It seems to me that if you did this, though, you would be retroceding in one form or another, either to Maryland or just sort of ceding generally to nothing, putting it in business for itself.

Would you have some safeguard to get it back? As you know, the size of the Federal complex seems to be getting bigger and bigger; and if we started moving out into the area, would you want to get it back for some reason?

Mr. BROYHILL. I have no plan to get it back, any more than we have a plan to get back the part that Virginia took before.

Mr. SICKLES. I think we are starting a ground swell, though. Mr. Grider seemed to infer that we ought to get it back.

Mr. BROYHILL. It would be a piecemeal approach, I think.

Well, if there are any problems involving home rule, as there were back in 1874, which caused the Congress to take back the control of the city, there would be a facility or an organization set up to do that that would keep the present Washington government intact. You would create a new government for the area that was granted home rule. They did have these problems, and we had to come back and repeal the act and there would be less damage or less harm done in creating a new District government. This is something I would like the gentleman to think about.

One other question, Mr. Chairman: The problem discussed here yesterday and so much this morning, about this Federal paymentand the gentleman keeps bringing up the point that this is different, and I appreciate his saying that, because that is the point many of us have been tryin to make. Washington is different. There is a Federal responsibility here and a Federal interest, and, therefore, there should be a Federal payment. That is the reason why we say you cannot turn over the complete rule of this city to those who happen to live within its boundaries-with all due respect to those people.

Now, insofar as the quantity of Federal property is concerned, the gentleman was asked the question about taxing post offices and various other buildings. Let us take your area and mine, for example. I will take one of my own that I have some fairly exact figures on, the county of Arlington. Incidentally, that is one of the areas, Mr. Grider, that was retroceded to Virginia in 1846.

The county of Arlington has one-sixth of its land area owned by the Federal Government, including Arlington Cemetery, Fort Myer, the Defense Intelligence Agency at Arlington Hall, the Naval Annex, and so forth. That one-sixth of the land area is not wasteland or swampland. It is the most valuable and attractive land in Arlington, and it constitutes 50 percent of the land value or of the taxable value, if it were owned by private industry. This comes from an estimate of the Commission of Revenue in Arlington, and is not mine.

Using those figures, now, I think that would constitute just about what we are talking about as to the value or the tax loss or whatnot in the District of Columbia.

Now, there is no payment, no authority on the part of the government of Arlington to tax the Federal Government. I grant you we come under Public Law 815-874, which the gentleman has suppported, and I have joined him in supporting it, which provides for payment in lieu of taxes by virtue of the cost of educating schoolchildren whose parents live or work on Federal property. That provides for 50 per

cent of the local cost of education to the county of Arlington and to the gentleman's community, and to this District of Columbia school system, because they come under Public Law 815-874 also.

So I submit to the gentleman, and I put this in the form of a question: Since we have a clear-cut example of an area, a part of this area, part of the old District of Columbia that has 50 percent of its value owned by the Federal Government, and are able to survive, prosperously survive, without an additional Federal payment any more than received by the other people in the United States, why should the District of Columbia get an additional Federal payment, and not be treated the same as all other people in the case of home rule?

Mr. SICKLES. Of course, I think the difference is that you have a different historical background, and you have now ended up with a part of the State of Virginia. We do not have the question of giving it to Virginia at this time. And what are the terms and conditions of giving it to Virginia? It was retroceded at a time when it was really not a part of the city of Washington in any true sense, and you have really a different kind of community than you did, with the large hardcore downtown Washington urban center, which is the Nation's Capital. This generates different kinds of policing problems, fire problems, and all the other problems that come with it, so that the cost of governing a large metropolitan downtown Washington type of city is just much more than the cost of governing what is primarily a bedroom type of area.

I know you are starting to build up some peripheral office building type of structures, as we have out in Maryland. But the cost of governing, say, Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties just does not come anywhere near, as long as we have the Federal help with respect to education costs that we do.

