,

2

District of Columbia, I can expect to comply 100 percent with the terms of that proposal, and there is no chance to get anything off." I have had contractors tell me the same thing, that when they bid a job for the District of Columbia, they expect to perform 100 percent, and there is no funny business about it.

I think that we have an excellent form of government here. I am very proud of it, and I was very proud of the opportunity to be part of it for 2 years.

I would like to point out that when I was in the position of having to make decisions, I was never pressured into making any decision that was contrary to what I felt was right and best for the city as a whole. In other words, I did not have to give this section of the city or that section of the city special treatment because of pressure from this section or that section. Every decision that I made was made because I felt that it was for the good of the city as a whole.

I was in a position to do that because I was not responsible to anybody except the President of the United States and to the city as a whole, and not to any group that put me in office.

I was responsible to the people who lived in the city, to see that they got the best that could be given them for the money made available to us by the Congress of the United States, and under the authorization of the Congress of the United States.

To decide what was best, I had public hearings, and I took into consideration all of the opinions expressed by various and sundry groups; and somebody has to make up his mind. I made up my mind, and I made the decision based upon the pros and cons, weighing one against the other, and deciding what was best for the city as a whole, not what was going to satisfy this group or that group or the other.

I think we have a good government here in the District of Columbia.

I have lived in a city where the county commissioners met, and one county commissioner was raising Cain because the county commissioner charged with the highway program in that county was not putting enough highways and bridges in his section of the city or the county.

What happened after the meeting was over was that he and his son went into this other man's office and beat the tar out of him.

Here, we put the road and the traffic lights and everything else where they will serve the greatest number of people and do the city of Washington the most good.

When I was a Commissioner, I thought we had an excellent school system.

Mr. McMILLAN. The late Maj. Gen. Julian L. Schley, former Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army, served a number of years ago as an assistant to the Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia. He was a resident of Washington after retiring until his recent death and took great interest in this city. He prepared a brief history and proposal concerning government of the Nation's Capital city which suggests a rather unique method of giving the residents of the District a voice in their government. General Prentiss presented General Schley's proposal for government of the District which was written by him years ago. I include that also as a part of my remarks:

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL CITY: A BRIEF HISTORY AND A PROPOSAL The policy of the United States concerning the local government of the Capital of the Nation was embodied in the Constitution. Article I, section 8, reads in part: "The Congress shall have power: *** To exer

cise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States *

Under this authority of the Constitution, the Congress accepted by appropriate acts for the United States the areas ceded by Maryland and Virginia in 1788 and 1789, created a commission to acquire title to the lands, and from time to time amended the charters of the towns situated therein, altered the composition of the counties and amended their governments, but not until about 80 years later, in 1871, did Congress undertake to establish a centralized government for the whole Federal territory suited to the local needs and capable of creating a capital city of the rapidly growing Nation. Seven years later, in 1878, the Congress enacted what is now referred to as the Organic Act of the District of Columbia which, with amendments from time to time, is the law of the District today.

The experience of the District of Columbia with its government between 1871 and 1878 is worthy of special consideration, and this will be dealt with after reviewing briefly the forms of government in the area of the District prior to that period.

The laws of the States of Maryland and Virginia which were in effect in areas ceded to the United States by these two States were continued in effect "until Congress should provide for the government of the Federal district," and for about 10 years after the ceding of the land to the Federal Government the laws enacted by these States applied to the ceded territories.

Each of the two counties of the State of

Maryland in which these lands were located was governed during this period by a levy The county of the State of Virginia was governed by a county court.

The town of Georgetown was situated in the territory ceded by Maryland, and the town of Alexandria was in the territory ceded by Virginia.

Georgetown was incorporated by the State of Maryland in 1789. It had a mayor elected by the council, 6 aldermen and 10 elected common councilmen. The aldermen were selected from the council by vote of the mayor, aldermen and councilmen. Some changes were made in the government of Georgetown by the U.S. Congress from time to time (such as election of the mayor by the people in 1831) until its charter was revoked by the act of 1871.

Alexandria elected 12 freeholders, who chose from their number a mayor and four aldermen. The remaining six freeholders formed a common council. Alexandria Columbia when the area ceded by Virginia ceased to be included in the District of

was retroceded to the State.

The seat of government of the United States was transferred from Philadelphia to the District of Columbia in 1800, by act of Congress, and the first meeting of Congress in the District of Columbia was held that year.

