I would make this final comment on the fiscal provisions of both bills. both the Eagleton bill and the Mathias bill deal with fiscal matters. True home rule can never come without full fiscal autonomy both as to revenues and expenditures.

The difficulty, of course, is the lack of revenues. I see no way in the foreseeable future for the District government to provide much more than half of the revenue it needs. All of the cities of the country today require financial assistance from their States and most need it from the Federal Government. Washington, D.C., however, is particularly limited in its revenue possibilities.

An important and well known reason is the fact that half of the land that would otherwise be taxable is used by the Federal Government or other tax-exempt institutions. But at least as important is the nature of the city as the National Capital. This quality attracts many people and organizations but not the heavy investment of industrial enterprise.

It also creates esthetic considerations which have caused the National Government to restrict the maximum utilization of land for high rise apartments and office buildings.

Such limitations affect both investments and the number of residents and employees who can produce tax revenue. All of this adds up to a very clear need for heavy and continuing support from the Federal Government. I question, however, the idea of putting that requirement into a mathematical formula. Currently, for instance, if you take into account grants, Federal loans, per capita expenditures, and also the contribution for current expenses, the Federal Government is already providing about 50 percent of the District's financial requirements.

And this dependence for 50 percent of the city's needs will continue. I would not wish to see any home rule plan adopted which did not take in this fact of life.

Thank you, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Sir, the chairman has asked me to apologize for his departure. He has had to respond to a quorum call.

Mr. HAHN. No apology is necessary, Senator.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Hahn, I thank you very much for your contributions this morning. In looking over both of these measures, I noted that there is very little said about the personnel system of this city.

As you are aware, at the present time the city employees are legally tied to the Federal civil service system. And there are other employees who are controlled by specific congressional legislation.

Would you be in favor of divorcing the city's employees from the civil service laws."

Mr. HAHN. Yes; I would, Senator.

Senator INOUYE. My question is tied to your statement:

"The difficulty, of course, is the lack of revenues*** In the past. 5 weeks of hearings one thing keeps coming up time and time again. That is the matter that pay raises have been mandated by congressional action by the civil service laws. For example, in the second supplemental, $19 million represents pay raises mandated by Federal civil service laws."

60-560 0-71-14

I am glad to hear that you are in favor of divorcing the city's personnel system from that of the Federal Civil Service Act.

May I ask Mr. Watt if the city has any position on this?

Mr. WATT. The city has not taken a position yet, Senator.

Pursuant to your request of last week, we are reviewing the present legal situation. We will consult with the legal staff of the Federal Civil Service Commission. We will prepare for your consideration rough draft legislation.

At that time we will have a position.

Mr. HAHN. Senator, if I might reply to one of the comments you just made, I share the view with you that the $35 million to $50 million that we are dealing with in the budget amendment, certainly substantially in the supplemental, are funds that have been paid, required to be paid, however well purposed, without having any revenues provided for them. This is the reason for the several actions that the Council had taken with respect to the financial plan. I noted with great pleasure your remarks, I believe of Friday, where you commented upon the supplemental just as you have now, and indicated that some of the revenues available in 1971 might be available in 1972. Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Watt in his statement suggested that it might be better if the powers relating to personnel and the budget be initially vested in the Office of the Chief Executive. For example, this grants the City Council vague authority in setting up a merit system. What would be your view, sir?

Mr. HAHN. I would rather study that comment and give a more considered answer to it. It would seem that the initial budget, of course, should be prepared by the Executive as it is now. I do not have an answer for you on the other question.

Senator INOUYE. Do you have any thoughts as to the size of the Council?

Mr. HAHN. Yes; I feel the present size of the Council is a good one. I would not favor a large increase in it. My 2 years' experience indicates that a council of this size can deal with the legislative load that it has. In the case of a city council, and even though we are similar to a State in many respects, I would think that for the purposes of a political institution of this size that a council of about this size would be most appropriate.

Senator INOUYE. These measures do not in any way indicate whether the members of the Council will be part time or full time. What are your thoughts on this?

Mr. HAHN. I have given that a great deal of thought, and there is obviously a temptation to want to go to a full-time council and a salary commensurate.

But looking at the tradition of this country I would still choose the part-time councilmen and the part-time compensation. I think that it is part of the tradition and it is my experience that adding up all of the intangibles, I would still choose the part-time councilmen. Senator INOUYE. Then for the initial phase of your government operation, you would consider the pay, as noted, sufficient?

