EXHIBIT 2

Rank of the District of Columbia among the 17 U.S. cities of population between 500,000 and 1,000,000 in certain major expenditures, fiscal year 1963

2 This is in addition to more than $42,000,000 spent by the Federal Government for hospital construction in the District in recent years. This has no parallel in any State, and is solely a result of the status of the District of Columbia as the Federal City.

3 This item does not include more than $75,000,000 spent in the past 10 years for construction of new classrooms in the District, which as far as we can learn is the highest such expenditure among the 17 comparable cities.

4 Per pupil in average daily membership.

NOTE.-Fiscal year 1963 is the latest year for which these data are available.

Source: "Compendium of City Government Finances in 1963," U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

EXHIBIT 3

Expenditures for personal services in U.S. cities of population between 500,000 and 1,000,000 in either the 1950 or the 1960 census, fiscal years 1951 and 1963 [In thousands of dollars]

NOTE.-Fiscal year 1963 is the latest year for which these data are available.

Source: "Compendium of City Government Finances" (1951 and 1963 editions), U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

NOTE.-Appropriation totals include all appropriated supplementals. Supplementals for 1965 contained in H. Docs. 80 and 98 are not included.

EXHIBIT 5

Current (operating) expenditures per pupil in average daily membership in school years 1956–57 and 1962–63, in public school systems of U.S. cities whose populations in the 1960 census were between 500,000 and 1,000,000, and relative rank of District of Columbia in each

District of Columbia.

Baltimore.

Cleveland

Houston..

San Francisco_

New Orleans.

Boston

St. Louis.

Milwaukee

Cincinnati.

Pittsburgh.

Buffalo.

Dallas.

Seattle..

San Diego.

San Antonio..

1 See exhibit No. 6.

City

2 See exhibit No. 2.

3 See exhibit No. 1.

4 Expenditure is for school year 1961-62.

5 Not available.

• Based on average daily membership for school year 1961-62.

NOTE. These figures do not include expenditures for total capital outlay or for debt retirement, neither of which is considered by any recognized authority as reliable for purposes of comparison.

Source: "Current Expenditures Per Pupil in Public School Systems," by U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, "Selected Statistics of Local School Systems, 1962-63," by Research Division, National Education Association.

1955.

1956

1957.

1958

1959.

1960.

EXHIBIT No. 6

Window breakage in District of Columbia public schools, 1956–64

Source: District of Columbia Public School Administration, Office of Buildings and Grounds.

Mr. WHITENER. Prior to proceeding with witnesses I would like to say that these hearings are being held pursuant to the direction of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. McMillan. We have various proposals before us relating to this subcommittee, and the staff has prepared a chart summarizing various proposals. There are 29 bills which are almost as diverse as they are numerous, following roughly 8 classifications and categories and with variations within groups.

The first group of bills provides for a Governor and a Secretary, appointed by the President, and an elected assembly to replace the Board of Commissioners, with provisions also for a nonvoting delegate to the House.

The second group of 14 bills are similar in purpose, except they provide specifically for minority representation in the elected assembly so that the minority party will be assured such representation.

Group 3 embraces the administration bills. These bills have been introduced by Mr. Multer, Mr. Bell, and, on the Senate side, introduced as S. 1118 by Senator Bible, amended and passed and also before us. Variations of the administration bill provide for elected school board members and for referendum to enable voters to approve or reject any act of the District Council.

Group 4 stipulates a self-government referendum, the election of a Charter Board to draft a charter, charter referendum, and establishment of a municipal government unless disapproved by the Congress. Bills to provide for a delegate to the House are summarized in group 5.

The controversial question of the status of the local school board is attempted to be established by bills in group 6 which provide for an elected 10-member independent school board with the usual authorities delegated to local school boards in many of the counties and States throughout the country.

Resolving the home rule question by retroceding back to Maryland much of the city which was ceded by the State of Maryland originally, is the essence of the legislation in group 7. This follows the precedent established over a century ago when the Congress ceded back to Virginia that part of the District ceded by Virginia.

The last group, group 8, requires that all the District of Columbia Commissioners be civilians, and thus would eliminate the requirement of the present law that one of the Board must be an engineer officer of the U.S. Army.

