Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

greater step forward in the management of their own affairs than the President's reorganization plan provides.

I think it is noncontroversial. We think the majority of our colleagues will endorse that, but there is a question whether we can add much more to it and get the majority to approve it.

We are under a deadline here. The gentleman mentioned the extension of the reorganization plan deadline. This would require a resolution approved in the House and in the Senate and signed by the President.

Mr. Brown. That is quite right. I do not think the resolution to get the deadline extended will succeed without the active insistence of the President. I have written the President and solicited that insistence. If he chooses not to give it, I think it puts the President in the position of saying, "My plan or nothing," which is, I would think, an unfortunate position to be in.

Mr. BROYHILL. The bill I have been talking about this morning, if the gentleman is not familiar with it, does not contain anything that is not in the gentleman's bill except the power of the president of the board to speak for the board if one member abstains.

Mr. Brown. Your point is that there is nothing in your bill that is not also included in my legislation, except the point you mentioned. I think that is right. You included the 1-year study factor, which I said I think is fine, except I would go a little further and would give the Commission more authority to reorganize the District government in areas which are granted to them for their consideration, in my legislation. However, those areas are not granted in your bill.

Mr. BROYHILL. As far as I am concerned—I cannot speak for the other Members concerned with this legislation—there is a question of whether the Congress would support that provision. We repealed that authority back in 1954 in the prior reorganization plan. There is a question whether there is enough job protection in granting the reorganization power and whether the Appropriations Committee would sit still for the transferring of the funds. But this is something we can look into with a little more time. We can move forward with what we have.

Mr. Brown. As I understand the committee's version of the bill, the McMillan-Nelsen Bill, it does not include the reorganization at present of the National Capital Planning Commission or any of the other agencies which have been sort of lorded over in the present District government operation. I would include that now. I think many of the conflicts which arise in the administration of community problems come from that very fact.

Your bill includes the possibility of study, and I would be for that in either instance, but I would take care of certain of these relationships in my legislation promptly.

Nr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Brown, I have always felt that the Congress should maintain strong control, as provided in the Constitution, over the site of the Federal Government. I have consistently opposed diluting that authority. I might say I opposed it before the days they attempted to make this a racial or civil rights issue. These issues arose back in the late 40s, and it is on the record as to why I opposed the attempt to dilute the authority of the Congress over the District. It did not involve civil rights.

In this day and time, there are those who attempt to suggest that it is the reason for my position. Is a matter of fact, the position I

such legislation. I do not know how Maryland would feel about it, but with this great and beautiful city, with the high income level that it has, at one time being a part of the State of Maryland, I would think they would jump at the idea of its becoming a part of the State of Maryland. It certainly could not become a part of any other State.

Do you think such a study would be worthwhile ?

Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that I am qualified to respond to that question. I think we are discussing the government of the District as it is now oriented. The thrust of my legislation is not to abdicate Federal responsibility with reference to the government of the District.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I understand that perfectly.

Mr. Brown. It is, rather, to reflect the three-way interest in that government. This is one reason that I am not too enthusiastic about the President's reorganization plan, because I am not sure that that can he reflected in a single policy-making individual, a single Commissioner. The three-Commissioner form lends itself to reflection of the interests of the community residents, the Executive Branch of Government which dominates most of the Federal area that you are talking about, and the people of the rest of the country who come here at this time of the year, certainly, in large numbers to enjoy seeing the seat of their Government and touring it.

The prospect of reducing the District of Columbia, if that is what you are suggesting, to the Federal Triangle or the Federal Triangle and the Capitol Building and a few others around it, begins to sort of boggle my mind a little, because I think of how we get involved with Beltsville and the Bureau of Standards, the Pentagon, and some of the other areas that we would almost have to reach out and hold onto in terms of Federal interest, and Maryland may not be so enthusiastic about taking those problems.

Mr. ABERNETHY. However, they are enthusiastic about the jobs provided by the Federal Government.

