ably be anticipated with respect to District of Columbia voting representation in the Congress.

But before the States can have the opportunity to ratify such an amendment, granting voting representation to 700,000 citizens of the District of Columbia, a proposal must of course be approved by a two-thirds majority in the Congress.

The first step has been taken. The House has already acted. Now it is our turn.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to expeditiously and favorably take the necessary second step in the amendment process.

I thank you.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Senator Brooke. I appreciate your presence as well as the very eloquent statements you have made supporting the need for this kind of representation.

I understand that you are supposed to be in the markup session of another committee.

Senator BROOKE. That is correct.

Senator SCOTT. I would like to pose one question, Mr. Chairman. First let me compliment my colleague for his excellent presentation. I am not in agreement with a measure of what the Senator said, but he certainly well represents the position.

The Senator might be interested in knowing that I cast my first vote in the District of Columbia. I turned 21 in 1936 and did vote for the President at that time, but it was an absentee vote, of

course.

I wonder if the Senator knows what percentage of people of the District of Columbia do vote in the States. Do you have any idea? We speak of the number of people in the District, yet we are sure that some of them vote back in their home States. I do not have any idea as to what percentage that would be?

Senator BROOKE. I cannot help you, Senator Scott. Frankly, I do not know how many residents of the District actually vote in different States.

But I do know that persons who are residents of the District cannot stand for elective office, cannot be elected to the House of Representatives, and cannot be elected to the Senate of the United States.

If I had stayed in my own home town, as many people like to do, and I may have wanted to do, I would never have been elected to the U.S. Senate. Now, the distinguished Senator from Virginia might think that might not be the worse thing. We do not always agree on issues.

Senator SCOTT. If you had stayed here, you might have had my seat.

Senator BROOKE. I could not think of anything better, Senator. [Laughter.]

I love Virginia, as the Senator very well knows. Both of my parents are from Virginia-one from Petersburg and one from Fredericksburg.

But I was born in the Nation's Capital, and it just goes against my grain that I would not have been able to be elected to the U.S. Senate had I stayed in the District of Columbia where I was born.

I had to go to Massachusetts. I guess I am a sort of carpetbagger in reverse. But that is something that all residents of the District

of Columbia would have to do if they aspired to serve as a voting Representative in the House or in the Senate.

I think that is a great tragedy, quite frankly. I know there are young men and women in Washington, D.C., who have the qualifications, who could well serve this Nation in its Congress. Therefore, I so strongly advocate the passage of this legislation.

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am most grateful to the Senator for appearing and expressing his views.

Let me just ask this question.

Senator BROOKE. If I may, Senator Scott, I have been handed a note. I did not see the person who handed it to me, but I will at least give you the benefit of their thinking. 50,000 residents in the District vote at home. A large percentage of those have the option; 300,000 who live here register.

Senator SCOTT. You mean that 50,000 vote by absentee vote? Senator BROOKE. I presume that is what this means.

Senator SCOTT. Let me ask you this. Do you believe-and perhaps this is an opinion-that home rule for the District, where citizens vote for the Mayor and the Council and thereby declare themselves to be residents in the District would cause the number who vote in their home States to be detracted, or do you think some who vote in their home States could also vote in local elections in the District?

Senator BROOKE. I see nothing inconsistent with voting for Federal officials and voting for local officials. In my own State I do the same. I am sure the Senator from Virginia does. I am domiciled there, of course.

But if they were domiciled here, I would presume they would be voting then for local officials and hopefully two U.S. Senators and Representatives-however many-in the House.

Senator SCOTT. At the present time they could not lawfully live in two places.

Senator BROOKE. No; you have to make a choice between the two. Senator SCOTT. Thank you very much.

Senator BROOKE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator BAYH. We appreciate very much your presence here. Thank you again.

Our next witness this morning is our distinguished colleague from Idaho, Senator James McClure.

Senator McClure?

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief observation.

I have a copy of the testimony of the Senator from Idaho, and it is good to see someone here who does not entertain the same point of view as my other colleagues.

Senator BAYH. I want to point out that all of our colleagues were invited to be with us this morning. We appreciate Senator McClure's being here.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES A. McCLURE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Senator MCCLURE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Scott. Mr. Chairman, the question of granting representation privileges to the District of Columbia has been going on for many years. It is

important that I state in the beginning that I am not opposed to the residents of the District of Columbia being allowed fair representation. My concern is what is fair and that we do not overcompensate by changing from no representation to overrepresentation. I believe there are three possible alternatives on how the District should receive proper representation. First, let us briefly examine the provisions in the bill, Senate Joint Resolution 65, to see how beneficial it really is.

House Joint Resolution 554 recently passed the House and is currently in the Senate as Senate Joint Resolution 65. It proposes to allow the District of Columbia to have the same representation in Congress as if "it were a State."

Senate Joint Resolution 65 simply does not deal with the special relationship between the District of Columbia and Congress, or the dilemma_that the District is simply not prepared or structured to act as a State.

In 1971, after six bills and a 22-year battle, home rule for the District of Columbia was approved. The legislation gave the District the power to elect a Mayor and an 11-member City Council that would be responsible for running the city. Home rule set the annual Federal payment to the city at a fixed percentage of the District's revenues.

This legislation was a compromise that was not satisfactory, then or now, to anyone. It may be "home rule" but it ignores Congress role in the District's operation. Congress is still responsible for the budget and appropriations, and it has the power to veto any Council decision.

