STATEMENT OF HARRY N. STULL, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. STULL. Madame Chairman, my name is Harry N. Stull. I represent the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia. Madame Chairman, my testimony will necessarily have to be very brief because my organization has acted only on the Auchincloss bill and not on this bill. Such a short time has transpired since the introduction of this bill that my organization has not had an opportunity to pass upon the details of this proposed legislation. We have given approval to the Auchincloss bill in principle. That is to say, we favor home rule, and we favor the main principles set out in the Auchincloss bill. With the indulgence of the committee, I would like to have permission to submit to the committee whatever action we may take on the details of this bill, which action will probably be next Saturday night. Senator SMITH. The committee will approve. Mr. STULL. Thank you, Senator. That is all I have to say. Dr. Foreman. STATEMENT OF DR. CLARKE FOREMAN, PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Dr. FOREMAN. Madame Chairman, I am Clarke Foreman, the chairman of the Progressive Party of the District of Columbia. S. 1365, in my opinion, is improperly titled. It does not provide for home rule in the District of Columbia. The Democratic Party has promised the country civil rights, but in its bill for the capital, these civil rights, even in their most basic elements, are ignored. The rights of the proposed Council of the District of Columbia to legislate for the people of the capital are subject to veto by either House of Congress or by the President. In addition, Congress can at any time pass legislation reversing or changing any conditions in the District, regardless of the Council. This is not home rule. It is a travesty on civil rights, and in any other country we would denounce it as totalitarianism. Furthermore, the provisions that every act of the Council must wait for 70 days for a veto before it becomes applicable greatly restricts even the nominal rights of the Council. Congress is not in session continuously, and therefore there would be only about 4 months in the year when the proposed Council could pass legislation. Even emergency legislation seems to be provided for only when Congress is in session. Even such a travesty is, however, better than nothing. The provisions are better than those in the emasculated Auchincloss bill. I would like to urge again the consideration of proportional representation as outlined in the Marcantonio bill, H. R. 2505. From the point of view of civil rights, one aspect of S. 1365 is definitely dangerous. The reorganization on the whole is good, but unless it is protected by some assurance that discrimination will not be continued, we face the prospect of having the employment service, which is now under the President's fair employment practice order, reduced to the conditions of segregation and discrimination which exists in the District government today. The reorganization should definitely be protected by the inclusion of the antidiscriminatory features of H. R. 2505. The inclusion of the referendum before the so-called home rule goes into effect, even if it should be passed by this Congress, does not indicate a real regard for the people of the Capital. Twice the people have voted for home rule. To ask them now to vote for a travesty of home rule is only to embarrass them. Congress does not ask people to approve the taxes it imposes upon them. We are not given a chance to express our opinion on the segregation and discrimination imposed by Congress on the people of the District of Columbia. Why can it consistently be thought that only the granting of such hedged and incomplete democratic rights should be subject to referendum? The logic and sincerity of such a provision is further called into question by the failure of the bill to provide for referendum, initiative, and recall other than for bond issues. The bill does not even grant the people the right to be represented in Congress by a voteless Delegate. We should have these protections; in the name of the District Progressive Party, I ask that the bill live up to its title and provide real democratic rights for the people of our Capital City. Senator SMITH. Thank you, very much, Mr. Foreman. Of course, we all agree that we want all that we can get in home rule, but would you go along with the committee or with those of us on the committee who feel that we are making a pretty good start with this bill if we could get it through Congress? Dr. FOREMAN. Yes. I said, Madame Chairman, I am in favor of this if this is the best we can get, which is what I gather you said, provided only that I do not think we should have reorganization that will reduce the standards we have now. I think it would be better not to have the reorganization in the bill than to take the employment service from the Federal Government, where it is now controlled by a fair employment practice order, and put it in the District order where it will not be. Senator SMITH. Dr. Galloway, have you any questions? Dr. GALLOWAY. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I would like to ask one or two questions of the witness, if I may. From the standpoint of practical politics, since this is primarily a machinery of government bill rather than a civil-rights bill, might it not be more desirable to omit from this legislation any provisions with reference to discrimination, and to rely upon the District Council when it obtains its grant of legislative power to legislate with respect to problems of discrimination in the District of Columbia? Dr. FOREMAN. Well, Dr. Galloway, I thnk there are two aspects to the answer of that question. In the first place, I think civil rights has been entirely too narrowly defined. Civil rights is far greater than just fairness to our minority groups. Civil rights involves democracy, the vote for the people of the Capital is definitely civil rights. Therefore, you cannot eliminate civil rights from such a basically civil-rights bill. That is the first part of the answer. The second part is, I would agree that we want to get it through politically. It has to get through Congress, and we know that Congress is at the present time governed by a reactionary coalition. Therefore, we have to get through something that will not be stalled by that reactionary coalition. But if we have to sacrifice the little that we have already gained in order to get it through, and in itself it is nothing, because the Congress can override anything that the Council does, I would be opposed to it. In other words, I don't think that we should reduce the gains that we have got in order to get a nominal advantage, even though I would like to get that nominal advantage. Dr. GALLOWAY. My second question is simply this. What type of delegation of legislative authority by Congress to the District Council would you advocate? Dr. FOREMAN. I would be in favor of allowing the Council the same kind of rights that we do to any other Territory, with the plain guaranty that Congress can override it at any time if it needs to; but to stall on a 70-day delay and to say that Congress must be in continuous session means that the Council will be impotent a large part of the year. Isn't that true? Dr. GALLOWAY. I understand from your answer, then that you favor a full grant of legislative authority by Congress to the District Council? Dr. FOREMAN. I do, absolutely, within the Constitution, as far as you can go. Dr. GALLOWAY. And thus if such a grant were made, would it not be possible for the Council, having received this full grant of legislative authority on a par with the authority granted by Congress to Territorial governments, subsequently to legislate with respect to economic and social conditions in the District of Columbia? Dr. FOREMAN. It would. And I have confidence that they would, but I do not think that they can under this business, because there is no actual powers given to them. Anything that they do can be stalled for 70 days. They can only function for a small part of the year, and then Congress can override anything they want to do, anything. So, I say it is not home rule. This does not live up to its title. It is only nominal. But it is not a home-rule bill. It is a travesty of home rule. Dr. GALLOWAY. I have no further questions. Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much, Dr. Foreman. Mrs. Gertrude Evans. Mrs. EVANS. I do not care to make a statement now. Senator KEFAUVER. We have your statement of the preceding hearing which will be included. Mr. George Weaver. Will you state who you are representing? STATEMENT OF GEORGE WEAVER, REPRESENTING THE Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I am the assistant to the secretary of the treasury, National CIO. I am also chairman of the committee on legislation for the Washington Industrial Union Council. I would like to express at the outset Senator KEFAUVER. Tell us what the Washington Industrial Union Council is. Mr. WEAVER. The Washington Industrial Union Council is a council of all the local CIO unions in the District recognized by the National CIO as the official spokesman for legislative matters pertaining to the District of Columbia. Of course, as long as those statements are in conformity with the over-all and general CIO policy—— Senator KEFAUVER. Are you speaking for all the CIO unions, then, in the District? Mr. WEAVER. I am speaking for all of the CIO unions that are members of the Industrial Union Council, which is the official body, the official CIO body for the District of Columbia. Senator KEFAUVER. You have a lot of copies of the statement there. Will you pass them around? Mr. WEAVER. I will be very glad to. I am sorry. Senator KEFAUVER. This complies with the Reorganization Act of 1946. Mr. WEAVER. I would like to state at the outset I am very pleased with this opportunity, the first appearance, since I have been chairman of the legislative committee to testify on a measure as important and as basic to our membership in the District of Columbia as the measure pertaining to home rule. The Washington, D. C., CIÓ Industrial Union wishes to express its appreciation for the opportunity to present our general views and policy in support of the principle of home rule and reorganization of the government of the District of Columbia. We find ourselves in the unfortunate position, however, of being able to discuss this most important issue only in the most general manner, due to the immediate scheduling of hearings so soon after the text of S. 1365 was made available to the general public. Unfortunately, we found time too short to allow us the opportunity for detailed analysis of S. 1365 that the importance of the subject matter requires and deserves. Senator KEFAUVER. May I say in that connection, within the next 2 or 3 days, if you would like to submit a more detailed analysis of any sections of the bill, you will have that opportunity. Mr. WEAVER. Thank you. I would like to. However, the manner in which recent proposals for home rule for the District of Columbia have been prepared has greatly lightened the burden for our testimony before you today. The exhaustive testimony and information developed on this subject over the last few years, permits us to endorse S. 1365, which seems to be based on this mass of data. We wish particularly to express approval of the 11 guiding principles enunciated on pages 3 and 4 of the second report of the House subcommittee of the Eightieth Congress. These principles, setting forth the basic guides for establishing a satisfactory system of home rule in the District, along with an efficient governmental machinery, appear to us to encompass the fundamental considerations which the Congress should have before it in passing upon this legislation. We do not intend to elaborate on these principles. However, we do wish to comment, briefly, on several basic matters. In light of the solemn pledge of both major political parties, in the form of their platform commitments to the American people, we doubt that it is necessary to argue at any length that the residents of the District should be granted home rule. We know of no sound argument to justify, particularly at this time, depriving a community of almost 900,000 people of the fundamental democratic right and privilege of selecting their local officials. The population of the District exceeds that of any of the following States: Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. A country which has just passed through the holocaust of a world war to preserve and establish elementary freedoms; a country which now proposes to make a monumental financial effort to save democracy in Europe can scarcely deny to its citizens, in its own capital city, as large a measure of self-government as is possible. Surely, it cannot be said that the residents of the District are not capable of such responsibility. Those who would say so, should have the burden of proving it-and we are not aware of any who have openly assumed or effectively discharged such burden. There are, in addition, what may be considered more practical grounds for ignoring any sentiment adverse to home rule. We believe that for Congress to spend so great a portion of its time on strictly municipal affairs of the District is positively discriminatory against the rest of the people of this country. The Congress is a National Legislature, set up to deal with the problems of all the people on a national basis. When Congress spends so great a proportion of its time as has been required for the conduct of District affairs, it must, obviously, take time away from far more pressing affairs that affect both the Nation and the world. We suggest, if we may be so bold, that the Congress is even remiss in its duties if it continues to fiddle with the municipal affairs of the District while there are burning questions of national and international import which demand its full attention. It is our opinion, consequently, so far as home rule is concerned, that the basic question for the Congress is not, should there be home rule for the District, but what kind of local government should be set up which best incorporates this idea, within constitutional limitations. We believe that the fundamental requirements are: (1) All of the local legislative and administrative functions should be completely under control of the local electorate; (2) the District should have the largest possible degree of participation in the making of laws for the District itself as is permissible under the Constitution. We believe the proposed charter meets these fundamental objectives satisfactorily. Although consideration by the Congress may produce changes in details, we earnestly hope that there will be no reduction in the degree of home rule proposed in the pending bill. In conclusion, we wish to emphasize our opinion that S. 1365 seems to be a good bill, and we are desirous of being recorded in support of same. We would also like, in line with the chairman's statement, to submit a detailed statement after a close analysis of the bill. But from our rather hasty study of the bill, we feel that we can, and we do, endorse and support it. Senator KEFAUVER. If there is no objection on the part of the committee, we will allow you and anyone else who has testified, who feels |