to vote for more than two senatorial seats, then my amendment would be perfectly acceptable, as residents of New York, Dallas, San Diego, and Houston would no longer be able to vote for Senators and Representatives in their parent States.

If, on the other hand, the principle of article 5 is that entities which do not function like States in all respects cannot be allowed to dilute the jurisdiction of States in the Senate, then Senate Joint Resolution 65 fails as well as my amendment.

I believe that the best proposal is to return the non-Federal District land to Maryland, thus allowing the former District residents to be represented by the elected Senators and Congressmen from Maryland. This would keep the District of Columbia's monuments, parks, and buildings as they are now, without destroying the area that is generally known and considered to be the District. I do not think that the committee's bill will solve the problem of District representation. It will only create new inequities.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that there is one other possibility. That is that the residents of the District might be permitted to vote, as was pointed out by Senator Brooke, as they had prior to 1800, within the State from which the District was created originally. At that time it was the States of Virginia and Maryland. At this time, since the Virginia portion of the District was vacated by congressional action and the action of the State of Virginia in 1846, it would only be the State of Maryland. That is a possibility and might be thought to be the preferable course.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Senator McClure. I appreciate your taking the time to let us have your thoughts.

Of course, if you desire to introduce such an amendment, this committee would be glad to consider it. I doubt very much if the people of Pittsburgh or San Antonio or Indianapolis would come here to testify in support of it.

Senator MCCLURE. They might because they would get two Senators all of their own.

Senator BAYH. There is one interesting difference. I cannot speak for the people of San Antonio or Pittsburgh, but I can speak for the people of Indianapolis. I represent them. They do have someone here in this body to represent them.

Senator MCCLURE. Of course they do. I doubt, however, whether even that articulate spokesman for the people of Indianapolis would say that he speaks solely for Indianapolis.

Senator BAYH. This Senator does not attempt to suggest that. I would like to point out that there is a unique difference between the people of your Capital City and mine and the people of the Nation's Capital.

I think the Senator from Idaho misconstrues what we are trying to accomplish here. We are not trying to accomplish statehood. We are trying to give the people of the District a right to vote on the national issues and still preserve the very special qualities of the Nation's Capital.

I tend to read into the Senator's testimony the recognition of the fact that he is at least concerned that the people of the District are not now represented in Congress. Is that accurate?

Senator MCCLURE. I agree with the Senator on that statement.

Whatever the argument may have been at the outset-that there would be a conflict of interest between those who were directly affiliated with the Federal Government voting on Federal policies-it has long since ceased to be a valid reason.

We all know that the majority of the people who work for the Federal Government at the Nation's Capital live in the States of Maryland and Virginia, and there is no effort to disenfranchise them because they happen to work for the Federal Government. I think there are 63 million Americans now who receive, in whole or in part, their income from the Federal Government, in one form or another. There is no suggestion that those 63 million Americans forfeit their right to vote.

So I am concerned that the people who live here do not have the opportunity to vote on Representatives in both the House and the Senate.

The question I have concerns this. Let us not correct that inequity-the failure to give them the right to vote-by giving them the unique right to vote for Representatives in a more direct way than the citizens of other cities and States have.

Senator BAYH. I find it difficult to see how we are dealing with any special right.

Senator MCCLURE. Well, the people of Indianapolis today vote for a Senator. They are represented by two Senators in this Congress. They share those Senators with all the rest of the people of the State.

We are saying that here the residents of this one city will have Senators all by themselves, shared by no one else, speaking only for the residents of the District of Columbia.

Again, I think it is anomalous in the extreme to suggest that the residents in the District of Columbia must be enfranchised to an extent that is greater than the representation of the people of New York.

Senator BAYH. But we are not enfranchising the people of the District because they live in a city. We want to enfranchise them because they happen to be 750,000 American citizens who do not have representation in the Congress.

That happens to be more than the population of your own State, but they do not have a voice at all.

Senator MCCLURE. Not quite. My State is slightly more populous than that.

Senator BAYH. You must have grown since the 1970 census. Senator McCLURE. We have indeed. We view that with mixed emotions. There are too many people from the District of Columbia, and Indiana, and other places that want the benefits of living in my State.

Senator BAYH. Fortunately, they have the benefit of being represented in the Senate of the United States. The people in the District do not.

If you get a chance, I wish you would look at Mr. Harmon's testimony from the Justice Department. He dealt with some of those concerns you have about reserving the nature and quality of the District of Columbia. That very nature which would serve all of the people and, at the same time, be able to give them the rights

and privileges of the people in Boise, and Terre Haute, and everywhere else.

Senator MCCLURE. Again, Mr. Chairman, I think they ought to have the right to vote for representation in both the House and the Senate. To me, the most logical and direct way to do that is to correct whatever error was made at the time the District was formed and the implementing legislation which was passed later that deprived them of that right and removed them from their right to vote within the State of Maryland.

We can restore that right-not create a new one-which they enjoyed before the action was taken which took the District from the State of Maryland.

Senator BAYH. You understand that the Constitution prescribed that if that is to happen, the people of the State of Maryland will have to concur?

Senator MCCLURE. That is what the Constitution says, but I suspect if a constitutional amendment is adopted that says otherwise, the later amendment would control.

Senator BAYH. You are saying we could amend the Constitution? Senator MCCLURE. Yes. As a matter of fact, it is being debated on the floor right now. You can amend the Constitution by passing a treaty.

Senator BAYH. I suggest we not get involved in that one. [Laughter.]

Senator MCCLURE. You think this is enough of a problem to try to solve?

