It should be noted that the constitutional provision providing for the establishment of the District of Columbia is the same provision which gives Congress "like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." Residents of those Federal reservations may vote in the States where those reservations are located, and the constitutional provision being identical, there is no reason why District residents should not be accorded the same privilege.

The Fourth alternative can be accomplished by a change in statutory law. Based upon the Constitutional provisions relating to the District and Federal reservations, it seems clear that retroceding to Maryland any elements of sovereignty which might distinguish the District of Columbia from other Federal reservations is an action which could be accomplished by statute and which would offend no constitutional principle. As is well known the portion of the District which had been granted by Virginia was retroceded to that state in 1846. As Representative Charles E. Wiggins pointed out in his separate dissenting views on H.J. Res. 280 in the 94th Congress, it seems unlikely that any adjacent State to which such retrocession applies would be required to consent to such action.

The Fourth alternative need not result in the loss of the special character of Washington, D.C. as our nation's Federal City.

As contrasted with proposals to admit the District as a fifty-first state, or to retrocede to Maryland all of the geographical area of the District, with the possible exclusion of a federal enclave, this proposal would continue to provide the constitutional powers and responsibility of the Congress to continue to legislate with respect to the District of Columbia, with a few elements of sovereignty such as drawing the boundaries of Congressional Districts, retroceded to the State of Maryland.

Under its retained powers and responsibilities, Congress could, of course, continue to develop the principles of home rule which it has initiated.

The Fourth alternative would provide voting representation in a manner that would be fair to the residents of the District, and to all of the citizens of each of the 50 states.

At the outset it should be emphasized that it is not enough that a proposal be ultimately fair. It must be practical and obtainable as well. Considering the hazards and uncertainties of ever accomplishing the desirable goal of enfranchising District residents by Constitutional amendment led our distinguished colleague, Representative Elizabeth Holtzman to urge, in supplemental views to H.J. Res. 280, this Committee to explore the possibility of providing the District of Columbia with representation through the normal legislative process, as recommended by Representatives Hungate, Butler, Kindness, and myself during the 94th Congress.

A statutory proposal can be quickly prepared and adopted. It could be modified if modifications should be required, but this approach would automatically adjust the voting representation of the residents of the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives in accordance with population, and it would afford residents of the District an impact upon the selection of Senators without diluting the representation in the Senate from each of the 50 states.

For the above reasons, I ask that the Committee develop legislation to accomplish the important goal of enfranchising residents of the District of Columbia in a prompt, fair, and workable manner through the legislative process.

Mr. THORNTON. Among the several alternatives which have been discussed in providing voting representation for the residents of the District of Columbia are, first, that the District might be admitted as a 51st State, or second, that a constitutional amendment might be proposed and adopted to grant to the residents of the District voting rights to elect Members to the House of Representatives and possibly Members of the Senate. Some distinction can be made between the two bodies for the purpose of that amendment.

A third suggestion which has been made periodically in the past is that the District of Columbia might be retroceded to the State of Maryland, either totally, or carving out a small Federal enclave which would presumably be uninhabited, and then the residents of the retro

ceded portion would be citizens of the State of Maryland entitled to all voting rights of citizens of any State.

There are obvious arguments which the committee is well familiar with, both for and against each of these proposals.

The first and second options have the disadvantage of being cumbersome and slow, dependent upon either a constitutional amendment or a similarly slow process of admission of the District of Columbia as a State.

It has even been suggested that if a constitutional amendment is adopted that unanimous consent might be required to permit a nonState to elect Members of the Senate.

The first and third options, that is, admission as a State or retrocession of the territory to Maryland, would destroy the unique character of Washington, D.C. as a Federal city.

There is, I think, a fourth alternative, which I discussed briefly with members of the committee at the time we were working on this problem at the end of the 94th Congress and which I would like to reemphasize today:

That fourth alternative would, I believe, meet constitutional standards. It is possible to accomplish it by changing statutory law. It need not result in a loss of the special character of Washington, D.C. as our Nation's Federal city, and it would expedite providing voting representation in a manner that would be fair to the residents of the District and to all citizens of each of the 50 States.

This fourth alternative is to retrocede to Maryland the rights of District residents to vote in Maryland elections, at least for Federal representation.

