functions with respect to historic sites and prehistoric and the rest of these, is to pass judgment as to whether a proposed historic site is of national interest. And to control their judgment they operate under a set of historic themes and subthemes. The reason that this functions very well in my opinion is because there are presented to the Park Service from all over the Nation literally hundreds of recommendations that this or that building, site, fort, or other type of site be made a national area. This provides a basis for judgment as to which out of, say, 75 forts in the expansion of the West, which few are actually of national interest in terms of the historic theme which they represent.

Mr. WYATT. Would the National Parks Advisory Board still have an interest and responsibility to and be consulted on any details of this plan with the establishment of the Commission contemplated by this legislation?

Mr. CAIN. It is possible that it might in the following circumstances. Its present action is to certify as it were that this proposed area is truly of national significance.

Now, if within this area there were identified a historic building, and it was put to the National Parks Advisory Board to determine whether that particular building is of national significance, they would pass judgment. It might be of national significance under any one of a dozen or more themes. It might be because of something scientific that occured there. It might be because of architecture.

Mr. WYATT. The answer is, so far as the National Park Advisory Board, yes

Mr. ČAIN. It might be again associated with the development of the area; yes, sir.

Mr. WYATT. What about the Fine Arts Commission?

Mr. CAIN. Very definitely. As I understand, they have advisory functions with respect to any public building within the District. Mr. WYATT. Finally, what about the National Park Service itself? Mr. CAIN. We are in the middle of it, as I understand it. Mr. WYATT. The answer is "Yes" again; is it not?

Mr. CAIN. Yes, indeed.

Mr. WYATT. Are there any other commissions or agencies that have at the present time any duties or responsibilities in connection with the subject matter that we are discussing here who might have to be consulted, or who are interested in decisions or recommendations? And if so, will you please name them or furnish them for the record? Mr. CAIN. Well, I believe, Mr. Wyatt, that the public, that is to say, the governmental agency members on the temporary Commission gives us gives you a clue as to the Federal agencies that would be interested and that would have a voice which would be part of the voices that would be coordinated by the permanent Commission if it were to come into existence, any one of these agencies that would be concerned with the construction of a new building, or the revision of a building, that sort of thing.

Mr. WYATT. Most of the major departments in the Government, then, would be your answer, is that correct?

Mr. CAIN. Yes, sir. About a dozen here, and then also the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian Institution which were mentioned. Mr. JOHNSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYATT. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. How about the National Capital Planning Commission? They are an advisory group now that has legal status. They are the ones that make the recommendations as to what is going on now in this particular area, am I not right?

Mr. HARTZOG. That is right. I think the National Capital Planning Commission's responsibility is a pretty broad one that does not really get down to the central issue of how you preserve the national significance of this historic district. In other words, they are concerned more with the master planning of uses and that kind of thing than they are with the detailed esthetics of the preservation of a national historic interest as such. Certainly, in some instances they get involved in this. But as a general proposition their area of concern is so large that they cannot get involved with it in every specific instance, you see.

Mr. JOHNSON. In this legislation, you point them up as being the National Capital Planning Commission to which this particular Commission would make its recommendations.

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. They in turn probably would make the recommendations to the authorities here?

Mr. HARTZOG. That is right. It is interlocking, there is no question about it. If the Commission does not take over any of the responsibilities of the National Capital Planning Commission in the area of Federal responsibility, the National Capital Planning Commission has pretty much of a final say on what happens with respect to Federal programs and Federal buildings and Federal locations and employment centers, and so forth, from the executive standpoint.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is what is in effect now?

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, in this legislation here you point this up here on page 3, and recognize the National Capital Planning Commission pretty much as the agency that will continue to make

Mr. HARTZOG. That is right. And the work of this Commission will be closely coordinated and interrelated and integrated with the work of the Capital Planning Commission. In other words, we are not trying to set up an irritant here, we are trying to set up a Commission that can zero in on the specific problems we have in connection with this national historic district.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. SAYLOR. Will you yield right at this point?

