STATEMENT OF THOMAS S. SETTLE, ESQ., SECRETARY AND LEGAL ADVISER, NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

Mr. SETTLE. Mr. Chairman, the National Capital Park and Planning Commission takes no attitude either for or against the home rule bill. That is beyond the duties of a planning commission. We do express the request, however, that in giving consideration to these bills, and particularly the Kefauver bill, because it passed the Senate, that certain amendments be made as that bill affects the National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

We consider this a successor bill of the Auchincloss bill which was considered very carefully by the committee last year, and in which were incorporated several amendments that we recommended. However, since the Kefauver bill was introduced, another bill has come to Congress, which after years of very careful study on the part of the Bureau of the Budget and with the approval and the advice of President Roosevelt and which now has the hearty approval of President Truman

The CHAIRMAN. That is the one before the committee at the present time.

Mr. SETTLE. That was the bill sent forward to the Speaker and introduced by Chairman McMillan and immediately referred to the committee, and I am referring now to H. R. 4848.

The CHAIRMAN. We are not considering that bill at the present time. Mr. SETTLE. I may say that bill was also considered by the Senate committee and an identical bill introduced by Senator McGrath which was favorably reported and placed on the Senate Calendar, and I presume it will be over here very shortly. So I think I can save the time of this committee by reading a letter from our vice chairman, Mr. A. E. Demaray, addressed to the chairman of this committee [reading]:

JULY 14, 1949.

Subject: Proposed amendments to S. 1527 to provide for home rule and reorganization in the District of Columbia.

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

Chairman, House Committee on the District of Columbia,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: You introduced on May 24, 1949, H. R. 4848, a bill to amend the act of June 6, 1924, as amended, relating to the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. This bill was carefully prepared by the Bureau of the Budget as a result of a study by the Bureau of the Budget directed by President Roosevelt, and more recently by direction of President Truman, and has his personal approval. An identical bill, S. 1931, has already been carefully considered by the Senate District Committee and placed on the Senate Calendar. In several respects there is a conflict between S. 1527 and H. R. 4848. The National Capital Park and Planning Commission has voted to request you and your committee to amend the District of Columbia home rule bill wherever it is in conflict with H. R. 4848. You are respectfully requested, therefore, to amend S. 1527 as follows:

Acquisition of park, parkway, and playgrounds in the District:

Acts of Congress approved June 6, 1924, and May 29, 1930, empower the National Capital Park and Planning Commission to acquire a comprehensive and coordinated park, parkway, and playground system for the District of Columbia and environs, and authorize certain appropriations, etc. In the case of the District of Columbia, $16,000,000 was authorized to be appropriated direct from the

Federal Treasury and to be repaid without interest at the rate of $1,000,000 a year. The Commission has acquired and is acquiring about three-fourths of the lands necessary to round out such a system for the District of Columbia. It coordinates closely these acquisitions with the location of public schools and other public District and Federal projects. The Bureau of the Budget and the President in drafting H. R. 4848 decided it would be in the best interest of the National Capital for this acquisition power and duty to remain in the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. S. 1527, section 908 (c), transfers that function to the proposed Department of Public Works. It is respectfully recommended, therefore, that section 908 (c) be stricken in its entirety from S. 1527.

In support of that, Mr. Chairman, I should like to submit a somewhat detailed and lengthy statement from the Bureau of the Budget on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it may be inserted in the record. Mr. SETTLE. This is a report prepared by the Bureau of the Budget to the President on A Study of the Organization for Planning of the National Capital.

This is from page 35 of the report, entitled "Land Acquisition Activities":

It is

It is proposed that the Planning Commission continue the comprehensive park, parkway, and playground land purchase begun in 1924. If there were any doubt regarding the desirability of retention of this operation, it would be dispelled by the fact that the program in the District of Columbia is more than two-thirds completed and that, in the future, buying will be for relatively small items. recognized that this proposed function in effect means that the Planning Commission, in addition to its planning responsibilities, will be charged with the administrative duty of purchasing lands within the District of Columbia and of cooperating with the authorized Maryland and Virginia governmental agencies in the acquisition of lands for the extension of the District park system into Maryland and for the projected extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway. The effect of this added role is discussed below.

