So you could end up paying two sets of taxes as a Member of Congress if Congress were in session more than ten months a year.

Now, would you contemplate that that would happen also with this being retroceded to Maryland?

Mr. KYL. You are speaking now of properties which are owned by Members of Congress?

Mr. ADAMS. Not only properties, but income. I understand the Maryland counties have a right to levy a tax which they have levied on Members of Congress and, so far as I know, have collected them based on their residence, being there more than six months a year.

Mr. KYL. I think I have two answers to that question. First of all, if the other financial arrangements which are made, are sensible and practical, I think we might avoid some of those problems with states that we have now, and second, and I don't say this factitiously.

If there is an additional cost to a Member of Congress, I am quite sure that he will be able to raise his salary or some other way to compensate for it.

Mr. BROYHILL. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ADAMS. I am sure that that kind of an arrangement is possible. I happen to feel that people that are in Congress-this is my personal feeling should live in the District, that it was created, if it is going to be a Federal-type city for that kind of relationship to take place, but I am going to follow yours through all the way and I gather that your position would be then that they would be citizens of their state, but living in Maryland and treated like all other citizens of Maryland? Mr. KYL. Yes.

Mr. ADAMS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BROYHILL. Just that one point about the taxation. I am not suggesting a special law for Members of Congress. What the gentleman is referring to, of course, are the State or local income taxes— Mr. ADAMS. I think they are county.

Mr. BROYHILL. The same as anyone else?

Mr. ADAMS. They are, it is my understanding.

Mr. BROYHILL. We have a law recognizing that particular problem for members of the military. This provides that if a member of the military transfers from State to State, he is not subject to the income taxes of a state in which he is stationed, if he establishes a legal residence somewhere else.

Over in Virginia, Mr. Adams, we recognize that situation for Members of Congress also, and we don't hold them responsible for State income taxes. Of course, we realize that they are legal residents of another State, but they are liable for real property or personal property taxes, when they are actually located in Virginia.

So we do a little bit better than Maryland in that regard.

Mr. ADAMS. The reason I asked the question is that I understand your retrocession bill goes back to Maryland?

that

Mr. KYL. Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS

Mr. ADAMS. The final question I have is this, you have indicated that you think representation should take place across the board as it would with any other State.

Would you contemplate, if we were to add the population of the District, which would probably go to the-two, maybe one, it certainly

would continue to grow, but would you add two Members to the number in Congress or would you take away from some other State to maintain the 435 number, which is the system we presently use as population is increasing in one State as compared to another?

Mr. KYL. That is not my prerogative. We have laws which govern this. The State of Iowa is going to lose one representative this year, because the State has not grown as fast as other areas and the census will show that we are not entitled on the new division of a total population of 435, so we lose one.

Mr. ADAMS. Then that is what I am asking you. Is that you then place this within the present system of 435?

would

I mean, the Congress could do the other, which would be to say, we will have, because we are, in effect, shifting one State into another, we will add representation, so that no State would lose any representation. I was just asking and I gather that you favor staying at 435? Mr. KYL. I would go this far, Mr. Adams. We made one adjustment of this kind when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted. We at that time, on a temporary basis, additional Members of Congress so that these new States could then have a Representative in the House, as well as the two in the Senate.

Then after the short period of two years, I believe, we then reapportioned. As a matter of fact, since that time, Hawaii has since increased its membership in the House. Alaska still doesn't have enough population to do that.

This, again, is the detail that could be worked out, if the committee decided to have immediate representation, they could so do. Otherwise, the area would simply be added to the purview of the Maryland State Legislature to existing districts.

It wouldn't have to go all into one district. It might go into and until the next change in the total population status, it would exist in that fashion.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you. That is all I wanted to know, what system you favored and I gather you favor the same system that we use you would favor maintaining 435 as an ultimate end result? Mr. KYL. Yes, sir.

Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Broyhill?

HOME RULE

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend the gentleman from Iowa for his contribution to a solution of this problem with which we are confronted, and I associate myself with the remarks of the genleman from Maryland who stated that this is the only real Home Rule proposal that we have before us. If we are going to consider that this is no longer the Federal Capital over which the Congress has legislative jurisdiction, which the Constitution provides then I think the only alternative is to retrocede the territory to the State that ceded it to the Federal Government to start with.

I got here a little late, and I apologize to the gentleman, but I presume you did mention that there is precedent for this, because in 1946 we did retrocede one-third of the original 110 mile square back to the State of Virginia?

Mr. KYL. That is one precedent, sir. There are also dozens of others across the country.

Mr. BROYHILL. Now, of course, I think perhaps the main objection to the gentleman's proposal is the objection from the State of Maryland itself. With all due respect from my good friend, Mr. Hogan, I don't know why the good people of Maryland don't want to take back their portion of this property, as we did in Virginia.

Mr. KYL. I rather he speak for himself, but I believe he concurs. Mr. BROYHILL. Maybe I am being a little forward with him, though he is a good friend of mine, but I know that people of Maryland have stated in the past that they do not want

Mr. HOGAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROYHILL. Yes.

Mr. HOGAN. The basic problem is, as I observed earlier, that the city does not have sufficient tax resources to finance its services and so it would be certainly understandable that Maryland doesn't want to take on additional financial burdens without the tax resources to finance these services.

The Federal payment, as far as I can see, would be out the window. The city would lose $105 million or more.

Mr. KYL. It would simply be on a different basis.

Mr. HOGAN. But it wouldn't be $105 million. Assuming that your payment in lieu of taxes did become a fait accompli, District of Columbia would not get anywhere near $105 million, so Maryland would not get it either.