Mr. HAHN. At an earlier hearing you were kind enough to mention that the pay of the councilmen should be somewhat higher. I think this would be justified but I would not seek the full time councilmen and the full time pay that would go with it.

Senator INOUYE. Finally, may I inquire into your thoughts as to the Presidential veto in matters relating to the Federal interest?

Mr HAHN. That is not an easy question. As we operate now with the council expanding into a good many areas into which it had not previously gone, it is obvious that article 1, section 8 gives to the Congress the right to override what actions we might take in these areas and this applies particularly where the Federal interest is involved. I would suppose that there would be no reason why that veto could not be exercised simply by Congress and not the Congress and the President. Senator INOUYE. I would presume Congress would have final veto in that. If you can create something-you can destroy it.

Mr. HAHN. I don't see how you could give up your power under article 1, section 8, without a Constitutional change.

Senator INOUYE. One more question, sir.

Would you advise this committee as to the number of hours the members of the council spend on city matters?

Mr. HAHN. Well, in my own case it runs around 80 hours a week. I would say the typical councilman spends about 40 hours.

Senator INOUYE. And that is part time?

Mr. HAHN. Well, there are 24 hours in the day, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Hahn. May I say once again that your presence has been appreciated.

Mr. HAHN. Thank you, Senator.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Hahn follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GILBERT HAHN, JR., CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CITY COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman: I am very pleased to be invited here to testify with respect to Senator Eagleton's Home Rule Bill. While I can support in principle the Eagleton Bill or the Mathias Bill, I would endorse the President's proposal to add more power to the Nelsen Commission.

Although the Council has not had an opportunity to hold public hearings and draft a common position on either the Eagleton Bill or the Mathias Bill, I feel quite certain that I also speak for all the Councilmen in saying that we support in principle the concept of both bills.

The Council has been unanimously and consistently in favor of full, local, elected self-government. This includes an elected Mayor and Council with legislative powers to be exercised by the Council and with full control by the Council over revenues and expenditures.

For myself, I must say that as a practical approach to obtaining an increase in elected self-government, I would favor the position advanced by President Nixon last year and which I supported at that time. The President advocated a non-voting delegate and a Home Rule Commission to create a local Government. The President's plan, at that time, was enacted only in part. The non-voting delegate succeeded and the Little Hoover Commission was created but not the Home Rule Commission.

This year again the President has endorsed the concept of a Home Rule Commission by adding to the Little Hoover Commission the power to "expand selfgovernment for the District of Columbia." In his message of April 7 this year the President stated:

"Further managerial reforms will be recommended by the Commission on the Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia (Nelsen Commission) created last year and charged (in legislation now pending) to report its findings to Congress in March 1972. Such recommendations are needed-but there is another dimension of need as well. District Government must become not only more efficient but also more democratic.

"Therefore, we will shortly submit legislation adding six months to the life of the Nelsen Commission and authorizing it to prepare a second report stating its views on the subject of expanded self-government for the District of Columbia. This would be a logical use of the expertise assembled on the Commission and a natural extension of its area of study. From the first report on improving government for the people, it would move to a second report on shaping government by the people."

I support this position because I believe it is the most possible route to full home rule. This position also had the support in 1969 and 1970 from the Democratic Central Committee here and was favored in the platform of the Democratic National Committee in 1968. While I would be glad to embrace either the Eagleton measure or the Mathias measure and am confident that one of them can pass the Senate, I believe the concept of creating a Home Rule Commission can be passed through the House and will get us to local elected self-government

sooner.

I would only comment on the fiscal provisions of both bills.

Both the Eagleton Bill and the Mathias Bill deal with fiscal matters. True Home Rule can never come without full fiscal autonomy, both as to revenues and expenditures.

The difficulty of course is the lack of revenues.

I see no way in the foreseeable future for the District Government to provide much more than half of its revenue needs.

All the cities in the country today require financial assistance from their states, and most need it from the Federal Government.

Washington, however, is particularly limited in its revenue possibilities. An important and well known reason is the fact that half of the land that would otherwise be taxable is used by the Federal Government or by other tax-exempt institutions.

But at least as important is the nature of the City as the National Capital. This quality attracts many people and organizations, but not the heavy investment of industrial enterprises. It also creates aesthetic considerations which have caused the national government to restrict the maximum utilization of land for highrise apartments and office buildings. Such limitations affect both investment and the number of residents and employees who can produce tax

revenue.