This is not to say that you or I may not be up here some day in the future, asking for some other kind of help, based upon the involvement in our community. But it seems to me that these are just different kinds of situations, with a different historical growth, and we are talking now about how we are going to keep the Nation's Capital as a separate jurisdiction, and how we should contribute a reasonable share. Over a period of time we may modify whatever that formula may be. But I can see the difference in it. I do not think there is any major attempt by any folks in Prince Georges or Montgomery Counties to provide the same kind of formula for them, and I do not see it in the foreseeable future.

Mr. BROYHILL. This is my final question, Mr. Chairman, a question involving the Hatch Act.

I agree with the gentleman. In a community in which a large portion of the population and the industry is Federal Government, it is somewhat unfair to put that restriction over such a large portion of the citizens by restricting their participation in their Government, making them second-class citizens, so to speak. Yet, this is a sensitive problem, as the gentleman well knows.

We have on previous occasions made a proposal for the repeal of the Hatch Act, or amendments to the Hatch Act. At one time we held some hearings over in the community of Alexandria, and also in the State of Maryland.

Mr. SICKLES. Yes, in Hyattsville.

Mr. BROYHILL. We had Federal employees appear before the committee and actually oppose any repeal or amendment to the Hatch Act, because they feared that by being given more liberty to participate in partisan elections, they might also be abused by their superiors in Government.

I proposed to the committee in executive session over in the Capitol meeting room the possibility of directing the penalty at supervisors in Government who might apply pressure to Federal employees, rather than putting the restriction or the penalty on the Federal employee himself. But we did not get anywhere with that proposal.

The point I am trying to make is the fact that this is a serious and very sensitive problem. The Federal employees themselves do not know for certain just what amendment to the Hatch Act would be in their best interest. So, since it is a complicated, sensitive problem, and I certainly would be most reluctant to have this committee approve a bill that might start the dominoes to fall, insofar as taking that protection away, I am all for giving them all the liberty that is possible. But I would think it would be wise to consider this point, if the gentleman might consider just eliminating that feature from his bill and not adding any partisan participation on the part of District employees or citizens in this matter.

Mr. SICKLES. Well, my thrust is that I feel the Federal employee does have protection, in that we do now have a good, strong merit system. I know that you are called upon to write letters recommending some of your friends and neighbors, and I am called upon to do so, too. I must admit that my letters are not really trying to bring any pressure on anybody, but just to let them know that I know the people. To the credit of the Federal establishment, they do not really seem to have much effect, which I think is very, very good. But I do think that we do have a good, strong merit system, and that as long as we have this kind of protection, we should allow and I think encourage participation in government on a local level. I think it will make these Federal employees first-class citizens. I think we both agree on this portion of it, and I think they have a responsibility to participate.

So many of these Federal employees, as you know, do have much to contribute. I know they come to see me constantly and give me wise counsel with respect to many of the Federal and other programs. I think if we can encourage their participation in their local government, they have a lot to offer, and they have a responsibility to fulfill. We have many Federal employees, not only locally here but nationwide, and it is just a shame that their talents cannot be used in local operations.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Fuqua?

Mr. FUQUA. I have no questions.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you, Mr. Sickles. We appreciate your being here and giving us some of your valuable time.

Mr. SICKLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. Our next scheduled witness is Hon. Richard Barrett Lowe. Mr. Lowe, would you come up, please.

Gentlemen, I wonder if we could agree that questioning could be limited to 3 minutes for each member, of noncongressional witnesses? I will ask one of the staff to keep time.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, if that shoe fits me, I will wear it. Mr. WHITENER. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. WHITENER. All right, Mr. Lowe, would you identify yourself, please, sir, and proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BARRETT LOWE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF GUAM AND OF AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. Lowe. While I was coming up here, Mr. Chairman, did I understand you to say there was some limitation on the time of noncongressional witnesses?

Mr. WHITENER. No. You go right ahead.

Mr. Lowe. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at the outset I want to thank you for inviting me to testify before your committee on this important subject. I have prepared a short statement which I should like to read and have inserted into the record.

My name is Richard Barrett Lowe. I am a specialist in educational and international relations presently working with the National Council for the Social Studies, a department of the National Education Association of the United States, on a project to improve the teaching of world affairs in the schools of this country.

