Consider, for example, the 23d amendment to the Constitution, which gives every citizen of the District of Columbia the right to vote for President and Vice President. Mr. Chairman, I was the author of the language ultimately inserted, that finally became a part of the 23d amendment, separating the question of national representation from the question of voting for President and Vice President. I do not make reference to my authorship of that amendment to toss bouquets at the person occupying the witness chair, but to point out that the person occupying the witness chair is not a Johnny-come-lately insofar as expressing interest in the people in the District of Columbia having a right to vote.

There is another proposal which I have introduced year after year, to provide full national representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia in the Congress of the United States. One of the members of this committee made reference yesterday to the fact that they should have a Congressman. Well, let us give them a Congressman. Let us give them the same amount of representation, full voting representation in both the House and the Senate, that other citizens have. This can be done without a conflict with the Federal interest and responsibility here in the Nation's Capital.

Why do not the sponsors, the proponents of home rule exert a little more interest, a little more activity in trying to get the Committee on the Judiciary to take action in that regard?

I introduced another proposal the other day-Tuesday-for a constitutional amendment that would give the citizens of the District of Columbia the same amount of voting representation in the House of Representatives that they would have if they were a State of the same size, and at least one voting Member of the U.S. Senate. Very interestingly, the other body is always kind enough to pass a bill to put a nonvoting Delegate in the House of Representatives. We have 435 Members over here. Why do they not be benevolent enough to offer a nonvoting Delegate in the U.S. Šenate, where there are only 100

members?

But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we can go further by a constitutional amendment and give a full voting representative in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. But no interest, no action whatever is being taken on the part of so-called home rule proponents to try to get the Congress to approve that type of legislation.

Then, of course, many years ago, Mr. Chairman, I proposed an elected advisory council or advisory committee, which would have a voice in the management of local affairs, to speak for all the people of the District of Columbia. I was criticized severely by some of the Washington newspapers and by some of the so-called home rule proponents, because they said it would not go far enough, would not give them the final right, the final control. Yet, as I understand it nearly all proponents of home rule admit that Congress should have the final control, the final say-so, the final veto power over legislation.

Well, then, why should not the Congress have the final veto power and then let the people vote; submit the proposals to their representatives and let the people make the final determination whether they want the law or not. This could be done through an elected advisory committee.

I have also proposed, and so have other members of the subcommittee, an elected school board. Here is an area where the citizens of the District of Columbia could have full say, full voice, full control over a large portion of their local government and affairs, without any conflict whatsoever with Federal interest and Federal responsibility. In fact, the operation of the school system makes up more than 50 percent of the local budget in most other cities of the United States. So this is substantially a half loaf-a half loaf, mind you, without any conflict with Federal interest and Federal responsibility.

Finally, of course, I have proposed a retrocession bill wherein a large portion of the District of Columbia could be retroceded to the State of Maryland. This, Mr. Chairman, would provide for full selfgovernment-not partial self-government, but full self-government--for 80 to 90 percent of the people who are presently residing here, and for 85 percent of the total land area. It would maintain enough area to preserve what I would call the integrity of a city, which could properly be called the Federal city. It differs quite a bit from the so-called Kyl bill which was before this last session of Congress, which sought to retrocede all of the District of Columbia, with the exception of the Federal triangle. My objection to that proposal is that it would not leave a city that the American people could call their own.

I have regretted that some of the people in Maryland have publicly voiced objections to any retrocession measure. I am hoping that after further study and consideration, they may change their minds, because the proposal that I have made would provide the people in the retroceded area another Congressman, so that it would not dilute the congressional voice or representation of the people of Maryland, until the next reapportionment takes place in 1972. There is precedent for this approach, because we did the same thing, if you will recall, when we granted statehood for Alaska and Hawaii. This proposal offers, I think, the best portion of the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland. It is a bond-free public property. It has many outstanding, fine colleges and universities, thriving business areas, and citizens who are in a substantially high income bracket. It grieves me somewhat that some of our representatives from Maryland are so anxious and so willing to grant full control or rule over the Nation's Capital to the people living within its boundaries, and yet somewhat implying-at least, I can draw the inference that these same people are not good enough to be citizens of Maryland.

We took back a large portion of the District of Columbia into Virginia in 1846, so there is precedent for retrocession. And I might say, Mr. Chairman, for political and nonpolitical reasons, that those people who were in the retroceded area are very fine people and have been very kind to me over the past few years. I believe the remaining people of the District of Columbia can be equally good citizens for the people of Maryland. But if the government of Maryland objects to retrocession of any portion of the District of Columbia, then I think that we can modify this proposal, and perhaps modification might be desirable, regardless. We can provide for full self-government in this territory which I propose to be retroceded, and then Maryland can decide later whether or not they would like to take that

52-505-65-16

territory into their State government. Or after a number of years of self-government, we can decide whether it has been successful and whether statehood would be desirable.

There is precedent for that, Mr. Chairman, because until 1871, the area that I propose to retrocede was under a separate government entirely from that of the old city of Washington. At the beginning, the community had the city of Alexandria, the county of Alexandria which is now Arlington County, the city of Washington, the city of Georgetown, and Washington County, which made up the rest of the District of Columbia area.