Mr. BROYHILL. The property that is retroceded would have to be considered as the same as the property earlier stated, but I think if this land were retroceded, we would actually be retroceding property that presumably is free of debt.

Now, in most communities, as we develop our streets, our schools, our various public service facilities, the community has to go heavily into debt in order to become a complete community. But here we would be retroceding a debt-free, improved community to the State of Maryland.

In any event, I agree with the gentleman that this is the only real sound, solid approach to exclusive self-government or Home Rule for the citizens of the District of Columbia.

They will have representation in the House and in the Senate. They will vote for a Governor, as well as for a local government. It would be the quickest way of resolving the present problem.

BOUNDARIES OF FEDERAL CITY

The gentleman referred to a proposal that I had made some time ago, which is somewhat of a half-way step between what the gentleman has proposed and other Home Rule proposals. I had suggested as limits for the area not retroceded the old town boundaries of Washington as laid out under the direction of George Washington back in 1790. These are identifiable boundary lines the Potomac River, the Anacostia River, Rock Creek Park, Florida Avenue, and Bladensburg Road.

Now, that would leave some residential areas included therein, but it would also include all the major Federal establishments-the

White House, the Supreme Court, the Capitol and all principal government buildings; and it would also preserve enough territory to assure the integrity of the city that the people of the United States could call their Nation's Capital, even though some citizens within its boundaries would not have Home Rule.

That was actually approved by this committee back in 1965, I think, when the program was debated on the floor of the House.

Certainly, the members of this committee could consider the gentleman's proposal, the one that I suggested, or anything else that could protect the Federal interest as all of us are responsible for doing, and still get the people in the District of Columbia a maximum voice in their local affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take up any more time, except to make a very brief announcement, that for quite a number of months, I have been studying a self-government plan for the District of Columbia.

I have discussed it with several members of the committee, including the chairman himself. I am trying now to get it drafted into legislative form. It would be a form of reorganization, and I feel a major step toward self-government for the people of the District of Columbia.

I think the gentleman's suggestion is an excellent one, because it would provide self-government and a voice in the management of their own affairs for the people of the District of Columbia. Our problem is how we can do this and at the same time protect and preserve the Federal interest.

I think all of us are interested in doing that and wherever we can find the formula whereby we can protect both interests, I think it should have the support of the overall majority of the Congress. I don't expect to come up with any kind of miracle, but I am hoping that the proposal that I am going to introduce will be a step in the right direction, and I plan to testify on this plan before this hearing before it is concluded.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions of Mr. Kyl?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kyl. We appreciate your taking the time to come and speak to us this morning and thank you for your contributions.

Mr. KYL. Thank you.

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you.

Mr. KYL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nelsen is our next speaker. He is one of our most valuable Members.

STATEMENT OF HON. ANCHER NELSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. NELSEN. I wish to add my compliment to my neighbor, John Kyl. His State and my State are boundaries.

My district joins the State of Iowa and I felt rather comfortable when he used the term "when the cows come home." Living in rural America, this is a very familiar term.

I will now give my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nelsen.

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman and Fellow Members of the Committee, I appear today in support of H.R. 11215, a bill to establish a Charter Commission on Government for the District of Columbia; H.R. 11216, a bill to establish in the House of Representatives the office of Delegate from the District of Columbia; and H.R. 14715, a bill which would establish a Little Hoover Commission for the District of Columbia.

H.R. 11215 and H.R. 11216 are bills which I introduced on behalf of the administration. Nearly the entire Minority membership of the House District Committee, as constituted at that time, plus our distinguished Minority leader, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Gerald R. Ford, were co-sponsors. In addition, my fellow colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Albert H. Quie, sponsored H.R. 11216.

H.R. 14715 is my own bill which I introduced with the cosponsorship of Mr. Broyhill of Virginia, Mr. Cabell of Texas, Mr. Hungate of Missouri, and Mr. Winn of Kansas.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of each of these bills. I might say at the outset that I appreciate very much the cooperation I have received from the Chairman of this Committee, Mr. McMillan of South Carolina, and the Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Dowdy of Texas, in scheduling these hearings at this time. Much of the work of this Committee as it relates to the Crime Bill is behind us, and as I understend it, it will soon be scheduled for Floor action. am anxious that the Committee now act on other Administration proposals.

I

Thus, this Committee now turns its attention to matters which President Nixon himself is very interested in and, concerning which, he sent messages to Congress early in the first session. I think it only fitting at this time that I introduce into the record President Nixon's messages to Congress relating to the Non-Voting Delegate Bill and the Charter Commission Bill. Mr. Chairman, I hope that each member of the Committee will have an opportunity to review President Nixon's messages for I believe them to be comprehensive statements which set forth, among other things, the needs for these bills and the reasons why these bills should be enacted into law during this Congress. I will treat with all of these bills on an individual basis because, while they have been scheduled for hearing at the same time and under somewhat the same title, there are considerable differences in each bill and what they hope to accomplish.

NON-VOTING DELEGATE IN HOUSE

I support H.R. 11216 if only for the same reason that I am here today representing the Second Congressional District of Minnesota. In my opinion, not only do we represent the citizens of our District in the Congress, but we also at the same time, at least to the extent that there is a National and Federal interest in the District of Columbia, represent the interests of all of the citizens of this country, including those citizens of the District of Columbia, as they relate to District affairs.

However, I also believe that there is a local, parochial interest of the citizens of the District of Columbia that is being short changed. There is no one individual, for instance, to whom the local citizens may go to in the Congress to inquire about the status of their veteran's benefits.