An additional separate governing body was created in the Federal district when

Congress incorporated the city of Washington in 1802, providing for a mayor appointed by the President of the United States and for a city council elected by the people. In 1812 a change was made providing for the mayor to be elected by the city council, and in 1820 a further change providing for the mayor's election by the people.

The subdivisions of territory and the forms of government were changed somewhat as time went on, the most important of which was the creation of two counties by the U.S. Congress, one known as Washington County covering the area east of the Potomac River (ceded by Maryland), and the other covering the area west of the river

(ceded by Virginia). The Federal Government assumed more and more control over these two counties until 1871, when an act of Congress revoked the charters of the existing governments in the District; namely, of Washington County and of Washington City and the city of Georgetown, and finally created a single government for the entire territory.

Meantime, however, the population of the part of the territory ceded by Virginia became dissatisfied with their status because of the failure of the U.S. Government either to make use of its area in its plans for the National Capital or to improve its form of government, and because the people found the authorities of the State of Virginia more sympathetic than those of the Federal Government in the unfortunate state of their finances. At their insistence, the territory west of the Potomac River was retroceded to the State of Virginia in 1846.

The remaining area of about 70 square miles originally ceded by Maryland constitutes the District of Columbia today.

It is thus seen that there existed in the Federal territory prior to 1871 several independent governmental entities, each being an outgrowth and development of the State, county, and municipal forms of government of our early history. During this period the Nation was developing and the population increasing rapidly. The population of the Federal territory also grew apace, the greatest increase taking place during the Civil War, caused in part by the administration of the war itself, but also by the Negro slaves seeking refuge from the slave States.

In government, the territory was not only poorly equipped during the period prior to 1871 to meet the local needs, but also was not at all prepared to develop the area to become a suitable Capital of the Nation. There was great need for a single control of the entire area, for wise planning, and for extensive improvements. The large-scale improvements required could not be undertaken without much greater expenditures of money, which taxes could not provide.

As has already been mentioned, Congress finally undertook in 1871 to establish a centralized government for the entire District of Columbia-government which was intended to serve the national needs of a Capital City as well as the local needs. And in 1878, in an effort to profit by the lessons learned in the operation of the centralized government since 1871, Congress enacted what was the basis of the organic act of the present District government.

The period between 1871 and 1878 is appropriately divided into two periods: the first from 1871 to 1874, during which time the government operated under the initial the area, in organization not unlike that attempt to provide a single government for provided for the Territories of the United States; and the second period from 1874 to 1878, when an act was in force which created a government by Commissioners as a "temporary expedient".

It will be interesting at this point to explain briefly the government of each of these two periods before dealing with the present government.

Before the law of February 21, 1871, was enacted, the striking characteristics of the Federal District needing correction were the existence of several municipal and county governmental agencies within the area, and the inadequacy of the physical improvements to provide a suitable Capital City. This act of 1871 abolished the county and city governments and provided for a Governor as the executive, appointed by the President of the United States, and a Council and a house of delegates as the legislature of the centralized government. The 11 members of the Council were appointed by the President of the United States, subject to the approval of the Senate, and the 22 members of the house

of delegates were elected by the people of the territory. Veto power of legislative action was given to the Governor. The voters were also to elect a Delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States who would have the same functions as Delegates from the several territories. A Board of Health was provided for, the members to be appointed by the President, subject to approval of the Senate.

The law also created a Board of Public Works of five members, the Governor to be chairman and the other four members to be appointed by the President, with the approval of the Senate. During the 31⁄2 years when the law of 1871 was the law of the District, this Board of Public Works was the most noteworthy element of the local government. Its function of extending, improving and maintaining the streets, sewers and other similar municipal works covered one of the great needs of the area, and the work which it undertook in those fields was very extensive and was energetically and well done on the whole, but it became subject to wide criticism by the public, and then by the U.S. Congress, for its failure to limit itself by budgetary requirements and for its arbitrary actions in other matters.

The congressional investigation which followed found large and much needed accomplishments based on a sound and broad plan, but much more extensive than contemplated by the local government and by the U.S. Legislature; it found much haste but too little thoroughness in the undertaking of the vast improvements; it found no dishonesty and graft but much looseness in finances.

The conduct of affairs by the Governor and the Council and house of delegates, and the activities of the Board of Public Works, with the resulting heavy debt of the District, caused the investigating committee of Congress to arrive unanimously at "the conclusion that the existing form of government of the District is a failure; that it is wanting in sufficient safeguard against maladministration and the creation of indebtedness; that the system of taxation it allows

opens a door to great inequality and injustice; and is wholly insufficient to secure the prompt collection of taxes; that no remedy short of its abolition and the substitution of a simpler, more restricted and economical government will suffice. Your committee have, therefore, reported a bill for a tempo

rary government, until Congress shall have time to * * * adopt a permanent form."