Mr. WYATT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Hartzog, let me read you what section 4 of this resolution says. It completely contradicts what you have just stated. Mr. RIVERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. Yes.

Mr. RIVERS. I would like to say that the resolution introduced by Mr. Widnall, House Joint Resolution 678, is not identical in some respects with the draft of a similar proposition in the Executive order. I observe, for instance, on page 4, subsection (d), that the cultural provisions are not included in the Executive draft, and

Mr. SAYLOR. Section 4, following the questions Mr. Johnson asked you, says this:

No agency of the Federal Government or of the District of Columbia shall conduct on Pennsylvania Avenue or the area adjacent to it between the Capitol

and the White House, any program (1) relating to urban renewal, land redevelopment, or public housing; or (2) involving permanent construction, improvements, or facilities of a type designed to change the character of the area, without the approval of the Commission.

Now, this completely contravenes the statement which you have just given.

Mr. HARTZOG. Beg your pardon?

Mr. SAYLOR. This section 4 completely contravenes the statement you have just made, that you are going to try and cooperate with the National Capital Planning group, because it says that they can't do it unless it meets with the approval of this Commission. And then look at the next proviso. Here is a proviso that is one that is really startling:

Provided that this provision shall not be effective if the President, notwithstanding the views of the Commission, shall approve such program or project.

Now, you said that you were trying to make sure that you didn't create controversy. I can just tell you that with this provision in the bill, or this joint resolution, that if the National Planning Commission does not get its approval by this proposed Commission that is to be set up, they are immediately going to go to the President, or are going to have somebody go the the President, and any one of these other agencies are going to go to the President. And they are going to try to tell the President that their idea is the best idea. And right in here it says that the President can say, "All right, I will take the approval or the plan which has been approved by the National Planning Commission, by the Fine Arts Advisory group, by the Secretary of the Interior, by the Director of the Park Service," anybody that he wants to. And I think what we are doing right here is kidding the people if we set up this 21-man Commission because instead of getting rid of a fight you are creating a good one between it and every agency of the Federal Government.

Mr. RIVERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. Yes.

Mr. RIVERS. To pursue my expression of a minute ago, this language appears in both the resolution introduced by Mr. Widnall and the Executive proposal.

Mr. Wyatt?

Mr. WYATT. I have two more questions, if the gentleman is through. Mr. RIVERS. Thank you.

Mr. WYATT. Mr. Hartzog, my next question here I have two more questions and then I am through-if there is a disagreement among these various agencies that I have listed, the District of Columbia Commissioners and the National Capital Planning Commission, the National Regional Planning Commission, the Parks Advisory Board, the Fine Arts Commission, the National Park Service itself, and any of the other agencies that the Secretary has mentioned which have an interest in this, if there is a disagreement in regard to any plan or any detail in the plan, whose views are going to prevail under the terms of this act if it is passed? Do you care to speculate on this?

Mr. HARTZOG. The views of the President of the United States are going to prevail.

Mr. WYATT. In other words, then, the President will be the final arbitrator of any difficulties over the plan or any detail of the plan; is that correct?

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

But I have to answer your question that way, in the light of the explanation of Mr. Saylor, and what the joint resolution says. I envisage, however, that these instances would be very, very rare. I think that there is an awareness of the historical significance of this avenue that augurs very well for a cooperative undertaking that will look for solutions within the context of this Commission.

Mr. WYATT. My final question of you is this: Couldn't you accomplish what you are trying to accomplish, the end that you are trying to accomplish, which I think is commendable, could you not accomplish it instead of this complex legislating, setting up a commission on a commission, and I think perhaps laying the groundwork for substantial additional controversy, couldn't you accomplish the same thing if the National Capital Planning Commission were requested specifically to zero in on this problem and to take a more detailed look and interest and action in connection with this area?

