Columbia, and I know of no one in the District of Columbia that wants to completely disassociate himself from the federal government, because, financially, this would be impossible, and at the same time, the federal interest here, with dignitaries from all over the world, people from all over the United States, every state has an interest in the District of Columbia. So, we are trying to find that course here, and I know of your interest. I have talked with you many times, and I want to thank you for your interest and your statement.

Mr. RICH. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Čabell?
Mr. CABELL. No questions.
Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Hungate?
Mr. HUNGATE. Yes.

In the statement, page 2, you say "extensive hearings in the Senate last year."

Now, I think maybe I am confused on that. Were there hearings on the question of giving the District a delegate in the House of Representatives, a so-called non-voting delegate?

Mr. RICH. Sir, I must admit that this particular statement was done by some research on the part of my staff and I was not present when it was done, and that is why it is my understanding. If I am in error on that, I stand to be corrected. I was not head of the Coalition and did not know myself, personally-did not have any personal knowledge of it, but I assume that since the Senate acted the way it did that there had been hearings and felt that the statement was valid.

Am I in error?

Mr. HUNGATE. I am not a member of the other body, but it is my understanding that there were no hearings held on the non-voting delegate.

Were there, gentlemen?

Is anyone aware of that?

Mr. BROYHILL. What was the question?

Mr. HUNGATE. Were there hearings held in the Senate on the question of a non-voting delegate in the House?

Did any House members testify on that question that you know of? Mr. DOWDY. Not that I know of.

Mr. BROYHILL. The gentleman knows that the other body has always been very liberal with seats in our body.

Mr. HUNGATE. I would say to the witness that being a witness is a difficult job, and we appreciate your time and courtesy, and this is not critical of you in any way, nor is it critical of the preceding witness, Monsignor Kuehner, but perhaps this is some reflection of the depths of the interest of those who are concerned on these questions.

These organizations, to whom the committee directs questions, have sent people here who are relatively inexperienced in the field, which now is no fault of theirs, but in view of the interest of the organizations in helping to give the committee guidance on the question of home rule and the question of representatives in Congress, we would hope that they would send us people who had worked with this problem for some time.

I thank you very much.

You may be right or wrong on this, I do not know, but I understood there were no hearings on the question in the other body.

Mr. ADAMS. Could the Chair indicate to us who are the proposed witnesses who are going to come before the committee?

Maybe we can, as Mr. Hungate indicates, be prepared for the witnesses, and they for us, because I did not know until this morning who was going to be here, and I do not know who the next group are, and I know some people who have indicated an interest, like Mr. Pollack, from the former administration, who used to deal with this committee, and some other people, who would like to testimony, and I do not know whether they are on the list or not.

Mr. DowDY. If they are listed to testify, they will be on the list. I have not checked that.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Clark, could you give us a list of the proposed witnesses?

Mr. CLARK. A list of those who have requested to testify?
Mr. ADAMS. Yes, if you please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.

Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Broyhill, do you have questions?

Mr. BROYHILL. No.

Mr. Dowdy. I do not really know the materiality of the questions, but since they have come up, how many members in your organization of this Metropolitan Washington Urban Coalition?

Mr. RICH. The Metropolitan Washington Urban Coalition is, basically, not a membership organization, sir. It has 32 directors and an executive committee of 12. The membership of that body, the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee was polled while I was out of the city, sir, and my information is that a substantial majority, well, over 25-I do not have the precise number-were in favor of this statement, and there were no opponents to it.

Mr. Dowdy. In other words, your statement is based on 25 people? Mr. RICH. Yes, sir.

RETROCEDE TO MARYLAND

Mr. Dowdy. Now, have you considered or not the proposal that has been made by two or three or four-three, I believe, members of the Congress to retrocede to Maryland the populated, that is, the business and residential, areas of the District of Columbia wherein they would have complete equality with the people of all other states in their representation, voting in state and local elections and in federal elections as well?

Mr. RICH. I am aware of the proposal, sir. I have not studied it in detail. I would now have to speak as an individual on that, of course, rather than for my board.

Mr. DOWDY. Yes.

Mr. RICH. My initial reaction would be that the charter commission, which one of these bills provides for, should consider this, among

other issues, in this matter. It is pretty hard for me, as a fourth generation citizen-my father is still alive and is 82, and our business has been here over 100 years-to identify myself as from somewhere else, and I, inside, have some reservations about tying myself to another entity. But if that is the ultimate wisdom of those who study this problem I would rather have that than what I have now.

Mr. DowDY. Now, you testified on the proposal for the election of the non-voting delegate to the House.

There is another bill providing, instead of that, for the election of a non-voting delegate to the Senate where the delegate would not be bound by the five-minute rule, and the other things. He would have a freer voice than he would in the House. Did your group of 25 people consider that, and I wonder whether that would be a better or more beneficial method for the District of Columbia residents than would a non-voting delegate in the House?

Mr. RICH. I cannot honestly answer whether the Board considered it. I have a reaction to the question, if I may, again, individually? No. 1. If I had to make a choice, I think, because of history, of what has happened with Puerto Rico and some of other neighboring territories, I think the House usually is the place to start. If I had to make a choice, I think that is what I would like. Ideally, of course, we would like both, and I think that that is the way I would stand on that issue.

Mr. Dowdy. Any further questions?

Mr. BROYHILL. I have one brief one.