There resulted the act of June 20, 1874, abolishing the existing government and creating in its place a government which was considered at the time to be tentative or provisional, the prime purpose being to restore the solvency of the District of Columbia. The Delegate to the House of Representatives was abolished.

This law terminated suffrage in the District of Columbia in local government. The right to vote for Federal officials (presidential electors and Congressmen) had not been enjoyed because they are chosen only in States by State voters under the Constitution.

The executive under this law of 1874 was a board of three Commissioners appointed by the President. One Commissioner was to be from the Corps of Engineers of the U.S.

Army, who would manage the work formerly restrictions were placed on budgetary and done by the Board of Public Works. Tight fiscal matters. Legislative functions were left to the Federal Legislature.

Congress' specification of an Army engineer to be one of the Commissioners resulted directly from the experience with the Board of Public Works and the investigation by Congress of its activities from 1871 to 1874. Experience with the Army Engineers of Federal public works made Congress feel that an officer of that organization on the Commission would be a guarantee of care

ful planning and of proper respect for legislative provisions and budgetary restrictions in the construction and management of public works.

The new government was faced with the prodigious undertaking of reducing the heavy debt and of administering the pending contracts left by the Board of Public Works. In its efforts to accomplish these ends, it created some suspicions and made some enemies, resulting in further investigation by congressional committee. The committee's findings, however, were not unfavorable.

When the Congress created this temporary government in 1874, it provided for a congressional committee to prepare a bill "to devise a frame of government and submit the same at its next session, in order that a permanent government may be established with legislative control in Congress." The bills prepared by this committee and by a subsequent committee were not enacted but, in the course of the legislative procedure, a bill was written by a committee of the Senate which, with slight changes made in conference, was enacted June 11, 1878. This is the basis of the present organic law of the District of Columbia.

Under the present law, the executive branch is a Board of Commissioners of three, two selected by the President of the United States from residents of the District of Columbia, and the third a commissioned officer detailed by the President from the Corps of Engineers of the Army (known as the Engineer Commissioner). The several municipal bureaus are divided among the Commissioners for the exercise of general supervision, and actions by the executive branch are taken by the Commissioners sitting as a board.

There are several agencies influencing assisting the executive branch which function independently of the Board of Commissioners, such as a Board of Education, a Board of Public Welfare, a Public Utilities Commission, a National Park and Planning Commission.

The legislative functions of the Government are performed by the Congress of the United States, with a special committee in each House.

The President of the United States appoints the administrators of the judiciary District of Columbia; the U.S. Court of Apfunctions: the U.S. District Court of the peals for the District of Columbia Circuit; the municipal court; the municipal court the juvenile court. of appeals for the District of Columbia; and

From 1878 to 1921, Congress undertook to appropriate Federal funds to cover half of the expenses of the District of Columbia government. Since that time, Congress has the cost. appropriated an ever decreasing percent of

Columbia be changed to the usual municiShould the government of the District of pal form common to our cities, with officials elected by the people, the experiment will have completed a full cycle. During the period before 1871, sometimes referred to as the “mayoral period," there existed the usual county and city governments. From 1871 to 1874, there existed a single government for the District not unlike that of our Territories, with participation by the United

States and with a Delegate elected to the is sometimes referred to as the “territorial United States House of Representatives. This period." While it is possible that personalities may have been responsible in large part for the general dissatisfaction with this form of government, nevertheless, the conclusion was reached by the Congress and by the leaders of the people that it was a failure and that betterment lay in the direction of virtually complete control by the U.S. Government. There resulted the commission period of government, first experimentally

from 1874 to 1878, and then permanently to the present time.

Thus it is seen that, starting with the usual American form of local government, through a series of changes, all toward centralization and toward Federal control, we reached full control by the U.S. Government after 75 years, and have lived under that form for another 75 years.

The basis of Federal control is the paramount interest of the Nation in its Capital City, as expressed in the Constitution. The control is exercised by the executive branch and the Congress. The members of these two branches of the Federal Government do not readily accept a local government for the District which may not provide an appropriate home for the National Government, and which might fail to give police protection to its bureaus and agencies, such as occurred in Philadelphia in 1783. There is a strong probability that a reversion to the former forms of local government will again cause dissatisfaction on the part of the President and the Congress, and will again cause a return to virtual Federal control. That opinion may not be general now, 75 years having elapsed since the last experience with the other forms of government in the District of Columbia. And today strong reasons are being presented for a reversion.

