The only means that we can foresee of raising local revenue in amounts sufficient to pay $20 million additional salaries to police and fire is the sales tax. To raise money of that magnitude would require essentially a 1% increase in the general sales tax; and a higher increase in some other limited areas of application.

The present sales tax rate is 4%. That would be increased to 5% in rate on room rentals, alcoholic beverages, and restaurant meals, which is now 5% would also go up 1%. The rate of laundry cleaning and non-prescription drugs, presently taxed to 2%, would have to be taxed at 5%, which would raise about $17 million on an annual basis, as compared to an approximately $20 million on this legislation before

you.

Mr. BROYHILL. How about the tax on groceries?

Mr. WATT. No increase as applied to food.

Mr. BROYHILL. Those increases would bring in $17 million annually, and the cost of the bill would be $20 million per year?

Mr. WATT. That's correct. The difference would have to be absorbed in the present appropriations for police and fire, in accordance with our general policy of requiring general 15% absorption of salary.

Mr. BROYHILL. I apologize, Mr. Cabell, for taking so much time. Do you feel that there is any danger in diminishing returns resulting from this increase in sales tax?

Mr. WATT. I would turn to Mr. Back for the response to that, based upon his previous experience with earlier sales tax raises.

Mr. BACK. Naturally, Mr. Broyhill, we're fearful of getting out of line in this area, and the general sales tax rate in both Virginia and Maryland are 4%.

On the other hand, I would doubt that this would be enough of an increase to disturb our buying patterns.

Mr. BROYHILL. You anticipate the $17 million increase in revenue on the volume of sales remaining the same, and not being reduced as a result of the increase?

Mr. BACK. We actually anticipate some slight reduction.

Mr. BROYHILL. You've considered that in estimating the $17 million? Mr. BACK. Yes, we have.

Mr. BROYHILL. That's all I have.

Mr. CABELL. Mr. Abernethy?

DISTRICT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Watt, how many employees are on the pay roll of the District government?

Mr. WATT. I'm advised that the present actual employment is approximately 36,000.

Mr. ABERNETHY. When did it go down to 36,000?

Mr. WATT. We have been reducing the number steadily for about two years.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Where were the reductions made?

Mr. WATT. Virtually in all departments and areas, the principle exceptions being police and fire fighters.

Mr. ABERNETHY. How many citizens are there in the District of Columbia of school age, youngsters up to say, nineteen years of age? Do you know?

Mr. WATT. No, sir, I do not know; Iwould have to provide that for the record.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Could you make a guess at it?

There are about 760,000 people in the District?
Mr. WATT. Approximately.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Could you make a guess?

Mr. WATT. No, sir, I could not. I didn't come prepared for that. Mr. ABERNETHY. Even including those, the City has one employee on its payroll for about every 20 inhabitants of the City, including the children and babies.

Don't you think that that's a little high?

Mr. WATT. No, sir, I do not.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Why don't you?

Mr. WATT. The reason for my reply, Mr. Abernethy, is that I look at the service needs of this City, and the ability of this City to meet those needs, and I am not satisfied that we're doing a reasonably adequate job in meeting the needs of the citizens.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Would you say that a fifth of the inhabitants of this City are less than 20 years of age?

Mr. WATT. Perhaps.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That leaves about 650,000 adults, something like that.

Mr. WATT. There's about a fifth of them in school.

Mr. CABELL. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERNETHY. Yes.

Mr. CABELL. That 36,000, does that include the school personnel? Mr. WATT. Yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. So it's your feeling that this City needs one employee on its payroll rendering services for about every thirteen or fourteen adults?

That's about what it figures out, I think.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Abernethy, I wouldn't put it quite like that; I would say that the fact that we have approximately 8500 school teachers is not too many school teachers; the fact that we have 5100 policemen is not too many policemen, or the fact that we have authorized only 1500 firemen is not too many firemen.

Mr. ABERNETHY. How many?