Mr. Brown. I live in an area which has a large Air Force Base, and we are the recipients in that area of impacted school district funds. We are recipients, therefore, of some jobs which are financed to a degree by the other taxpayers of the nation because of this base located in my district. But it also has considerable problems because the Federal Government has taken the tax duplicate away by putting the base there. We like to say if that were a General Motors location, we would be a lot better off than with a Federal Government installation.

We are anxious not to lose it as a Federal Government installation until we make the deal with General Motors, of course, but that is the kind of problem you get into. I am not sure that it would be too salable to the State of Maryland, although I am not sure.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Fraser.
Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend Mr. Brown for his very carefully phrased statement and for his indication of very strong interest in the District. I think his approach to the District is evidenced by many things that are happening in the committee and among the people.

I have several questions about your bill. First of all, you indicate that the executive authority of the District is conferred upon a Board of Commissioners. I do not find any reference in your outline or in my

not make Maryland just exactly jump at the opportunity to take over a low-industry center such as Northwest Washington.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You would not assume these people are not able to take care of themselves just as any other city in the United States ?

Mr. BROWN. Sir!

Mr. ABERNETHY. Surely there would be no assumption that they could not take care of themselves just as any other American city does.

Mr. Brown. Many other American cities, it seems to me, have grown up around an industrial complex. In other words, the job center does not happen to be the Federal Government, which is not contributing tax income.

Mr. ABERNETHY. They have a mighty high per capita income.

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir, and I think out in Montgomery County and some of the counties that are outside the District, they are paying fairly well and are getting pretty good support, too, from the Federal Government.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I concede there would be some complications, and I concede there may be some problems. I suggested that the matter might also be submitted and I still think it should be submitted for appropriate study.

Representatives elected to this Congress from around the periphery of the Capital have always been anxious to be members of this conmittee and should be intrigued with and maybe be receptive to the idea or like the idea of working for the people of this District, seeking assignments to this committee. We would have to have their help to begin with. I would think that we would have their help and they would indicate a desire to serve the people in the outlying areas of the District.

My only purpose is a desire to avoid the conflicts that we know are going eventually to come as a result of an independent government in the District and the Federal Government itself. It happened before. It is bound to happen again. Even the most ardent, with a few exceptions, of those who speak in behalf of so-called home rule, all say that the Federal Government has an interest here and that to protect that interest we must retain some degree of control by the Federal Government.

I am just suggesting that we retain that degree of control only over that area which is the compact site of the Federal Government and where the Congress sits.

Here is the reason I feel that way about it.

This area is here for only one reason, and that is the Federal Gorernment. That is the only reason it is here, is it not ? Most of the people who come here, except lobbyists-and there are thousands of them-and maybe a few people who make a living off the others, come here to work for the Federal Government. I made a record 20 years a go that I did not feel that I could bring people here by the thousands to work for the Federal Government and then turn the site of the Federal Government over to them to run and control. I think it would be a terrible mistake. I still think so. That is the reason I took the position that I did. I introduced such a bill as I have just suggested a good many years ago. Others have introduced such bills.

It was suggested that I did it facetiously. I do not agree with it. It was not facetious. I make the statement now that I would go for

such legislation. I do not know how Maryland would feel about it, but with this great and beautiful city, with the high income level that it has, at one time being a part of the State of Maryland, I would think they would jump at the idea of its becoming a part of the State of Maryland. It certainly could not become a part of any other State.

Do you think such a study would be worthwhile ?

Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that I am qualified to respond to that question. I think we are discussing the government of the District as it is now oriented. The thrust of my legislation is not to abdicate Federal responsibility with reference to the government of the District.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I understand that perfectly.

Mr. Brown. It is, rather, to reflect the three-way interest in that government. This is one reason that I am not too enthusiastic about the President's reorganization plan, because I am not sure that that can be reflected in a single policy-making individual, a single Commissioner. The three-Commissioner form lends itself to reflection of the interests of the community residents, the Executive Branch of Government which dominates most of the Federal area that you are talking about, and the people of the rest of the country who come here at this time of the year, certainly, in large numbers to enjoy seeing the seat of their Government and touring it.

