, sir, if I didn't already say, that in the drafting of the proposed regulation which the Zoning Commission has the authority to promulgate, if the Congress does not act on legislation, the Zoning Commission did consult with the State Department in, as I say, drafting this particular proposal.

Mr. DIGGS. Well, as you indicated, they would prefer that it be done through ordinance because this will permit the kind of flexibility that they feel they should have in dealing with these matters, and also as you point out in your communication, total prohibition will eliminate the basis for a claim, and I am quoting:

A claim of discrimination against the relatively few new countries which have not succeeded in finding chancery locations, a consideration which is of considerable concern to the State Department.

Mr. BRYAN. That is correct, sir.

Mr. DIGGS. Well, I fully associate myself with that position, and as I pointed out, through my contacts in the diplomatic community as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I can assure you that to handle it otherwise is going to be subject to a great deal of misinterpretation, and I think that we have had enough of that of recent weeks with respect to comments that have been made about our relations with some of these countries. I think this would just add fuel to the fire.

Mr. MULTER. I do hope that the representative of the State Department will submit the detailed data on the subject to us, as part of the history of the problem.

I believe I am correct in saying that up to 1958 chanceries and embassies could locate freely wherever they pleased in the District of Columbia. At about that time the law or the regulation was changed and since June 1958 they could locate in residential areas only if they obtained zoning changes upon application to the boards that had jurisdiction, and in that connection, since June 18, 1958, there have been 46 such applications filed with the authorities in the District for changes to permit the foreign chanceries to be maintained in these residential areas. Six of those were withdrawn by the applicants and nine of them were denied, and the rest of them were granted. And while I share Mr. Diggs' concern, I think the record will show that more of the applications filed by African nations, newly formed African nations, were granted than denied.

Of course, unless you reviewed the facts in each application you don't know what the situation is or where they were located, who came in and opposed or who didn't come in and oppose, that gives me some concern about the regulation because if I understand it correctly, under the proposed regulation, the authorities will retain jurisdiction to entertain individual applications for changes and grant them or deny them as their discretion may dictate.

That is so, is it not?

Mr. BRYAN. In accordance with the standards laid down in the proposed regulation. The regulation would be made, if it is enacted, by the Zoning Commission and a different body known as the Board of Zoning Adjustment would act in accordance with the standards laid down.

Mr. MULTER. When will this regulation become effective?

Mr. BRYAN. It couldn't take effect until after a public hearing has been held and after the Zoning Commission adopted it, and I believe there would be a publication required also. I can ask one of the other people here who is more familiar with it.

Mr. MULTER. If anybody can, give us the time schedule. How soon at the earliest can this regulation become effective? Will you tell us your name for the record.