At this point, rather than consume the time of witnesses who have other engagements, without objection I will make my more complete statement a part of the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. BASIL L. WHITENER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 10TH DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Pursuant to announcement made by Chairman John L. McMillan of the full committee, Subcommittee No. 5 meets today to take testimony with respect to various so-called home rule bills which seek, in one form or another, to turn over the government of the Nation's Capital to the residents of Washington.

This has been a perennial effort, at least since I have been here, to have the Congress relinquish the power granted to it under article I, section 8 of the Constitution: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever," over the District of Columbia.

To achieve the desired ends which proponents of home rule have in mind, various groups and organizations, official and unofficial, have drafted and had introduced in this Congress alone 29 bills and resolutions which have been referred to this committee.

We will insert into the record a chart prepared by the staff, summarizing the various proposals before us. The 29 bills, almost as diverse in approach as they are numerous, fall roughly into 8 classifications or categories and with variations within the groups.

In the first group, the bills provide for a Governor and a Secretary, appointed by the President, and an elected Assembly to replace the Board of Commissioners, with provisions also for a nonvoting Delegate to the House.

The second group of 14 bills is similar in purpose except they provide specifically for minority representation in the elected Assembly so that the minority party will be assured such representation.

Group III embraces the administration bills. The President has sent down his version, introduced in the House as H.R. 4644 (by Mr. Multer) and H.R. 8090 (by Mr. Bell), and on the Senate side introduced as S. 1118 (by Senator Bible), amended and passed and also before us. Variations of the administration bill provide for elected school board members and for referendum to enable voters to approve or reject any act of the District Council.

Group IV stipulates for a self-government referendum, the election of a Charter Board to draft a charter, charter referendum, and establishment of a municipal government unless disapproved by the Congress.

Bills to provide for a delegate to the House are summarized in group V.

The controversial question of the status of the local school board is attempted to be established by bills in group VI which provide for an elected 10-member independent school board with the usual authorities delegated to local school boards in many of the counties and States throughout the country.

Resolving the home rule question by retroceding back to Maryland much of the city which was ceded by the State of Maryland originally is the essence of the legislation in group VII. This follows

52-505-65-14

the precedent established over a century ago when the Congress ceded back to Virginia that part of the District ceded by Virginia.

The last group (VIII) requires that all the District of Columbia Commissioners be civilians, and thus would eliminate the requirement of the present law that one of the Board must be an Engineer officer of the U.S. Army.

At this point and prior to the taking of testimony, I believe the record should contain at least a very brief account of the establishment of the District of Columbia and the history of the Government of the District from its beginnings to the present time.

The framers of the Constitution recognized the necessity of establishing a National Capital as the seat of government for the people of the States. In reviewing the status of the capital cities in other nations of the world, it was clearly apparent that the sovereign power in each foreign country exercised complete control within the capital of each nation. They likewise recognized that if the Government did not control the Capital City, it was unlikely that control could be exercised anywhere else within the Nation. Since this was to be a new representative form of government in which the sovereign power reposed in the people of the States, the people could exert their continuing control of their National Capital through their representatives in Congress.

The leaders of this new Nation were jealous of the liberties and freedoms they had secured for themselves and the people. They knew that a site for the seat of the National Government must be established and provision made for the Government and control of it. They feared that if the Capital were under the jurisdiction of a State, the State might impose its will on the capital or influence the Members of the House and Senate. The framers of the Constitution feared that if the Capital were under control of local residents, the local interests might be placed ahead of the interests of the people of the States. In such case, the people of the States-the businessman, the laborer, the professional, and the ordinary citizen-might be forced to pay tribute to the residents in the Capital for the privilege of doing business with their own Federal Government.

This fear that the people of the States might be imposed upon by a local government controlling the Capital was well expressed by Mr. Grayson, of Virginia, during the constitutional convention of that State. Mr. Grayson said:

It would be the interest of citizens of that District to aggrandize themselves by every possible means in their power to the great injury of the other States. If we traveled all over the world we shall find that people have aggrandized their capitals.

An experience at Philadelphia, late in the Revolutionary War, indelibly impressed upon the Nation's leaders the importance of control of the seat of the National Government. While Congress was assembled in that city, several hundred unpaid soldiers surrounded the meeting hall and threatened the Congress. Requests for protection were made to the officials of Philadelphia and to the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Neither could be persuaded to act. None of the leaders of this new Nation forgot the spectacle of a fugitive Congress taking refuge in Princeton, N.J., to continue its important deliberations.