whenever it determines that such rehabilitation or restoration is desirable or appropriate and shall dispose of the structure so rehabilitated or restored at such time and on such terms and conditions as it may determine to be in the public interest."

SEC. 4. The Act entitled "An Act providing for the zoning of the District of Columbia and the regulation of the location, height, bulk, and uses of buildings and other structures and of the uses of land in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes", approved June 20, 1938, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 5-413 et seq.), is amended by redesignating section 17 as section 18 and by inserting after section 16 the following new section:

"SEC. 17. The provisions of this Act shall apply to chanceries and other business-type buildings 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; and the Zoning Commission shall accordingly include in its regulations under the first section of his Act such provisions as may be necessary to insure that such buildings are hereafter located only in areas appropriately zoned for such purposes.'

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KYL, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Mr. MULTER. We would like to hear from Mr. Kyl now.

Representative Kyl. If you would like to delay this hearing until some other time, I would consider it no personal affront whatsoever. Mr. MULTER. I think in view of the time that that might be the better thing to do.

Mr. Pedro San Juan is here, Deputy Chief of Protocol of the Department of State.

Can you come back at another time, sir?

Mr. SAN JUAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MULTER. I think it would be preferable than trying to finish this in the 4 minutes that we have available to us. And then we have, of course, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Wixon and Mr. Bryan of the Corporation Counsel's Office, and we have Mr. Doyle of the Redevelopment Land Agency and Mr. Mascioli of the Kalorama Triangle Restoration Society.

I am sorry we kept you here all morning, but I do think it would be better if we set this down to another date when we can hear it more leisurely.

This committee is adjourned subject to call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)

HOME REPAIR TAX INCENTIVES AND ZONING
RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN CHANCERIES

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1963

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3 OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 445-A, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Abraham J. Multer (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Multer, Huddleston, Diggs, and Horton. Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Donald Tubridy, minority clerk; and Leonard O. Hilder, investigator. Mr. MULTER. The committee will please be in order.

We are met this morning to consider H.R. 59, H.R. 679, and H.R.

5882.

(H.R. 59 and H.R. 679 are already of record in our last session; H.R. 5882 follows:)

[H.R. 5882, 88th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To prohibit the location of chanceries or other business offices of foreign governments in certain residential areas in the District of Columbia

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act entitled "An Act providing for the zoning of the District of Columbia and the regulation of the location, height, bulk, and uses of buildings and other structures and the uses of land in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes" approved June 20, 1938, as amended, is amended by inserting "(a)" after the section number in section 6 and by adding at the end of such section the following new subsection:

"(b) After the date of enactment of this subsection, no foreign government shall be permitted to construct, alter, repair, convert, or occupy any building for use as a chancery, chancery annex, or other business office of such foreign government on any land, regardless of the date of acquisition thereof, within a one-family detached dwelling residence district established pursuant to this Act, except on the same basis as in the case of the construction, alteration, repair, conversion, or occupancy of a similar building by a United States citizen or entity. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the continued use as a chancery, chancery annex, or other business office of any building lawfully being used for that purpose on the date of enactment of this subsection, or to prohibit the making of ordinary repairs to any such building. This subsection shall not be administered in such a way as to discriminate against any foreign government on the basis of the race, color, or creed of any of its citizens."

Mr. MULTER. H.R. 59 is in almost the exact words, I believe, as the first two sections of H.R. 679. The third section of H.R. 679 is presently being considered with other legislation affecting urban renewal in the District of Columbia by another subcommittee of the District of Columbia Committee. Therefore, we will not take any proof or any testimony on section 3 of H.R. 679.

Any witness who desires to file a statement on that section, however, may do so, but I want them to know that this subcommittee will not take any action with reference to section 3 of H.R. 679 except as they may participate in the full committee on recommendations covering the subject that may come from the other subcommittee chaired by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Dowdy.

H.R. 5882 in substance is section 4 of H.R. 679, although the language is quite different and the treatment is slightly different.

