« 이전계속 »
test for registration; and for keeping the
Board; age qualification for voting fixed at
Columbia government. Board to conduct regis-
or imprisoned 6 months, or both.
issues and on adoption of charter.
17. Same as S. 1527.
17. Contains such a title, providing for initia
tive and referendum on legislative pro-
COMPARISON OF SENATE AND HOUSE BILLS TO PROVIDE FOR HOME RULE AND REORGANIZATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-Con.
H. R. 4981 (Klein)
H. R. 28 (Auchincloss)
H. R. 2505 (Marcantonio)
18. Civil service.
18. Contains no civil-service title.
18. Contains no civil-service title. It was
omitted to shorten the bill.
18. Subjects, with certain exceptions, all District of
Columbia government offices and positions to
ployees and of services by Civil Service Commission.
contract for intergovernmental services at cost, paid
19. Miscellancous provisions.
19. Same as H, R. 28.
19. Substantially the same as S. 1527, with fol
lowing exceptions: Cost of intergovernmental
20. Succession in government.
20. Same as S. 1527.
21. Temporary provisions.
21. Same as S. 1527,
22. Charter referendum.
22. Contains no provision for a charter refer
20. Transfer of functions between agencies to be ac 20. Same as S. 1527.
companied by transfer of property, records, and
Commissioners shall affect its power to function.
cover transition between enactment of bill and
appointed by President, to conduct a popular and write English and proof of domicile in
District expenses. Beginning with fiscal 1952, nual appropriation to District of $1,000,000,
23. Federal contribution.
23. Beginning with fiscal 1952, authorizes
appropriation to District expenses of an
Mr. HARRIS. We are aware of the fact that our esteemed colleague from New Jersey, a member of this committee, has long been an advocate of home rule for the District of Columbia.
Mr. Auchincloss proposed, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Home Rule, in the Eightieth Congress, a rather lengthy and complicated measure, providing home rule. Then during the session of that Congress Mr. Auchincloss reintroduced a bill which was considered by his committee, reported, and for a brief time considered by the House of Representatives, but no final resolution was determined thereon. It became known as H. R. 28, to provide for home rule and reorganization in the District of Columbia, as it was reintroduced by him on January 3, the initial opening of this Eighty-first session of Congress.
We are glad to have our colleague and the author of this legislation before the committee this morning in order that he may explain the proposal for consideration during this session of Congress.
This meeting was called this morning for the purpose of giving opportunity for the authors of these various bills to explain their proposal, particularly the committee would like to hear the original sponsors of home-rule provisions, our colleague, Mr. Auchincloss, and Senator Kefauver, who was a member of the House during the last several Congresses and is now in the Senate of the United States, and who sponsored the bill which passed the Senate a few weeks ago.
At this time we are glad to recognize our colleague, Mr. Auchincloss, to proceed to explain the bill which he proposes, H. R. 28.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS, A REPRESENT
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity,
I would like to suggest that I am not a Communist [laughter] although I am in favor of this bill.
Mr. HARRIS. I might say for the committee at this point we have known you for a long time and have been personally associated with you on this and other committees. You do not need to make such a statement for the benefit of any member of this committee, or in the Congress. As far as I know no one has indicated in any way that you were a Communist. We know you are a good American and an able Member of the Congress.
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman, that statement was made in all good humor.
In my statement this morning, Mr. Chairman, I will first review the history of this legislation; second, outline the main features of the bill; and third, present arguments for a favorable report.
I. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On May 29, 1947, the House of Representatives authorized and directed the Committee on the District of Columbia to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of reorganization and home rule for the District of Columbia, and to report the results to the House with its recommendations. The expenditure of $30,000 was authorized for this purpose and $26,538.15 was actually spent.
Acting through its Subcommittee on Home Rule and Reorganization, the committee carried out the mandate of the House during the Eightieth Congress. With the aid of its professional staff, Dr. George B. Galloway and Mr. Clarence M. Pierce, intensive studies were made of the government and administration of the District of Columbia. These two men devoted their full time for more than a year to work on this legislation and I cannot praise them too highly for their excellent work. Six lawyers on the staff of House legislative counsel worked full time for more than 7 months on this subject and two other lawyers worked on it part-time for 4 months. The subcommittee, of which I had the honor to be chairman, heard testimony for 28 days when experts on local government, representatives of local civic organizations and Members of the House of Representatives appeared and discussed the reorganization of the District government and the question of home rule. The President designated the Director of the Bureau of the Budget as his representative and the testimony of these witnesses may be found in the printed hearings of the committee. Seventy-seven scheduled witnesses appeared before the committee, some of them as many as two or three times; 19 Members of Congress also appeared and 16 written statements were received and embodied in the hearings. At the conclusion of the hearings the subcommittee sought the opinions of experts on municipal government and 20 replies were received which contained detailed suggestions and plans, and in November 1949 the subcommittee issued a preliminary report. Shortly after the publication of this report the subcommittee held many meetings in executive session to consider the points suggested, and the forms of government in other American cities were examined.
In January 1948 the final report of the subcommittee was drawn up and on the basis of this final report a bill, H. R. 4902, was drafted and introduced into the Congress. An identical companion bill, S. 1968, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Joseph H. Ball, and joint hearings of the House and Senate subcommittees were held covering a period of 8 days, 3 of which were all-day sessions. Eighty-two witnesses were heard, of whom 57 testified in favor of the legislation, 11 testified in opposition, while 14 witnesses restricted their comments to specific sections of the bill. Up to the time the hearings were printed the subcommittee had received 35 resolutions of action taken by organized community groups in Washington and of these 29 were generally favorable to the legislation, 4 were in opposition, and 2 were undetermined as to their attitude.
The subcommittee, after considering every suggestion made at the joint hearings, drafted a clean bill, H. R. 6227, which I introduced in the House. The full District Committee considered this bill page by page for about 3 weeks before reporting it out and the Rules Committee inquired into it thoroughly before granting a rule. It was considered by the House in the Committee of the Whole for 2 days and remained unfinished business at the end of the session.
After the adjournment of the Eightieth Congress the subcommittee staff, under my direction, revised the bill H. R. 6227 that had been considered by the House in an effort to simplify it and the result is the bill H. R. 28 introduced by me in the Eighty-first Congress, which is now being considered by the committee.
It can be seen by this historical recital that the question of home rule and the reorganization of the District government has been very