Criticisms are made that the local people are being governed-even taxed-without representation; that Congress, burdened with national and international affairs, should be spared from local legislation.

The first of these criticisms is unanswerable. Even if all the population of the District were U.S. governmental personnel, the principle would still stand. As to Congress' burden, the time spent on local matters could be greatly reduced if there were a will to do it.

There is general agreement among the thinking people who have had experience with the present local government that it is honest and it is efficient. The city of Washington in this regard is rated among the most fortunate of the country. One would hesitate to say that this is because there is no local constituency to which the local officials are responsible, but it is quite possible that

this condition has a favorable influence on

the resulting government. In this connection, it is interesting to note what James Bryce says in his notable work on our governmental institutions. "The American Com

monwealth": "*** there is one part of the country which is not a State and has no selfgoverning institutions. The District of Columbia is a piece of land set apart to contain the city of Washington, which is the seat of the Federal Government. It is governed by three Commissioners appointed by the President, and has no local legislature nor municipal government, the only legislative authority being Congress, in which it is not represented. Being well administered, it is held up by unfriendly critics of democracy as a model of the happy results of an enlightened despotism." He says further concerning American cities: "There is no denying that the government of the cities is the one conspicuous failure of the United States. ** Extravagance, corruption, and mismanagement have marked the administrations of most of the great cities." He finds the causes of failure to be the party system (the intro

duction of State and national politics into municipal affairs), and the spoils system

(whereby appointments to office are the reward of party service). He continues: "The spoils system, with the party machinery which it keeps oiled and greased and always working at high pressure, is*** potent and pernicious in its great cities."

Recently an editorial appeared in one of the leading newspapers of the country on the occasion of forthcoming elections in its city, which said in part: "* * * We believe that there is only one outstanding issue in this election, and that is the corruption,

sloth, inefficiency, and waste of the administration. It is the system that is synonymous with scandal in the long past. *** (In this election) there is opportunity for those who can no longer stomach * * * misgovernment, who are revolted by shakedowns and crookedness and callous waste of tax funds * * *." (Without knowing more about the case dealt with in this editorial than seems appropriate to say here, it might seem to read like political propaganda of the outs against the ins. But the opinion throughout the Nation at the time was not to that effect.)

Nothing of this kind can be said of the administrations in the local government of the District of Columbia since the present form of government was established in 1878. And the Federal Government owes it to the Nation that a form of local government be not adopted for the Nation's Capital which will create an atmosphere in which administrations of the kind can thrive.

The commission form of the executive branch has proven that it is well suited to the unusual conditions. While the several Presidents have not always appointed men of as big caliber as the responsibilities require, nevertheless, these appointees have filled their positions well, generally speaking, and with honor. There have been detailed to the position of Engineer Commissioner able men without exception, and they have brought to the office integrity beyond question, a knowledge of engineering construction and management gained from broad experience, and freedom from partisan politics.

After all this is said, however, remains unanswered the criticism that the people of the District of Columbia have no voice in their local government. The problem which faces the Nation, then (or, more specifically, faces Congress) is to grant to the local people participation in the government of the District without jeopardizing the good government now enjoyed and without losing for the Federal Government that influence which the Constitution contemplates and which the people of the country as a whole expect in their Capital City.

There is probably general agreement that the judiciary should remain unaltered.

It seems proper that the President of the United States should appoint a majority of the Board of Commissioners-say the Chairman and the Engineer Commissioner, as in the past. It is proposed that the third Commissioner be elected by the people.

Concerning the legislative branch, no matter what form of government is in effect in the District of Columbia in the future, Congress will continue to exercise much influence over the District's affairs by its appropriation of the sum which it concludes from time to time to be the Federal Government's proper share of the cost of local government. Because of this fact, a separate legislative body for the District of Columbia similar to the council of a city could do no more than share with the Congress some of the most important functions of legislation.

It seems proper, then, that Congress continue to legislate for the District as in the past, adopting such procedure as will relieve it of as much as possible of the timeconsuming burden which it has been experiencing. Perhaps action of the Committees for the District of Columbia in the two Houses, if not made final, could be given a more conclusive status in the process of legislation. More authority could well be delegated to the Board of Commissioners.

It is proposed that the District be represented in the House of Representatives by a Delegate elected by the people, as are our territories. Presumably he would be made a member of the District Committee of the House.