The prospect of reducing the District of Columbia, if that is what you are suggesting, to the Federal Triangle or the Federal Triangle and the Capitol Building and a few others around it, begins to sort of boggle my mind a little, because I think of how we get involved with Beltsville and the Bureau of Standards, the Pentagon, and some of the other areas that we would almost have to reach out and hold onto in terms of Federal interest, and Maryland may not be so enthusiastic about taking those problems.

Mr. ABERNETHY. However, they are enthusiastic about the jobs provided by the Federal Government.

Mr. Brown. I live in an area which has a large Air Force Base, and we are the recipients in that area of impacted school district funds. We are recipients, therefore, of some jobs which are financed to a degree by the other taxpavers of the nation because of this base located in my district. But it also has considerable problems because the Federal Government has taken the tax duplicate away by putting the base there. We like to say if that were a General Motors location, we would be a lot better off than with a Federal Government installation.

We are anxious not to lose it as a Federal Government installation until we make the deal with General Motors, of course, but that is the kind of problem you get into. I am not sure that it would be too salable to the State of Maryland, although I am not sure.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Fraser.
Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend Mr. Brown for his very carefully phrased statement and for his indication of very strong interest in the District. I think his approach to the District is evidenced by many things that are happening in the committee and among the people.

I have several questions about your bill. First of all, you indicate that the executive authority of the District is conferred upon a Board of Commissioners. I do not find any reference in your outline or in my

very cursory glance through the bill, to where the legislative authority would be.

Mr. Brown. Actually, I suppose the term one should use is “policymaking” rather than “executive” or “legislative” with reference to the District Board of Commissioners, because they become, in effect, both legislative and executive but not administrative, if that distinction is clear.

Mr. FRASER. The Board of Commissioners shall continue with essentially the same jurisdiction and responsibility that they have. You do not intend to limit the Board of Commissioners or to restrict their authority in the issuance and adoption of ordinances or regulations.

Mr. Brown. No, but some of that authority is vested in the Managing Director on page 13, if you have my bill in front of you, section 408.

Mr. FRASER. What you intend by section 408 is to confer on the Managing Director the legislative authority that is now conferred on the Commissioners.

Mr. Brown. Not entirely.
Mr. FRASER. I see it is subject to their approval.
Mr. Brown. That is right.

Mr. FRASER. I was just trying to get at the purpose. Section 108 encompasses so-called legislative authority which is now vested

Mr. Brown. Some of the legislative authority. In other words, I do not think it is fair to say that the three-member Commission would specifically act as a city council, although some might make that interpretation. Some of the minor legislative functions and the question is what is minor and what is major-would be vested in the Managing Director. Major legislative functions would still devolve upon the Commissioners.

Section 408 lets the Commissioners make the determination as to which they would consider minor and which should therefore be vested in the Managing Director.

Mr. FRASER. I was primarily interested in your intent rather than the question of the language of the bill.

Mr. Brown. I might say, to finish this thought, of course some decisions which could be called legislative still are in the hands of the Congress and this committee. I have heard this committee referred to as the City Council for the District of Columbia. It is my hope that this can cut toward a better definition of what those varying responsibilities should be.

Mr. FRASER. I do not know what the provision is, but the Board of Commissioners have had general authority to act. For example, they have authority now to make what amounts to ordinances or regulations execising police power.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. FRASER. Your plan is different from the one introduced by the chairman and Mr. Nelsen in several respects, one of which is that you woud eliminate the Engineer Commissioner, whereas in their plan they would retain him. What is your view about that difference?

Mr. Brown. How do I view it?

Mr. Fraser. Yes. Your bill proposes a change from the current arrangement, and they propose to retain it. What do you think about those differences?

Mr. Brown. My plan provides for the opportunity of the President to designate three members of the Corps of Engineers to serve as

« ForrigeFortsett »