Senator BAYH. I think we should confine ourselves to that which we can reasonably attempt to accomplish.

Thank you very much, Senator McClure.

Senator MCCLURE. You are very welcome, Mr. Chairman. Senator BAYH. Our next witness is our distinguished colleague from the State of Maryland, Senator Charles McC. Mathias.

Senator Mathias, we appreciate your being with us. You are a member of this committee and have labored through this subject in the past. Therefore, it is appropriate that you are here today. TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Senator MATHIAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very happy to be here today, and I want to congratulate you on your very prompt scheduling of this hearing.

I have prepared some remarks, but as I have sat here and listened to the preceding witnesses, it occurs to me that perhaps the most useful thing I can do is to comment on some of the pro and con arguments that have been made.

So I will submit my formal statement for the record, if that is agreeable to the committee.

Senator BAYH. Without objection, it is so ordered. Your statement will appear in the record.

Senator MATHIAS. I think we have made signal progress in this matter. Both the proponents and opponents of the amendment, as pending, can agree that it is wrong for 700,000 citizens living in the District of Columbia not to be able to vote for representation in the Congress. That seems to be generally agreed at this point.

That has not always been the case, as the Chairman well remembers. There have been those who would make the case that it was perfectly all right to deprive the citizens of the District of the right to vote.

So I think we have made immeasurable progress when we have everyone agreeing that it is wrong to deny the citizens of the District the right to vote, and that it is a desirable object in some way to make sure that they have the same rights of representation that every other American has.

Of course, it is misleading to say that this amendment should not be adopted because the District is not ready to function as a State. As the Chairman knows, that is not the issue. The District is not intended to function as a State.

But that does not go to the rights of its citizens to be represented in the national legislature.

The reason the District of Columbia is set up as it is is buried in one of the unhappier chapters of American history. During the inflationary troubled times succeeding the close of the Revolutionary War, the American Army stationed in Philadelphia mutinied, and the Congress meeting in Philadelphia felt threatened by a mob of mutinous soldiers who were complaining about the low pay and the worthless moneys with which they were paid.

The Congress felt that neither the mayor of Philadelphia nor the Governor of Pennsylvania had adequately given the Congress the kind of protection from this mob pressure that the Congress needed in order to deliberately arrive at decisions that were important to the whole Nation.

So, then and there, in the minds of those Members of Congress, some of whom later became delegates to the Constitutional Convention, a resolve was made that at no time should a municipal government or a State government be interposed between the American people and the Congress at the seat of Government. The way to accomplish that, of course, was to establish a Federal district-the District of Columbia-in which the Federal jurisdiction would be supreme, in which Congress would retain the exclusive legislative authority.

So we are not talking about destroying that historic relationship of the Congress to the District of Columbia. It is not a State; it will not be a State; it should not be a State.

What we are talking about is the granting of the right to vote for representation in the national legislature to over 700,000 Americans. That is the issue. The exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government, the constitutional supremacy of the Congress, would not be disturbed. It would merely allow the people who live in the District to participate in the exercise of that constitutional grant of legislative power, by electing their own representatives to the Congress.

I must confess to you, Mr. Chairman, my perception of this problem has been one I have acquired very gradually. When I first came to the Congress I did not have a clear picture of home rule for the District or equal representation for the District.

I rather slowly have moved to the position that I now hold. I have thought it out, step by step, and I have finally concluded that

there is no way in which you can hold people in less than full possession of their civil rights and still call them full citizens. Clearly, the people who lived in the territories under the jurisdiction of the United States-most of which have now become States-were not 100 percent American citizens. They may have been American nationals. They may have lived under the American flag. They may have fought in the U.S. Army or Navy, but they did not have all the rights of a citizen of one of the States. The citizens of the District are somewhat akin to the territorials of the past. They cannot be said to be full citizens. I do not think you can have a fractional citizen-a half citizen, or a three-quarters citizen, or a two-thirds citizen. If we want these people to be considered as full citizens, and more importantly to look upon themselves as full citizens, I think you have to give them the rights of citizens, which is, of course, to grant them the right to vote for representation in the national legislature.

Since the question of retrocession to Maryland has been raised today, I think I need to say a word about that.

The important thing to remember is that there is no parallel between the retrocession to Virginia which took place in the 1840's and any retrocession to the State of Maryland in the future.

When the retrocession to Virginia took place, the portions of the District of Columbia which lay south of the Potomac River were considered excess to the Federal Government.

The first steps in founding the city of Washington had been slow, painful, and expensive. Pennsylvania Avenue lay deep in mud for decades. People were slow to move to the Capital City. So it was concluded that it would be utterly fatuous to think that the city of Washington would ever need those territories lying south of the river.

There was Alexandria on that side, but beyond that there were farms and swamps, woods, and it was ridiculous to think that that would ever be necessary for the Federal City.

So this unnecessary land was retroceded to Virginia because the painful first steps in founding this national capital had led people to believe that it would never grow into that area.

Now, retroceding the whole city of Washington today, of course, is a very different kind of thing. I would caution against drawing any historical parallels between retrocession to Virginia to potential retrocession to Maryland.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I cannot take seriously the argument that if you give Washington full representation in the national legislature every other major metropolitan area of like size or larger would gain the same right to be represented in Congress.

We are not talking now about geographic area. We are talking about people. We are talking about a population which happens to live in a fairly concentrated area, but which is larger than the population of many of the sovereign States which are represented in both Houses of the Congress.

Every other city in this country helps to elect Members of the Senate, helps to elect Members of the House of Representatives. No other city in the country has the same historic basis for a special relationship with the Federal Government.