These proposals retain for the District government the commission form of the executive branch, which has proven so satisfactory; they leave the legislative function

in the U.S. Congress; and they make no change in the judiciary. They comply with the provisions of the Constitution and they do not affect adversely the Federal interests in the government of the Capital City.

The proposals give to the people of the District a voice in the legislature and a minority influence in the Board of Commissioners.

The honest and efficient government which the Federal District has enjoyed for 75 years will be retained.

The changes here proposed are possible of accomplishment in a short length of time by simple legislation by the Congress. Additional changes entirely in accord with the principles underlying these proposals would strengthen further the people's participation in local government and would advance suffrage generally in the District. They would require, however, the long process of constitutional amendment. These changes involve the removal of the District of Columbia from the category of a territory, from which it differs materially, and giving it the status of a State in this regard: choosing and sending representatives to Congress and voting for presidential electors.

JULIAN LARCOMBE SCHLEY.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the following statement was made by the following statement was made by Brig. Gen. Charles S. Harris, representBrig. Gen. Charles S. Harris, representing the Cathedral Heights-Cleveland ing the Cathedral Heights-Cleveland Park Citizens Association whose membership is composed of a large number of our leading citizens in the Nation's Capital:

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. CHARLES S. HARRIS, REPRESENTING CATHEDRAL HEIGHTS-CLEVELAND PARK CITIZENS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE RE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOME RULE

Mr. Chairman, I am Charles S. Harris, member of the Executive Council, Cathedral Heights-Cleveland Park Citizens Association, and here representing Mrs. Walter Sellers, the association president.

Our main purpose is to promote citizen interest and active participation in local government affairs, but we are opposed to S. 1118 as adopted by the Senate and the other socalled home rule bills for several reasons.

1. The sole purpose of the District is to provide a seat of government for the entire Nation. From the beginning, it was planned and developed by the Federal Government to assure a suitable place for all of our Government officials to work and live and a showplace representing the high standards of American life and offering a hospitable atmosphere to our visitors from abroad and from the several States. I would stress the tremendous financial investment of the Federal Government. In comparison, that of individual residents is trivial. Home rule proponents point out that the Federal Government contributes only 13 percent of the annual District budget, that the citizens pay the rest. Then they yell "taxation without representation." It is a fallacious argument. The contribution to the District budget is only a small fraction of the Federal expenditures in the District. Note the expenditures for urban renewal, the subway system, highways, bridges, museums, parks, buildings, and most of all, the Federal payroll. The very lifeblood of this city flows from Federal payrolls and appropriations. The people of payrolls and appropriations. The people of every State are interested in their Capital. Every major local problem, be it in law and order, health, public safety, education, transportation or urban renewal, is a matter of keen concern to the people of every State and to the Congress. And that was why the Founders specified in the Constitution that the Congress shall have the power: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District ***."

2. The bill provides a poor charter for the government of the District. Genuine

home rule can be attained only by a constitutional amendment or by retrocession. In this bill, and most of the others, the Congress retains without limitation the very same authority to legislate for the District which it delegates to the proposed Mayor and Council. With this dual responsibility, conflicts, confusion, delays, and counteractions are certain to tie up the government in knots and wasteful expenditures. Congress can or cannot delegate its legislative functions, it cannot possibly shed its responsibility. Congressional committees will still have to supervise the District government, and the job will probably be more difficult than under the present scheme.

If the Congress permits the Federal contribution as per proposed formula, it will lose all semblance of ultimate authority. The Mayor and Council can enact legislation before Congress gets started. If they get Presidential backing, Congress will find extreme difficulty in upsetting any of the legislation. If Congress retains its proper control of the Federal purse strings, then the elected government becomes a hollow shell of bureaucrats with title but no power to act.

The bill sets up conditions for a powerful political machine. What candidates would have a chance to get elected without the backing of the political bosses in the Democratic Central Committee and in a few racial organizations? It will be difficult to get candidates with any measure of independence to run for office. The elections should be

put on a nonpartisan basis. And if the Hatch Act is applicable anywhere, it is here in the Federal Government where civil service personnel should maintain complete loyalty to the elected officials, regardless of party affiliation.

3. Home rule under the bill would certainly lead to more officeholders, more bureaucrats, increase in bonded indebtedness, increased taxes, and to political graft. The wholesome action of congressional committees in pruning the budgets would be missed. While Congress has given us 90 years of government free of political graft, look at the record of other American cities, particularly those with large minority groups voting.