Mr. HARTZOG. Sir, I think there are a number of ways, of course, of tackling the problem. I think that is one way. I don't think that would be the way I would prefer to see it done, however, because I don't think the National Capital Planning Commission ought to get into the site planning of an area of responsibility of the National Park Service any more than it gets into the site planning for Haines Point, or Prince William Forest Park. This is why we strongly favor a commission that is charged with the responsibility of doing this kind of thing. And we liken it to the kind of Commissions that the Congress in the past has set up, like the one in St. Louis, in which Members of the Congress serve as members of that Commission. We liken it to the Shrines Commission in New York. But you still have your ordinary city planning commissions performing the functions of the Capital Planning Commission here. But they don't get down into the detailed site planning.

Mr. WYATT. Would this proposed Commission that is being set up get into the detailed site planning?

Mr. HARTZOG. Very definitely, it would have to; yes, sir. This is part of what I think they have to concern themselves with in their role as coordinators.

Mr. WYATT. For myself, I do not see much difference as to whether a new Commission gets involved in site planning, or whether this is a function, a particular function of the National Capital Planning Commission.

I think those are all the questions I have. Thank you, sir. Mr. RIVERS. I would like to ask a question before yielding further. Mr. Hartzog, I believe you referred to the governmentally connected persons as "public members"-which I think is a term that we ought to define-maybe the seven from the private sector who are going to represent the public should be called public members?

Mr. HARTZOG. We would be pleased to use your terminology. That is the way we have been using it. But I think your words are preferable.

Mr. RIVERS. Continue if you like. Of the 14 you have mentioned you have named department heads who are Cabinet members and some key agency people who are going to have an interest in this enterprise.

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

Mr. RIVERS. Won't the 14 governmental people on this Commission of 21 who are going to share in the coordinating, happen to be among those who are going to have to get coordinated?

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes.

Mr. RIVERS. Does this mean that perhaps the seven people from the private sector might hold the balance of power as between these governmental heads in getting a coordinating job done?

Mr. HARTZOG. I think it is going to be a little of both; yes, sir.
Mr. RIVERS. That will bear thought.

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Carey.

Mr. CAREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hartzog, my line of questioning is meant to develop a different theme, and that is as to whether this proposed Commission has sufficient power and authority to accomplish the job which the American people, I think, have a right to expect of them. As the gentleman from California said, the publicity in the general circulation press and the public prints is that prior to the creation of the original Commission it had been said that the great things were expected here in Washington and thoughout the country in this particular area. I think we have a right to expect great things. To me, in this generation at least, this is probably the first and the only time that we are going to get to do what I think is required here, and that is open-heart surgery on the most significant artery in the country at this time. I am trying to find out if the Commission as proposed in this legislation has sufficient power and authority and capacity and is adequate in terms of architectural and professional advice and staff to take on this job. My fear is that it is not. I find in the legislation a want of power to initiate. If I am correct, section 3 is the sum of the powers of the Commission, and under this all the Commission can do is to review development plans and make such modifications as are necessary. There is no power to initiate. Is that correct?

Mr. HARTZOG. Sir, I think this joint resolution needs to be considered in the context of the National Historic Sites Act in which the Congress has previously expressed itself concerning the national policy that is to govern in the management of these historic sites. Mr. CAREY. I am worried about the power to initiate something new in this area.

Mr. HARTZOG. That is what I am getting at. I think between the National Historic Sites Act, which is operative in this area, and the additional authority which the Congress is proposing to give in Commission-this Commission in terms of coordinating the activities of other Government agencies that have interest here, that it is a viable package, and it is adequate for the job.

Mr. CAREY. I do question that, Mr. Hartzog. I feel there is a want in this legislation of the power to carry on what we feel should be done in this area. I am thinking about here in this context that with the hopeful imminence speaking for myself the hopeful imminence of home rule, this parcel here, this bit of turf, may be the only thing left for us to develop in terms of national implication. And therefore, I feel that this Commission should have national breadth, national scope. I do not think its membership should be reserved, for instance, for people whose interests lie particularly in the District of Columbia.

Mr. HARTZOG. I agree with that.