Mr. ABERNETHY. Is there any such thing, with the Constitution as it is, as true home rule in the District of Columbia?

Senator KEFAUVER. There is not; that is right. That is, there is no such thing as true home rule in this District. You can give a greater measure of home rule than is given in many of these bills presented. You can give the same kind of home rule that is given to the Territories, but that is not true home rule because Congress still has the right to accept, reject, or do anything it wants with it.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Then the term "home rule," in my opinion, has been misused more than any other two words around the District of Columbia in the last few years. There is no such thing.

Senator KEFAUVER. That is right; there is no true home rule in the District. I think the term means such home rule as can be given under the Constitution.

Mr. ABERNETHY. So the type of home rule to be given the people of the District of Columbia is something limited, as there is actually no such thing.

Senator KEFAUVER. The type of home rule which would be extended to them under the bills pending before the committee would be by proxy. In other words, the Council would constitute a proxy that would use the legislative functions.

Senator KEFAUVER. It is limited home rule.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is right. The type of home rule which will be extended to them under the bill pending before this committee would be very limited.

Senator KEFAUVER. That is very true.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Not being critical but very sincere, is it your opinion that the people of Tennessee or the people of my State sent us here for the purpose of legislating by proxy for the District of Columbia or for any other segment of our population?

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, Mr. Abernethy, I think the people sent us here primarily to represent our Government and our district. I think they would be very delighted to see us get relieved of the detailed burden of running the District of Columbia; and, let me say further, we have been giving a proxy to some extent all these years anyway. Congress, ever since I can remember, if you want to call it that, has given a proxy. I would say it has delegated ever since I know, right down to the present time, some of the things that have to do with the District of Columbia.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well I cannot agree with the gentleman that we would be relieved of any of the burdens, if they might be called burdens. I do not so regard our duties. I do not know of a man who has resigned from this committee because of such in several years. The facts are that this proxy Council that these bills set up, would consider certain legislation and then send them up to this committee, and this committee would still be charged with the responsibility of considering every word and every particle of punction in each bill, if it carried out its duty; would it not?

Senator KEFAUVER. Here is the way I think it would work.
Mr. ABERNETHY. Wouldn't it?

Senator KEFAUVER. No; I don't think it would give it the same consideration that it gives now.

Mr. ABERNETHY. But we would be shirking our duty if we did not do that.

164

Senator KEFAUVER. I think this is the way it would work: The Territories under the Territorial Acts are now required to submit to committees in Congress having jurisdiction over them every law and ordinance they pass. But in the whole history of our Territorial government, the Congress has never changed one.

Now we have

voted for laws giving the Judicial Conference the right to submit to Congress rules for the Supreme Court and the courts. That is a

proxy.

They are submitted to Congress through the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and the House; and, if they are not vetoed within 6 months, they become law.

What happened in the case of the Judiciary Committee-I served on it for 10 years we have a committee that would consider a matter and study it, and perhaps go over and talk maybe with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; but I don't believe that, in the history of the time we have been doing it, a law has been changed, and that is the way it has been done here. That would eliminate a lot of these matters, say about whether the grass ought to be cut or whether it ought to be sprayed from time to time.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, if any of these bills were passed and the City Council the proxy Council I think it should be called-should pass an ordinance or a regulation, they would still definitely have greater power than this committee.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes; and this would consist of people representing the District. We have no particular interest one way or the other.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Let me develop this just a little bit further. These proxy councilmen that the people would elect consist of how many under the Senate bill?

Senator KEFAUVER. Eleven.

Mr. ABERNETHY. They would meet at the Municipal Building and Councilman X, for example, would propose would you call it an ordinance or legislative act?

Senator KEFAUVER. They would call it an ordinance.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Councilman X would propose an ordinance. They would consider it possibly for a day or two, maybe several days, and then after a vote was taken, probably divided, they would send it up to Capitol Hill. Then the committee of the House and the committee of the Senate both would eventually consider it, if they performed their duty. Then it would go to the White House; would it not?

Senator KEFAUVER. I think it would under the Senate bill.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Now in reality does this not simply add an additional legislative step to the legislative process of the District of Columbia?

Senator KEFAUVER. No; it does not add an additional one. Mr. ABERNETHY. Well it certainly does not take any away. Senator KEFAUVER. The chief difference is that, instead of people considering the thing originally down there being appointed by the President, they would be elected by the people and, the other thing is, they would be given wider jurisdiction. Now I am as sure of this as I am of anything in the world, Tom, that, if the Council renders its part well, we would take the position up here, we would keep our eye on it closely to begin with; but on purely District matters, unless it affected the Federal Government or affected the Federal buildings

that we had an interest in, we would not give it the time and would be more willing to go along with the decisions they make.

Mr. ABERNETHY. But if we believed in real home rule for the people of the District of Columbia, we would have to amend the Constitution. Senator KEFAUVER. It is impossible to give them true home rule without amending the Constitution.

Mr. ABERNETHY. But that is the only way genuine home rule could be delegated to the District of Columbia.

Senator KEFAUVER. That is the only means for full home rule.
Mr. ABERNETHY. That is the issue.