4. District voters are not yet ready for home rule. A vast majority of the District voting population, white and colored, are quite inexperienced in political matters and particularly in political responsibilities. Many who are experienced maintain their voting rights in the States. Also the large number of civil service employees are properly restrained by the Hatch Act.

Under any circumstances, before we can afford to go to home rule as contemplated in this bill a transition period is necessary.

5. The foremost problem in the District government now is to curb crime and to restore law and order. But home rule offers no help in this basic field because the dominant political organizations are more interested in controlling the police than in curbing crime.

6. The general situation surrounding home rule would not inspire the public confidence so necessary to good government. Disgust of political finagling and rising taxes is likely to set off another exodus from the District of substantial tax paying citizens whom we can ill afford to lose.

In conclusion, we are happy to participate in District affairs in congressional committee and Commissioner hearings, and we favor continuation. The citizen participation feature may well be extended to the election of congressional delegates and possibly to the election of Commissioners-one or two. But the power to exercise exclusive legislation should remain with the Congress in fact by requiring approval in each case. Likewise, Congress should continue to review, prune as necessary, and approve each budget.

District citizens should be allowed to participate in the District government, but the

control should be exercised by the citizens of the entire Nation through their elected congressional representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the following statement was made by Mr. Daniel B. Lloyd, representing the American University Park Citizens' Association, which has a membership of 2,500 of our leading citizens in the Nation's Capital. Mr. Lloyd has been a math professor in the local Washington school system during the past 32

years:

commerce has experienced phenomenal growth. The problems which face us are those which challenge city governments everywhere. However, these problems appear to be less acute than in such cities as New York, Chicago, Boston, or Philadelphia.

The very political pressures which have been generated by emotional appeals for home rule and the nature of the attacks on opponents of these measures are suggestive of the kinds of efforts to divide and manipu

None of these categories will decrease in their space needs in the future but rather will increase. While this will decrease our tax base, it will increase taxes to the resident and to the buisnessman. We cannot depend on Congress to appropriate sufficient funds to make up deficits-it has not seen fit to do so in the past.

properties, and park areas.

Gentlemen, if you talk with the people who are paying most of the taxes and whose

would bring.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes the state

This association reaffirms its opposition to so-called home rule for the District. Over a period of years, many such proposals have come to the attention of our association, and careful consideration has been given to these proposals by successive administrations, boards of governors, and the general membership of the association. On no occasion has any such proposal ever received any significant support or advocacy within our association.

Opposition to these proposals is based essentially upon a recognition of the fact that the Capital of the United States should be administered in the broadest national interest, free from the manipulations which characterize the politically dominated power structure in virtually every other urban area of this country. We recognize that the affairs of the District of Columbia are inextricably related to those of the Federal Government itself; indeed, the District was created specifically to serve the needs of the National Capital. Thus, in our view, we find no merit in either the home rule bill before the House of Representatives or the proposal before the Senate.

In its issue of August 9, 1965, the Washington Star commented editorially that adoption of the bill now before the House would be a disservice to the community, and that the editors have serious misgivings with respect to possible effects which legislation based on the Senate bill would have on our city.

Over the years, this association has had extensive dealings both with congressional committees concerned with District affairs and with the various departments of our present city government. We have found the congressional committees to be generally interested in the welfare of the community, sensitive to its peculiar needs, and basically fair in their dealings, even when we have held differing judgments and opinions. With respect to the city government, we are particularly appreciative of its merit system and the caliber of its personnel under that system. We do not wish to swap our present personnel system based on merit for a patronage system manipulated from city hall. The present system of government by which the District is administered has worked well for many decades, and it merits continuation. Moreover, we believe that most longterm residents and homeowners in this city share these convictions.

Under this form of government, we have produced a tradition in city administration internationally recognized and acclaimed for integrity. Our municipal services, despite a severely limited base for tax support, compare favorably with those of any city, regardless of its form of government. Our

Citizen's Association. We appreciate your permitting us to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, the following statement was made to the House District Committee by Mr. John L. C. Sullivan in behalf of the Chevy Chase Citizens' Association which has a membership of 2,200 members. The committee has been holding continuous hearings for the past 3 weeks on home rule proposed legislation: STATEMENT OF THE CHEVY CHASE CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION (D.C.) BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1965

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John L. C. Sullivan, second vice president of the Chevy Chase Citizens' Association (D.C.). I am appearing here today in behalf of the association which is an organization of over 2,200 paid members, organized in January of 1909, and which I believe is the largest citizens association in the city. We are located in the upper Northwest section of the District of Columbia.