Because of the advanced state of the land acquisition program and the proposed significant additions to the planning responsibilities of the National Capital Planning Commission which have been enumerated above, the land purchasing function should prove to be of much less relative importance in the operations of the Commission than it has been in the operations of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission. As a result of the strengthening of its planning functions, the reconstituted Commission will not have to rely so extensively on land acquisition as an indirect method of participating in planning the development of the national capital area. Although it will continue to be necessary for the Commission as a body to give approval to proposed land purchases in order to satisfy legal requirements, this approval can be given on the basis of previously agreed upon standards and plans established by Commission action, and with the assurance that the planning and land purchasing divisions are in agreement on details. Such an approach to the land-purchasing function should secure the desired subordination without disturbing the essential features of the strict procedures which have commendably marked the land-buying program of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

With this revised procedure the land-acquisition function will, without impairing the planning activities, continue to be a satisfactory arrangement, and assist in implementing the general planning responsibilities of the Commission. The original decision to create the National Capital Park Commission in 1924 came as a result of the efforts to relieve Congress of the burden of authorizing individual land purchases through the regular legislative process and to obtain a continuous and planned local buying program in place of individual purchases by special commissions as had been the case theretofore. Congressional satisfaction with the decision of 1924 is indicated by the absence of criticism and especially by the passage of the Capper-Cramton Act of 1930 and subsequent appropriations for land purchasing. Considering the general acceptance of this role in the National Capital planning agency and the fact that the program is nearing completion, it is believed that the land-acquisition function should not be transferred to another agency.

Being responsible for the comprehensive planning of the National Capital, the Planning Commission is in an especially advantageous position to view the public

lands needs of the area and to direct its effort toward the acquisition of those areas which are threatened by private encroachment and are required for public use. Such a viewpoint is important in the National Capital because of the large amount of public land which is required. Because of its responsibility for guiding future development, and especially for keeping foremost the land requirements for park, parkway, and playground purposes in the National Capital, the Planning Commission can foresee these requirements much quicker than can an administrative agency busy with day-to-day administration. For example, the National Capital Park and Planning Commission has been able to acquire land for future use, as in the case of the Fort Drive and the George Washington Memorial Parkway, the purchase of which, if left to operating agencies, might well have been delayed so long as to have been impractical of accomplishment. In addition, the conferring of this responsibility on an agency charged with the planning of the whole area, rather than on a Federal or District agency which eventually is to use the land, permits the park and playground land needs of the District to be anticipated on the basis of plans for future development which take into account the population needs of the District as a whole. As a result of this over-all view, the planning function within the District is implemented through the attention given to the land requirements of the whole area and not alone of particular sections.

It is also essential that the Planning Commission continue to cooperate with Maryland and Virginia agencies in the program of land purchase to extend the Federal park system outside the District. Such participation has assisted the Commission to fulfill its responsibilities within those areas and to relate the developmental plans for park and parkway purposes to corresponding programs within the District. Recognition of the direct interest of the Federal Government in the adjacent areas of Maryland and Virginia is shown by the financial assistance given for the purchase of park lands in Maryland and land for the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Maryland and Virginia. Not only is there assurance that this financial assistance will be employed to obtain the desired extension of the park and parkway system of the District; in addition the Planning Commission is brought into direct relationship with local administrative and planning agencies and is in a position, as an agent of the Federal Government, to secure representation of the Federal interest in this area. When combined with the planning functions proposed above for the Commission in the metropolitan area outside the District, the land acquisition duty should strengthen and make more effective the planning responsibilities of the Planning Commission in the adjacent territory. Mr. SETTLE. As to the membership of the Commission:

H. R. 4848, section 1 (c) provides the number of members of the commission, how chosen, order of termination of terms, etc. Section 1405 (a) of S. 1527 also sets forth the membership of the Commission. It differs in some respects from that in H. R. 4848. We advise, therefore, that section 1405 (a) be stricken from the home rule bill and leave this matter to be taken care of through the passage of H. R. 4848. If your committee should not be favorable to that recommendation, then we recommend that section 1 (c) of H. R. 4848 be substituted for section 1405 (a) of S. 152.

I would like to add there is not a great deal of difference between the McMillan bill and S. 1527.

The third question is that of zoning.