Mr. WATT. 1500.

The fact that we have men who are maintaining and repairing the streets, collecting the garbage, disposing of the refuse, operating and maintaining our sewer and water systems-I don't think we have too many, no sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Is it your opinion that the maintenance now is as good as it was a few years ago? The maintenance of the streets, collection of the trash?

Mr. WATT. I have been in this City only about two and a half years. I can't speak beyond that period of time, Mr. Abernethy.

I think we are seeing in this City as we see in most major cities, a decrease in the level of community housekeeping, community service, which reflects the great bind between the needs of urban metropolitan areas, such as the City of Washington, and the ability of that City to finance the programs to meet those needs.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Is it fair to say that the number of employees per adults in this city is twice as high as it is in any other city?

Mr. WATT. No, sir, I don't believe it is. The reason I say this is this city is more than any other city. This city is also a county, it's a township, it's a state. It must provide levels of service, types of service, must fulfill the functions which, in other jurisdictions, are spread about and divided among city, county, township, state, and sometimes even the Federal government.

Mr. ABERNETHY. But these other cities don't get this $170, $180 million dollars a year Federal payment to help take care of those citizens. The Federal government provides that money.

Mr. WATT. This is the only city in which the Federal government makes its capital home, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I realize that.

That's all, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to find out how he felt about it.

I really think there's some doubt. I know you tried to justify the idea that there should be a city employee for every 13 or 14 adults in this city. I think such is positively ridiculous; and I think you really

think so.

Mr. WATT. No, sir, I do not. That's why I asked if there was any doubt as to how I felt.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I wish I had the authority to do something about it. I know I only have one vote up here. I sure wish I could do something about it. I would if I had enough votes.

Mr. WATT. I might point out, Mr. Abernethy, that we have not been unaware of the necessity to continuously strive to make the dollars which are appropriated for our use go further. In two and a half years we have reduced the number of authorized positions in this city from approximately 45,000 to now about 40,000.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You did find some fat, then, didn't you.

Mr. WATT. We have reduced services, also.

Mr. ABERNETHY. What are those you've reduced?

Mr. WATT. Some of those to which you've referred, street maintenance, level of services for our population which has a growing characteristic of dependency.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That's all, Mr. Chairman.

(Subsequently, the following additional information was furnished the committee:)

Mr. JAMES CLARK,

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

May 8, 1972.

Clerk, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CLARK: Attached per your request of May 2, 1972 is a comparison by agency of authorized and filled positions in the District of Columbia Government. If you should need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact

me.

Sincerely yours,

DONALD H. WEINBERG,

Chief, Pay Systems and Labor Relations Division.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATUS OF APPROPRIATED POSITIONS, MONTH ENDING FEB. 29, 1972

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATUS OF APPROPRIATED POSITIONS, MONTH ENDING FEB. 29, 1972-Continued

1 Net vacant on Apr. 3, 1972. Public Schools are presently conducting a survey to match precisely filled and authorized positions.

PERSONNEL FREEZE-D.C. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

(Provisions of Public Law 92-106, "District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1971", 92d Cong. 1st sess., approved Dec. 15, 1971)

SEC. 707. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, no person shall be appointed-

(1) as a full-time employee to a permanent, authorized position in the government of the District of Columbia during any month when the number of such employees is greater than 39,619; or

(2) as a temporary or part-time employee in the government of the District of Columbia during any month when the number of such employees exceeds the number of such employees for the same month of the preceding year. NOTE. This personnel limitation of course does not apply to over 10,000 employees in the District who are employed through Federal grants to the District.

EXCERPTS FROM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE REPORT 92-598 ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVENUE ACT OF 1971

(Information furnished to your Committee by the District of Columbia government indicates that the number of authorized permanent personnel increased from 31,944 in 1967 to 42,735 in 1970, or a 106.6 percent increase in 4 years. Pertinent charts, furnished by the District of Columbia Government, follow :)