I have a map in front of each of the committee members, and here is the original map from which that photograph was taken, which shows the area that I have proposed to become the reduced Federal City. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Broyhill, I believe we have smaller prints of this photograph, do we not?

Mr. BROYHILL. You do in front of each of you.

Mr. WHITENER. We shall make that a part of the record at this point.

Mr. BROYHILL. This is the area I propose to be retained as the proposed Federal City. This is not an arbitrary proposal, Mr. Chairman. Of course, there are natural boundaries involved, interestingly enough, such as the present boundary of the Potomac River, the Anacostia River, Rock Creek Park, and then Florida Avenue. But it is also the historical boundary. This is the original Federal City, which was laid out in 1791 by Pierre L'Enfant, Andrew Ellicott, and President Washington. This was, Mr. Chairman, the city of Washington, the Federal City, up until 1871.

Some might say that the proposed area could be a little larger, or that it does not have to be quite as large. But I wanted to have historical precedent for this proposal, and the area would be large enough, sufficient to be a nation's capital or a Federal city. It would have an area of 6,110 acres, where the present District of Columbia includes 39,193 acres. In other words, this area which I am suggesting that we preserve and maintain, would have an area approximately one-fifth of that of the existing District of Columbia. It would be a place that mom and pop, Mr. and Mrs. American Citizen, could call their own. We could redevelop and restore the entire area, because it would be small enough to lend itself to all sorts of planning and renewal. We could make this area truly a showplace of the Nation and of the world. And it would require no appreciable change in the present city government or the employees' security and protection.

So in closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that this proposal that 1 am making here this morning, as well as other proposals that I have referred to, will provide a maximum amount of self-government for the maximum number of people here in the District, and it should satisfy those who are sincerely trying to provide the maximum amount of self-government, but it will not satisfy those who are seeking the right or the privilege of ruling the Nation's Capital under the guise of self-government.

We have an excellent form of government here now. We have less corruption, fewer financial problems in this city than in any other

major city of the United States. So we are not going to improve the management of the Nation's Capital by any form of home rule. That completes the statement that I had intended to make, Mr. Chairman.

(The complete statement by Mr. Broyhill follows:)

STATEMENT BY JOEL T. BROYHILL ON H.R. 10264, To RETROCEDE A PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. Chairman, the bill that I ask this committee to consider and reports is designed to provide self-rule and self-determination for the vast majority of those who reside within the boundaries of the District of Columbia. In so doing, it would give to those citizens a far greater degree of self-government than would the administration bill that is also pending before this committee.

At the same time, however, the legislation that I propose would preserve the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution in part states:

"The Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, and arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings: and

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof." H.R. 10264 would create a Federal City within the boundaries of what is now the District of Columbia. This city would closely approximate the Federal City as it was planned and envisioned by Pierre l'Enfant, Andrew Ellicott, and President Washington. The Federal City as provided for in H.R. 10264 is bounded by the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers, Rock Creek, and what is now roughly Florida Avenue. This was the old main road from Georgetown to Bladensburg.

As I am sure most of you realize, the territory of Columbia consisted of five independent jurisdictions, in the beginning. Within the 10-mile-square territory, there were the cities of Alexandria, Georgetown, and Washington; and the counties of Alexandria and Washington.

It remained this way until September 7, 1846, when President Polk by proclamation gave notice that the city of Alexandria and the county of Alexandria were retroceded to the State of Virginia. It wasn't until the act of February 21, 1871, that Georgetown, Washington City, and Washington County were placed under one and the same municipal government.

H.R. 10264 would re-create the Federal City of Washington as it existed from 1791 to 1871. This Federal City would exist for the sole purpose of serving as the seat of the National Government.

The present District of Columbia consists of 39,193 acres excluding the acreage of navigable waters. (Including the waterways, there are 43,680 acres.) The old Federal City comprises an acreage of approximately 6,110 acres as it was originally laid out. This is approximately fifteen and a half percent of the present land area of the District of Columbia. H.R. 10264 would take these 6,110 acres for the Federal City over which Congress would have exclusive jurisdiction. Yet, the 6,000 acres would be identifiable as a city and as a Capital for the Nation. This area would contain many of our governmental buildings and shrines, though not all of them. It would contain some of our shopping and hotel complexes, though not all of them. It would contain most of the historic city with L'Enfant's boulevards, circles, and parks. The balance of the District certainly has not followed such a development and is not uncommon in design. Under H.R. 10264 it would be possible to restore and develop to its ultimate splendor, the Federal City. It would be possible to redevelop slum areas into the majestic malls and parks its founders envisioned. It would be possible to allow the concentration of embassies, chanceries and headquarters of international organizations in one-quarter of the city. It would be possible to make this city of all of the Nation's citizens into the showplace that we all want it to be.

H.R. 10264 provides that the remaining 85 percent of the District of Columbia be retroceded to Maryland. It also provides that an additional Member of the