S. 1527, the home rule bill, provides in section 1405 (c) that the Commission shall be the Planning Commission "on behalf of the District as well as the Federal Government." However, in providing procedure for zoning ordinances, section 336 (a) of the bill provides that the National Capital Park and Planning Commission shall make a report within 30 days to the District Council on any proposed zoning ordinance as to "whether the interest of the Federal Government would be best served by passing the ordinance in its introduced form * * * "" We recommend, therefore, that this language be changed to read: "whether the planning and orderly development of the National Capital would best be served by passing the ordinance in its introduced form * * * "" Such language change should also be made in section 336 (b), page 17, line 2, after the word "affect,' to read: "the planning and orderly development of the National Capital, the Commission shall within * * * "

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the privilege of appearing before you and do not believe those proposed amendments do harm in any way to the home rule bill and do a lot of good.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have you appear before the committee and make the suggestions, which will be given careful consideration. Thank you very much.

We have a few minutes, if there is anyone who would like to present his statement.

Mr. PRELLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement. The CHAIRMAN. Give the reporter your name and whom you represent.

Mr. PRELLER. I am C. F. Preller, president of the Washington Central Labor Union.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to make a brief statement?
Mr. PRELLER. Yes, sir; it will only take a minute.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF C. F. PRELLER, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON CENTRAL LABOR UNION

Mr. PRELLER. My name is C. F. Preller and I am president of the Washington Central Labor Union of the American Federation of Labor.

For over 50 years the Washington Central Labor Union has advocated full suffrage for the citizens of the District of Columbia. In meeting assembled, the delegates from affiliated locals of the Central Labor Union, representing over 100,000 residents of the District, have voted their endorsement of the Kefauver bill, S. 1527. I am here today to convey to your committee our strong support of this bill. S. 1527 will provide a substantial degree of home rule. The Senate started with the work of the House Subcommittee on Home Rule, under Representative Auchincloss, made a number of changes which we believe improved the legislation and brought out a very good bill. We believe it will go a long way toward lifting the barrier of secondclass citizenship to which residents of the District have been relegated. Some groups in the community say that home rule cannot be successful without national representation. We disagree strongly with this view. National representation will require several years to enact under the most favorable conditions. Give us home rule now and national representation will come later. It might be of interest. to your committee to know that the American Federation of Labor at its last national convention passed a resolution favoring full suffrage for the District.

In closing I would like to say to the committee that citizenship in the best American tradition, in which the citizen takes pride in every activity of his community, can only flower fully in the District when full citizenship and self-determination are granted.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. PRELLER. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear. The CHAIRMAN. We also have Paul Matthews, representing the Junion Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. MATTHEWs. Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief statement which will only take a minute or two to present.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF PAUL MATTHEWS, PRESIDENT, JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. MATTHEWs. Mr. Chairman, I am Paul Matthews, president of the Junior Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Our organization consists of approximately 850 young business and professional men between the ages of 21 and 35 years, employed or doing business in the District of Columbia. You are all aware, from the local junior chamber of commerce activities in your own communities, of the purposes and objectives of our organization.

As a representative civic organization, we feel obligated to express the views of our membership on the vital issue now before your committee, namely home rule for the District of Columbia. In order to give our membership an opportunity to express its opinion on this issue a poll was conducted within the past 2 weeks. We appreciate the consideration of the committee in postponing our appearance until today in order that we might complete a poll of our membership. Of the ballots mailed, we received a response from approximately 40 percent of the total membership. There were three issues incorporated in the poll:

1. Do you favor the principle of home rule for the District of Columbia, with national representation?

2. Do you favor the principle of home rule for the District of Columbia without national representation?

3. Do you favor representation in Congress for the District of Columbia?

On the first question, concerning home rule with national representation, 68 percent voted "Yes" and 32 percent voted "No." On the second question, concerning home rule without national representation, only 24 percent voted "Yes" and 76 percent voted "No." On the third question, concerning only national representation, 80 percent voted "Yes" and 20 percent voted "No."

From these results it may be concluded the membership of the junior chamber of commerce primarily and overwhelmingly desires national representation. Secondly, if home rule is to be granted to the District of Columbia, national representation should precede or accompany the adoption of any home rule form of government. And thirdly, home rule by itself is definitely opposed by the membership. In conclusion, the membership of the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Washington, D. C., has indicated by an overwhelming majority that national representation is the primary consideration in approaching the question of suffrage for the District of Columbia.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We are very glad to have your statement. I was a member of your organization at one time and I am still an honorary member.

Mr. MATTHEWS. That is very fine. Come down to see us any time. The CHAIRMAN. If there are any others who wish to leave their statements, we will receive them at this time.

Anyone who wishes to be heard, if they will give their names to the clerk, we will list them to be heard when the hearing resumes at 10 o'clock next Wednesday morning.