I have been authorized to express opposition to any form of so-called home rule for the District of Columbia. Our association took this stand as far back as the early 1920's and more recently when, although it supported action to secure a vote for District residents for the President and the Vice President of the United States, it again opposed home rule legislation. This opposition is not based on racial consideration, as some home rule proponents claim, but on what we consider a realistic, objective, and nonemotional look at the factors involved.

At the outset I would like to correct one misstatement that one of the most vocal proponents of home rule has made several times, that "there is only one organization in the of District-referring to the Federation Citizens' Associations-which opposes home rule." This is not true. It has been publicly announced that the board of trade is opposed to home rule and there are less vocal groups, such as service clubs, business, and professional organizations, representing a cross section of thinking people, which do not take political positions but have seen the disadvantages of home rule and are consequently opposed to it.

It is said that home rule is the only democratic way to rule the District. What do the proponents of home rule mean by that? It is a fine sounding term, but that is all.

The District of Columbia was set up as a Federal City to care for the needs of the Federal Government and not for the comparatively few local residents. On two occasions the District of Columbia tried home rule and each time it was abandoned, largely due to indebtedness which had been incurred with relatively little improvement in the welfare of the community.

We need to realize that over 50 percent of the area of the District of Columbia is nontaxable because it is occupied by Federal, District of Columbia, or foreign governments; by educational institutions, religious

Columbia under home rule, you will discover that the majority oppose home rule. Do not be misled by a vocal minority.

We agree with Representative BROYHILL when he suggests that some of the home rule crusaders are more interested in ruling the District of Columbia than in home rule itself.

Under the many proposed home rule bills the District would not be getting much home rule even if they were passed. Congress would still be holding the controlling hand-and we think they should hold it. The laws and regulations these bills would allow us to pass could be vetoed by Congress or the President-and that is not real home rule. As for our fiscal situation, whether a mandatory payment to the District is provided for or not, Congress can change that. How much real home rule would this be?

With any form of local home rule there will be an increased number of elected officials on the payroll with the increased amount of patronage that goes along with it. Very surprisingly, in a recently televised debate, one of the District's most ardent supporters of home rule admitted that possible corruption is one of the penalties that goes along with elected office.

Under the commissioner form of government we have had the most honest form of government that any metropolitan area has enjoyed. We have disagreed on occasion with some decisions of the Commissioners, but not on the basis of honesty. We all know or should know that corruption of one kind or another has plagued many of the large city administrations. They have elected officials. What reason do we have to believe that an elected administration here would be any better? Home rule cannot give us any better government. Any change would only be for the worse.

We cannot afford to take this chance in the Nation's Capital, the city to which the entire world is looking. We are a Federal City and have our representation in the President and Vice President, for whom we have a voice selecting. The District Committee has done very well by us over the years, although some members of past District Committees have complained about the time required of them for District matters. There are still many of these matters which can be delegated to the Commissioners, thereby relieving these committee members. Further, they must take into account that Washington is their constituents' city also.

Gentlemen, we urge you to take the necessary steps to defeat these home rule measures and keep the District of Columbia from becoming a political football.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to set forth the views of the Chevy Chase Citizens' Association (D.C.) in opposition to home rule.

POSSIBILITY THAT EQUAL PAY BILL AND CIVIL RIGHTS BILL OF LAST SESSION WILL HAVE TO BE AMENDED

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Speaker, in the light of newly uncovered evidence, it is entirely possible that the equal pay bill and the civil rights bill of last session will have to be amended to conform with now admitted facts. Time magazine of September 3, 1965, on page 74, carried an article regarding Claudia Cassidy, art critic of the Chicago Tribune, the final statement of which reads as follows:

When she (Mrs. Cassidy) retires, the Trib will pay a high compliment to her energy and enterprise. It will assign two men to cover the beat that until now has been handled by one woman.

In a like vein, the August 31 edition of the Evening Star, on page B-7, carried an article referring to Nancy Chen, the social secretary to the Chinese Ambassador, who is returning to Harvard to take a graduate course in library science. The Star says, and I quote:

The return to scholarship will mean more freedom for Mrs. Chen, whose place at the Embassy here has been filled by two men.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, our actions of the past year have been in vain. We will

simply have to amend the laws.

HOLD THAT LINE

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from

Connecticut?

There was no objection.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to read that the President has emphasized the need for our Federal agencies and departments to concentrate on fiscal caution by limiting and reducing spending.

With the budget bumping the $100 billion mark, this warning is highly appropriate.