Without the power and authority to appropriate money and veto power in another body of Government, the City Council cannot serve as a State legislature.

Since the District does not have a State legislature, the District of Columbia City Council is forced to fill that role. With enactment of this bill, the decision would have to be made as to whether or not the City Council could function in that capacity.

In any event, the Congress would still maintain absolute control through exercising its constitutional rights to veto all the actions of the City Council.

Congress would still be responsible for deciding the budget and appropriations of the District. The Congress would be in the business of serving as the Federal Government for the Nation and the State legislature for the District of Columbia.

On the other hand, if the Congress decides not to allow the City Council the ability of serving as the State legislature, then the residents of the District would be permitted to approve or disapprove by referendum the ratification of all constitutional amendments such as the pending ERA amendment.

The District would be participating in constitutional privileges that other States do not enjoy. Until we are prepared to grant the powers of a State to the District, we should not grant representation to the District as though it were a State.

The second alternative is to form the non-Federal land in the District into a State, giving it all the rights and privileges that any other State has. Since the United States is a federation of States,

the responsibility and privileges of representation comes in being a State.

However, I believe that there would be strong opposition from the rest of the country.

Surprisingly, as the capital of the country, many considerations have to be taken on how the rest of the Nation views this city.

There are specific and unique rules, regulations, and codes that have been created to maintain the city, its monuments, and buildings. The people throughout the Nation do not know, or necessarily care, how the system works, but they do have an idea what our capital should be.

The District does not have the diversity that other cities or States have. It is a "company town" with virtually everyone here working for the Federal Government or in a job that is trying to influence the Federal Government.

Take into consideration that the Federal Government employs 38.3 percent of those working in the District and the supporting industries, so closely tied to the Federal Government, employs 25.2 percent. Trends show an ever-increasing domination by the Federal Government.

When the Federal City was being established by the Constitution, it was agreed that the District of Columbia residents would not be allowed to vote. In those days it was believed that such a practice would constitute a conflict of interest. Today, statistics alone would tend to prove this is true.

Consider the unique position the representatives elected from the District would be in. They would be the Federal Government representing the Federal Government. A Senator from the District would be under no compulsion to consider the needs of any other competing interest because there are no other interests in his constituency.

The Constitution set aside the capital as an area with exclusive Federal jurisdiction. During the earliest debates, it was decided that our National Capital be neither the capital of a State nor a large commercial city. Instead, it was designated to be a city within its own premises and within its own control. The city has become what it was not supposed to be-a large commercial city.

The District has a large population, but sadly enough, the residency consists largely of people who live and work here but maintain close ties to home States and continue to vote there.

A variation might be to authorize District residents to vote for Maryland Senators and Representatives, but to retain District of Columbia jurisdiction status. Whether or not this could be accomplished short of a constitutional amendment is problematical. However, it is a constitutional amendment which this committee has before it, and with a slight altering of the resolutions wording this could be accomplished.

The final alternative is to return the District's non-Federal land to Maryland, like Virginia did in 1846. This would make the District residents into Marylanders who would have voting rights and representation by Maryland's Senators and Congressmen.

With the approving vote of the Congress and the Maryland legislature, the 62 square mile residential area would no longer be part of the District. The Federal property, including buildings, monu

ments, and parks, would be untouched and continue to exist as the District of Columbia, protected by Congress and the Executive, just as they are now.

In all likelihood, both the U.S. Congress and the State of Maryland would have to approve any proposed annexation of the District of Columbia to Maryland.

Article 4, section 3, of the Constitution provides that while: new States may be admitted by Congress into this Union, any State. • formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States (must have) the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

There is a bit of an open question as to whether the District of Columbia can be classified "a part of the State." Nevertheless, article 4, section 3, seems clearly designed to insure that any alteration in territories of existing States should be approved by all of the States involved, in addition to Congress.

There is, of course, Mr. Chairman, the possibility that this could be accomplished by an amendment to the Constitution that would not, therefore, be constrained by the provisions of the existing Constitution.

It is incomprehensible that just because an area called the District of Columbia does not have representation, it should be given special consideration and receive the privilege of representation with the responsibilities that the other States assume.

Again, I am not opposed to the District residents receiving representation, but the proposal before the committee is not fair to the Nation or to the District.

It would be very logical, based on this legislation, to give every city of equal size the same representation rights as are given to the District. Would any of us seriously advocate statehood for Indianapolis, San Antonio, or Pittsburgh?

I would like to indicate to the committee now that if this legislation proceeds, as is very likely, I will prepare and introduce an amendment which would grant senatorial and congressional representation to all cities with populations equal to or greater than that of the District of Columbia.

It does not seem to me logical to expect that the citizens of this city would have more representation than the cities of New York, or Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, Houston, Baltimore, Dallas, San Antonio, San Diego, and Indianapolis.

Unlike the District of Columbia, many of these cities are burgeoning areas with expanding populations. Unlike the District, these cities have not been set aside for Federal Government favoritism with respect to the location of national monuments and treasures, the establishment of employment opportunities through creation of enormous Federal agencies, and the granting of special appropriations designed to make up for the city's operating deficit. It would seem to me that these larger, more populous, more rapidly expanding, less politically favored entities are in need of political dispensation much more urgently than the District, which to this day has a special committee to the House of Representatives to look out for its interests. What other city in the United States has such a committee?

If the sole import of article 5, "which deprives States of their equal suffrage in the Senate," is that no person should be allowed