I have been a teacher of American history and American government, a school administrator, a college president, and president of the South Dakota Education Association. I served in the U.S. Navy in World War II, commanding three V-12 programs in Nebraska. At war's end I was a military government officer in the Pacific. In fact, I spent 10 years in the U.S. Navy, and retired as a commander, without any retirement benefits.

I handled educational relations for the U.S. Naval Recruiting Service from 1947 to 1953. During this time I originated the stay in school program-this was the first antidropout program developed by a national organization in the United States and the Occupational Handbook of the Navy which were adopted by the other branches of the Armed Forces.

In 1953 I was appointed civil Governor of American Samoa and in 1956 became Governor of Guam. Upon my resignation late in 1959 I received a Presidential commendation for having served "ably and with distinction" as a Governor of two territories.

Since my return from Guam I have served as a consultant to the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization and as United Nations observer for the National Education Association, before associating myself with the National Council for the Social Studies.

I live in Alexandria, Va. I lived for 2 years in the District of Columbia, from 1947 through 1949.

I am now writing a book on my experiences as a Governor in "Paradise," my third book. As a student of government and history I feel that I am qualified to discuss this problem of home rule for the District of Columbia objectively, with no ax to grind save the desire for good government.

52-505-65- 22

I am practically retired. I want no job, I seek no honor. I have some ideas that I hope to express, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

This started out, gentlemen, last February, when I wrote a letter to Mr. Noyes, the editor of the Evening Star. I put a note on the bottom of the letter, which I headed, "Home Rule for the District of Columbia: No! Representation: Yes!"

But I put a note on this, stating that unless he would print the entire letter, I didn't want him to print it at all. It did not seem to me to be too long a letter, but longer than most letters that are sent to the press. The reply was that it was considered too long, and therefore it was not printed in the Star. But copies were sent to Chairman McMillan of this committee and Chairman Bible of the Senate committee.

In 1950 the U.S. Office of Education published a bulletin entitled "Know Your Capital City." Here is a copy of it. This was reprinted in 1955, and brought up to date in 1958, then reprinted again in 1960 and 1961 as Bulletin No. 15, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Abraham A. Ribicoff, Secretary, Government Printing Office, 25 cents.

This valuable booklet of 49 pages was written for—

The

* * * citizens who wish information of a simple, factual nature * * *. Columbia Historical Society contributed the time of several of its members * * * who reviewed the manuscript * *

along with representatives of the public schools of the District of Columbia. (See appendix hereof.)

Strangely enough, this bulletin is now out of print and/or has been withdrawn from circulation. It is not obtainable from the Government Printing Office. The one I have here is a library copy. From pages 26 and 27 under the heading "City With a Purpose." This is the book [indicating] and it is called "Know Your Capital City." It is addressed to all the people of the United States. The following is quoted verbatim:

Did this city just happen? Most cities did, but not the Capital City. It was created for a specific and unusual purpose. The Nation needed a single, permanent home for its new Government. When the Revolutionary War ended, the Continental Congress had met in four different places. Its Members had grumbled many times about the hardships of moving. So many moves had made the Government seem weak and unstable. These grumblings were softened after nearly 5 years of sessions in comfortable Philadelphia. Then something happened that stirred the Members into action for one permanent home. One day the Continental Congress was holding its usual, dignified session in Independence Hall. An angry mob of ragged, half-starved soldiers cursed and shouted threats of violence outside the windows. These soldiers wanted their backpay and other claims settled. The Continental Congress had not been able to settle claims earlier because it had no money. The Nation was almost bankrupt.

The Continental Congress rushed a request for protection to the Executive Council of Philadelphia. It was meeting at the same time in Independence Hall. It refused to help and the local police would do nothing. Such unwillingness to cooperate with the Continental Congress was not unusual in any State or city during these early days of our new Government.

Real fear made the Members of the session want to adjourn and leave, but that would seem cowardly. They must face possible physical danger to hold respect of their countrymen for the young, faltering Government.

At the end of the day, however, they voted that after adjourning, in a few days they would convene on the campus of Princeton University. No one had been harmed by brickbats or bullets, but the outrageous happening influenced