Most significantly, this call comes at the same time as news reports of increased troop shipments to Vietnam and follows a Presidential request from Congress for an additional $1.7 billion to pay the war costs.

It seems clear that the future costs of say the least, and I suggest that it is high

time for us to measure its impact upon the economy and upon the budget.

Last spring, the President requested and Congress provided $700 million as a supplemental appropriation for the last fiscal year. Hanson W. Baldwin, the noted military expert, in a column of the New York Times of August 6, 1965, indicated that a supplemental appropriation ranging from $2 to $4 billion would be needed next January.

Responsible Members of the Senate have indicated a possible price tag of

and Mr. Baldwin states that the Armed Forces have estimated the need for appropriations of more than $12 billion over the period of the next several years.

Whatever the figure may be, it is clear that there will be a demand for increased spending which it will be impossible to deny. This clearly requires a searching examination of our present expenditures and our commitments for future spending.

Already total appropriations passed by the House as of August 25, 1965, are $1 billion more than the appropriations of the 1964 session and the current appropriations do not include the foreign aid appropriations which will probably approximate $3.5 billion. While it is true that the deficit for the 1965 fiscal year was substantially reduced, and the balance-of-payments situation has greatly improved, nevertheless it is on the coming fiscal year that we must concentrate our attention.

In addition to the appropriations which I have discussed, the House, not always with my concurrence, has assumed obligations for the new health program, has increased the authorization for the poverty program, has voted a new authorization for the Appalachia program, and has passed a long-term 4-year extension of the authorization for the farm program.

All these increases have come after a broad scale reduction of excise and income taxes and accompany an inbillion, making an average per capita crease in the total direct debt to $314 obligation of $1,635.35.

Unless we exercise restraint in expenditures and, particularly, in authorizations for future spending, the readily foreseeable development of our effort in Vietnam might well involve a tax increase or, as an alternative, a vastly accelerating and harmful inflation.

Perhaps the time has come to clean off our desks, turn the key in the lock, and go home.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR TO LAUNCH AN INVESTIGATION INTO CHAOTIC CONDITIONS IN CONNECTION WITH HARVEST OF MICHIGAN CUCUMBER CROP

Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter.

to the request of the gentleman from The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection.

Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced a resolution authorizing the House Committee on Labor and Education to launch an investiga

tion into the chaotic conditions in connection with the harvest of the Michigan cucumber crop.

This is a matter of utmost importance and I hope prompt attention will be given this resolution. Michigan is the Nation's largest producer of cucumber pickles and the tragic experience of the cucumber growers in the 10th Congressional District this year due to the halfhearted cooperation of the Federal Government in providing labor, threatens future production.

In former years producers have had access to braceros brought into the United States under supervision of the Department of Labor. This year Michigan producers were made the guinea pig in a bureaucratic experiment based on the belief that domestic labor could do the job.

Harvesting cucumbers, unlike most farm crops, involves stoop labor. The average American is neither psychologically nor physically constituted for this kind of labor as experience has shown. As one labor supervisor said, "Some people work a couple of hours, decide it is too tough and then depart."

It appears that Michigan cucumber growers have been the victims of a catchall type of labor recruitment. In one instance stores of one community were looted by one of the Labor Department's "A" teams. Crime has increased many fold in some of these communities where labor has been sent in.

One justice of the peace wrote me that he had five cases involving migratory workers on the morning he wrote me. The welfare director of one county has the payment of medical and hospital exsent me a plea for Federal assistance in

penses involving these workers.

One press account says:

Residents are plagued with drunks on streets and disorderly conduct resulting from drinking. Three migrant workers died in the last 2 days from drinking paint thinner.

Such reports as this did not appear in the papers when the bracero program was in operation.

Mr. Speaker, I have already called attention of the House to the urgent plea spect to harvesters needed for the Michiof the Michigan Farm Bureau with regan apple crop.

This morning I received the following petition from Michigan cucumber growers which reads as follows:

AUGUST 25, 1965. Congressman ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Washington, D.C. House of Representatives,

DEAR SIR: We the undersigned farmers in

the congressional district which you represent in Michigan, would like to take this opportunity to express our objections to the current limitation on foreign workers coming into our area for the purpose of picking pickles.

I am sure you are quite familiar with the importance of the pickle crop both to the individual farmowners in this congressional district and to Michigan's economy as a whole. With these facts in mind, we would like to inform you of the following objections

that we have to the present methods of using local teenage labor in our fields for picking pickles.