Senator KEFAUVER. I think you are always talking about home rule, but that must mean such home rule as can be under the Constitution.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I cannot get away from the fact that, after all, this is the seat of government, which belongs to the people of the 48 States, and every man, woman, and child who came to the District of Columbia came here because they were either working for the Government or they were going to live off the trade of the people who worked for the Government. Now it is one of the two.

Senator KEFAUVER. That is not altogether true.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well it is true of the majority of the people who come here. The only principal source of income in the District of Columbia is money paid out by the Government, and that is from the 48 States of the Union. Now did the people who hired these Government employees send them here for the purpose of setting up a government within their Government or did they send them here for the purpose of carrying on the functions of our Government?

Senator KEFAUVER. Oh, the people who are appointed and sent here are sent here for the purpose of carrying on the work they were employed to do; but I call your attention, Mr. Abernethy, to the fact that certainly the people who sent them here would not want them, by virtue of the fact that they are sent here, to be denied every iota of privileges that are enjoyed by other citizens; and certainly they would not want their children to have no opportunity to say that, because they were born and grew up here, they were denied the opportunity given every other American citizen. How about children born here? Which States would they enjoy their citizenship in? Mr. ABERNETHY. In the States of their parents.

Senator KEFAUVER. But they would not have a residence there if they were born here.

Mr. ABERNETHY. But this government here belongs to the people of this country and we have a tremendous monetary interest in it. By that I mean they have erected building after building, and every time they put in another building they bring in more people, who in turn spend more money here.

There has been an argument advanced that the Federal Government should make a contribution toward the expenses of the District of Columbia. If we are going to turn the government of the District of Columbia over to the people of the District of Columbia, then do you think there is any obligation on the part of the people of the rest of the country to pay any portion if it?

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes; there is an obligation to pay a contribution.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Personally I don't think there is.

Senator KEFAUVER. For this reason: The Federal Government owns about 50 percent of the property here.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is true.

Senator KEFAUVER. There are streets and services that are all supplied by the District of Columbia government.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is true.

Senator KEFAUVER. Originally the Federal Government's obligation was recognized at 50 percent.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is true, but every time they put up one of those buildings they bring in more people to spend their money here. They must have a place to sleep and another citizen puts up a house or an apartment and rents it to them, or they put up houses and open stores and shops and sell them. So the District secures tax revenue from those sources where otherwise they would not get it.

There are municipal buildings in the counties and towns probably of every member on this committee. There is a municipal building in almost every city in the country. There are not as many as there are here in Washington, but if there is any merit in the Federal Government contributing to the expenses of the District of Columbia because they have Federal buildings here, then there is just as much merit that they should contribute to the municipal expenses of my city, Mr. Harris' city, Mr. O'Hara's city, Mr. McMillan's, and every member of the committee and every man in the room, if they have a Federal building in that town. Do you agree to that?

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, Tom, it is a matter of degree.
Mr. ABERNETHY. I recognize it is a matter of degree.

Senator KEFAUVER. But in no other city is there the amount of federally owned property that there is in this city; and, of course, there has been evidence of that very thing. As a matter of fact, in some cities a good many Government-owned properties pay something in lieu of taxes where they are located.

Mr. ABERNETHY. If you are going to have home rule, let us have true home rule, and at the same time let the home folks pay for it.

Senator KEFAUVER. Of course, they are paying the greater part of it. I think out of a budget now of $98,000,000 that the District of Columbia is raising all but about $12,000,000 out of local taxes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. How many people would come forward and say, "If you will give us this home rule we will pay the whole bill"?

Senator KEFAUVER. I want to say this, that there would be a larger amount collected in taxes if the people here had some franchise and more local government than there is now.

Mr. O'HARA. I have a half a dozen questions. We have a quorum call and I understand we cannot come back because they are reading the bill over for amendment.

Senator KEFAUVER. I want to stay with you just as long as you let me, or I can come back tomorrrow or whenever you want, because I am very much interested. I will be here on time if you want to have a meeting tomorrow. I would be glad to come in the morning, Mr. Chairman, or whenever you want to have another meeting.

There are several angles about this that I would be glad to talk about.

Mr. O'HARA. I would be glad to talk about them.

Mr. HARRIS. I think under the circumstances and after conversing with the members, recognizing of course the fact that some cannot

be here tomorrow but that we want to pursue this matter as best we can, we should meet in the morning at 10:30 o'clock. Could you be back then?

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes, I will arrange to be here.

Mr. HARRIS. I have received a letter today from our colleague, Mr. Klein, who is a member of this committee, addressed to me as chairman of the subcommittee, which reads as follows (reading):

My bill, H. R. 4981, is identical with S. 1527, passed by the Senate on May 31 1949, introduced in the other body by Senator Kefauver.

Senator Kefauver has testified at great length on that bill. I have read his full statement and am in full accord with it. I can add nothing of value, and trust that the subcommittee will report it to the full committee.

I would also like to announce that we have a call from Mr. Marcantonio, author of H. R. 2525, who states that it was not possible for him to be present this morning.

The committee will stand adjourned until 10:30 a. m. tomorrow. (Thereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the committee adjourned, to meet on Wednesday, June 29, 1949, at 10:30 a. m.)