All of this adds up to a very clear need for a heavy and continuing support from the Federal Government.

I question, however, the idea of putting that requirement into a mathematical formula.

Currently, for instance, if you take account of grants, Federal loans for capital expenses and also the contribution for current expenses, the Federal Government is already providing about 50% of the District's financial requirements.

And this dependence for 50% of the City's needs will continue. I would not wish to see any Home Rule plan adopted which did not take this fact of life into account.

Senator INOUTE. Our next witness is Mr. Henry A. Berliner, Jr., General Counsel of the District of Columbia Republican Committee. Welcome here today, sir.

STATEMENT OF HENRY A. BERLINER, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

Mr. BERLINER. If I may, I would like to just incorporate our statement into the record and talk for just a few moments on the highlights of it.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection your statement will be included in the record in total.

(The entire prepared statement of Mr. Berliner follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HENRY A. BERLINER, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Henry A. Berliner, Jr. and I am General Counsel for the District of Columbia Republican Committee as well as member of the Washington Home Rule Committee. We do not favor support at this time of S. 1603, Senator Eagleton's proposal for an elected Mayor and City Council for the District of Columbia, nor do we favor a similar bill introduced by Senator Mathias last week, S. 1626. I hasten to add that we fully support the aims of this bill, but not its timing. Congressional representation and the principle of self-government for the District of Columbia have consistently received Republican support in city-wide referenda, Party statements, and in local and national Republican platforms. It was the initiative of the Nixon Administration, with broad bi-partisan support, which finally achieved for the people of Washington a non-voting Delegate in the House of Representatives, and the establishment of a local court system through the Court Reorganization Act.

The District of Columbia Republican Party supports in principle the idea of an elected Mayor and City Council and hopes that this, as well as other manifestations of self-government, will become a way of life in the District of Columbia before too long. The main issue, as I see it, is the manner in which the supporters of S. 1364 seek to bring about this change in D.C. government.

One of the features of the Nixon Administration's program for responsible selfgovernment in the District of Columbia was the establishment of the "Little Hoover Commission," by act of Congress, to study and make suggestions on the organization of the government of the District of Columbia. The commission, now known popularly as the "Nelsen Commission," is to report its findings to the Congress by March of 1972. In his message to the Congress two weeks ago, President Nixon announced that he would ask for an extension of six months to the life of the Nelsen Commission, authorizing it to prepare a second report on the subject of expanded self-government for the District of Columbia. There are eleven members of the Commission at this time, a cross-section of outstanding Congressional and Community leaders concerned with the future of D.C. Government. Along with Congressman Nelsen, there are the following members: Honorable Charles Mathias, U.S. Senator from Maryand. Honorable William B. Spong, U.S. Senator from Virginia. Honorable Don Fuqua, U.S. Representative from Florida.

Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. Richard Nathan from the White House offices.
Mr. John Duncan, a former D.C. Commissioner.

Judge Mary Lawson, member of the D.C. Crime Commission.

Mr. Tom Fletcher, former Deputy Mayor.

Mrs. Elaine Jenkins, local educator and member of the D.C. Republican Committee.

Mr. Jason Newman from the office of Legal Services at OEO.

The D.C. Republican Committee feels that the high caliber of the members of the Nelsen Commission suggests caution in prejudging and pre-empting their report by introducing into the Congress new forms of self-government for this city. We feel that S. 1603 is well-intentioned but premature, and may damage the efforts of the Commission established by this Congress to study self-government. The Nelsen Commission was approved by a majority of both the House and the Senate. The moral commitment of the President and the Congress is behind it. It would seem inconsistent for the same Congress to pass a bill that would frustrate the original purpose of the Nelsen Commission.

The D.C. Republican Committee commends Senator Eagleton's dedication and deep interest in the problems of the District of Columbia. All too often in the past, however, men of dedication and sincerity presented to the Congress various proposals for Congressional representation and self-government which had no chance of passage and, because of this, other, more modest proposals which were part of the same legislative package became unacceptable or were lost in the shuffle.

There is no reason to believe that the Nelsen Commission will not come forth with constructive proposals at an early date. There is no reason to abandon the faith we invested in the Commission at its creation. If, for any reason, the Nelsen Commission fails to deliver its report as directed, or if the recommendations of