Mr. Rich, in your statement, you refer to the fact that the Metropolitan Washington Urban Coalition represents a broad range of community interests, including the clergy, businessmen, and so forth. Now, the Washington Board of Trade represents, I imagine, practically all of the business organizations in the metropolitan area; do they not? Mr. RICH. I would not say that, sir. I do not believe they do. I am not sure, for example, if there are members of the Hotel Association and all of those who are members.

Mr. BROYHILL. Are you a member of the Washington Board of Trade?

Mr. RICH. Yes, sir, I am. As a matter of fact, I am due there right

now.

Mr. BROYHILL. I was under the impression that they had a very high percentage of membership among all the business interests in Washington, D.C., and can generally speak quite authoritatively for the business community. Is their position the same as yours, regarding these bills for home rule per se?

Mr. RICH. Congressman Broyhill, I am not a member of the Board of Directors of that body, and I cannot speak to that. I am afraid that the Board of Trade will have to speak for itself.

Mr. BROYHILL. You think you are speaking for the business community in your statement?

Mr. RICH. I think I am speaking for those members of my board who are members of the business community, and they are

Mr. BROYHILL. Are they representative of the business community? Mr. RICH. I would say in a group of 32 that they are. They are not all businessmen. We have got 32, and I think we probably have four

or five out of 32 that represent a business and have other broad inputs because of their representation on other organizations including the Board of Trade.

Mr. BROYHILL. Well, now, let me make sure I get your answer correctly.

In your statement, you say you are representing a coalition of a broad range of community interests, including businessmen. Mr. RICH. Right.

Mr. BROYHILL. And, therefore, the businessmen in the community as such, would support your statement in so far as home rule is concerned?

Mr. RICH. I cannot put that connotation on it. I can only speak for those businessmen

Mr. BROYHILL. Then, you do not represent the business interests of this community; it is your Urban Coalition?

Mr. RICH. Well, I think that is a moot point, sir.

I feel that as the Monsignor spoke earlier, I do not believe that people like Mr. Danzanski, who is on our board, and Mr. Bittenger, who is on our board, and Mr. Seigel of the Washington Post, I think they represent businessmen in this community and do play an active role in the leadership of this city.

Mr. BROYHILL. I do not think that the Washington Post fairly represents the business interests of this community, and I think you will have a hard time convincing members of this committee that that is the case.

I believe, Mr. Rich, that you probably do represent the businessmen, as you say you do, so far as many of the objectives and work of the Washington Urban Coalition is concerned, but I do not believe that the Washington Urban Coalition is speaking for the business community in supporting home rule legislation. I think you are a little bit beyond representing accurately the views of the business community.

Now, you may do other things that the Coalition is doing, but I think the Washington Board of Trade represents a pretty accurate cross-section; they have an accurate total percentage of the business community, and their position is not the same as yours. Mr. RICH. Have they been here yet, sir?

Mr. BROYHILL. No, but we know what their position is. They will probably testify before these hearings are concluded. Mr. DowDY. I understand they are on the list of witnesses. Mr. BROYHILL. That is all.

Mr. Dowdy. Let me ask, in view of Mr. Broyhill's questions, let me see if I understand correctly.

Your Coalition is composed of 32 members, four or five of whom represent business?

Mr. RICH. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOWDY. I thought I gathered that.

Thank you, sir.

General Charles Harris of the Executive Board of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia.

General Harris, we are pleased to have you this morning.

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL CHARLES S. HARRIS, MEMBER OF EXECUTIVE BOARD, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WASHINGTON, D.C.

General HARRIS. Mr. Chairman and members, I am Charles S. Harris, member of the Executive Board of the Federation of the Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia and I appear today representing Mr. George W. Brady, who prepared this statement that has been submitted.

I shall try to speak briefly to summarize the high points of some of our views, and I would state also that I am here to represent Cathedral Heights-Cleveland Park Citizens Association. Mr. Joseph A. Connors, President.

As you know, the citizens associations and the Federation were organized and exist purely and simply to promote good government, and we also desire to support any proposal that offers a promise to provide better government.

In this case, we hope that this committee will put its thrust on improvement in our government rather than on home rule.

HOME RULE

However, home rule has been urged and will be urged again, and you will be urged to provide for the citizens a voice to run their own affairs.

I want to stress the fact that the important matter of the Government of the District of Columbia involves national affairs. This is the seat of the government; it is the home of representatives from the states who are here to conduct their government; it is a place to receive visitors, foreign and domestic. It provides a home for the foreign embassies, and it is purely and simply set up as a seat for the government and the affairs of interest to the people back in the states.

They are interested in the schools; they are interested in law enforcement; they are interested in sanitation; they are interested in cleanliness and sound finances, and the Federal Government has expended tremendous sums in building this city and in maintaining it.

I believe that the federal payroll in this area exceeds $2 billion each year, and considering that, along with the continuing federal construction, the continuing federal grants, and the considerations and contributions toward renewal in the cities, and the expenses towards making studies, and so on.

The grant of a million dollars to make some study-project of police and several things. I nother words, thiscity is supported by the people from the states, the people who live in the city, the residents like I am a resident. I derive my income directly from the Government. The rest of them derive it either directly or indirectly from the Federal Government.

Without the Federal Government, this city would die on the vine. Somebody said it might become a suburb of Bladensburg, but at any rate it is a federal city, and for that reason we think the main interest here is to run the city appropriately for the capital of a great free

country.