I think that if the subcommittee should decide to move forward along the lines of those two sections, that is, section 4 of H.R. 679, and the principles set forth in H.R. 5882, then of course, in executive session we will adopt appropriate language to accomplish that purpose. Now, it will be impossible this morning to hear all the witnesses that are listed. I suggest that when we get close to the closing hour, those who have not been heard by that time should file their statements with the committee so that we can proceed to executive session as soon as possible in order to determine what we will do with these bills.

We have with us this morning our distinguished colleague, Mr. Kyl, and we will hear him first.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KYL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF IOWA

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MULTER. We are pleased to have you with us.

Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, an accumulation of related information and contemplation has prompted me to introduce H.R. 59 and another resolution, House Joint Resolution 461.

My comments this morning concern only that resolution which is under consideration here.

I want to emphasize to begin, Mr. Chairman, that I am not in a hurry about this resolution because it is a single part of a very complex problem which deserves the deepest thought. We here have to fight traditions and while it is necessary to do that frequently, we recognize the difficulties that are encountered in trying to overcome what has become established custom.

In one sense, and in one sense only, the District of Columbia is unique so far as taxes are concerned because its territorial limits are prescribed by statute and can't be altered and because the Federal Government utilizes so much space within these boundaries, the District does have additional burdens for consideration.

I believe if we would always bear in mind the fact that we have a prescribed limit beyond which we cannot go geographically, we would get a more realistic zoning, for instance, a more realistic appraisal system, and would ultimately come to a situation where we used all of our land more wisely than we have in the past, with the resultant greater tax income for the District.

I think it is almost specious to say that the Federal Government has not always acted wisely in its acquisition of property in the District, with the attendant removal of taxable property from the rolls.

But for the purpose of the present discussion I will limit myself to saying only that some of our attempts to remove in blighted areas

have resulted in overcrowding of other areas, and unless we proceed carefully, our entire city is an indigent slum.

H.R. 59 is preventive medicine. If we can prevent property downgrading and at the same time promote pride and security in property ownership, we can in a large measure avoid the kind of disruption and inconvenience and downright hardship and we can make rehabilitation on a mass scale unnecessary insofar as Government activity is concerned.

At the same time we can save public funds.

The purpose of this bill is to preserve and restore in the District of Columbia. It is impossible to consider this general problem too narrowly and that is why I specified in the beginning that this is not a subject which can be handled speedily.

In recent days within the limits of personnel and time in the office, we have gone into several of these attendant problems, all of which relate to H.R. 59.

For instance, in the matter of zoning, it takes only a perfunctory review to determine that the zoning laws under which we presently operate tend to make it easier to develop or redevelop areas which need the improvement the least and the converse is also true.

On the matter of building permits, the local newspapers have with great clarity pointed out the existence of vast irregularities in slum

areas.

In this little research which we have done, we have found among other things these situations, again which are attendant to this business of appraised values and taxes for the District of Columbia. In one instance, as an illustration, close to the Capitol, a permit was given by the local board for the construction of a picket fence. A complete renovation of the house went on behind the picket fence to the extent even of new plumbing and new wiring throughout the house. Then the picket fence for which the permit was granted was torn down after the improvements had been made.

In another instance a permit was granted for improvement of support beams, replacement of support beams. Again there was a great deal of reconstruction, of renovation, and again the plumbing was replaced.

The individuals at the board in this instance said, well, apparently no permit had been necessary for this because no permit had been granted. And yet in the same sort of a situation, we had a plumber's helper in the District who was fined $200 because he put in a sink without a permit.

There are also some unusual connections of this sort which I think deserve attention. It seems almost normal practice that whenever a property owner is warned by the city authorities that he must improve his property, immediately he is descended on by people who want to buy this property.

Usually the original overtures are not in line with the value of the actual property. The zoning, the permits, they are all part of the same program which deserves attention.

It is even possible, and again I say the reason I don't want to move too rapidly in this thing, it is possible that what we need is an entirely new approach on tax evaluation.

Now, relative to H.R. 59 itself, I would like to submit for your files, rather than for the record, Mr. Chairman, an information bulletin