Now in order to understand this alternative, you have to consider that sovereignty can be divided, not only geographically, but also by function, and that it is not necessary to have a geographical retrocession of all rights, but that it is possible to retrocede certain aspects of sovereignty and to make the division, not according to boundary lines drawn on a map, but upon the boundary lines drawn upon a list of rights and privileges so that those rights and privileges which relate to voting can be retroceded to Maryland, while maintaining the existence of Washington, D.C. as a national city.

I would like to suggest that this fourth alternative will meet constitutional standards because the Constitution doesn't contain any language forbidding voting representation to District residents. As a matter of fact, it is well known by the members of this committee that Maryland admitted the District of Columbia residents to vote in their elections in 1800.

I have been unable to find any language in the Constitution or in the court decisions concerning the status of the District which precludes their voting in Maryland elections now.

The disenfranchisement stems from a negative inference that the provisions of article I and the 17th amendment, which provides for the election of Senators from each of the several "States," by silence excluded from voting rights any U.S. citizens who were not then residents of a particular State.

However, those provisions in article I, sections 2 and 3, and the 17th amendment, are not the only constitutional provisions which are relevant to the status of the District of Columbia in the Federal system.

I think it very important that the committee consider article I, section 8, clause 17, which gives to the Congress :

The power to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may be Cession of particular States and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

What I am trying to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, is that the same constitutional provision which relates to the exclusive legislative authority of the Congress over the District of Columbia, also applies to each of the military installations, the forts, the arsenals, the bases, which belong to the United States, in the several States throughout the country. I want to remind members of this committee that the residents who live on those Federal installations are counted for census purpose and are entitled to vote in the elections of the State in which those Federal facilities are located.

In essence, Mr. Chairman, what I am suggesting is that this committee could retrocede to the State of Maryland all the rights and appurtenances of sovereignty, which distinguish the District of Columbia from other Federal installations, leaving the same powers with the Federal Government as apply to an air base, a military installation, a fort or an arsenal.

This would allow the Congress to continue to exercise the legislative authority provided for in the same article which applies to both the District and other Federal establishments, and to grant such things as home rule to the citizens.

The advantage of this is that it can be done quickly by statute. The census would operate to provide at least two new representatives who could be elected by the people of this District, if this statutory provision were adopted. It could be done more quickly than any constitutional amendment could ever accomplish the same purpose.

And the residents of the District would have a significant impact upon the selection of Senators from the State of Maryland.

I want to earnestly ask this committee to give careful consideration to the possibility of accomplishing this needed reform by simple and positive statutory change.

If it is necessary to have a constitutional amendment then certainly the objective of achieving voting rights is sufficient to warrant that step. But a constitutional amendment is slow and cumbersome. It will be difficult to gain acceptance.

And I would like to earnestly ask that you give consideration to accomplishing this by the statutory means which I have described. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. That is a very ingenious theory. Do you have any doubts about its constitutionality?

Mr. THORNTON. I have carefully reflected on this, and there are arguments as to how divisible sovereignty is. But I think that carefully drawn legislation to change the character of the District of Columbia to that which is similar to a fort or an arsenal could be enacted and would be sustained by the courts.

Mr. VOLKMER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.

Mr. VOLKMER. I question the analogy you draw between the exclusive legislative power the Congress has over forts, arsenals and other Government installations and its legislative exclusive power over the District.

As I understand it, a fort or arsenal has usually been acquired by the Federal Government subsequent to the time the State becomes a State, and the fort or arsenal although owned by the Federal Government, remains a part of that State. The District, however, is property which was ceded to the Federal Government by the State of Maryland and is no longer part of Maryland.

Is such a distinction significant to your theory?

Mr. THORNTON. Well, if I may respond to that: I believe that the District of Columbia, as it now exists, was originally a part of the State of Maryland.

Mr. VOLKMER. Yes.

Mr. THORNTON. The act of cession did occur after the State of Maryland was a State and is a variation of the method by which Federal lands are acquired with the consent of the legislature of the State for purposes of arsenals.

I should also emphasize that the conclusion that you can do this by statute has been precedented by the action in 1846 of retroceding to the State of Virginia all that portion of the District which had been granted by Virginia.

Mr. VOLKMER. Therefore, you would retrocede to Maryland voting rights?

Mr. THORNTON. That is correct.

Mr. VOLKMER. Under your theory, are you retroceding more than voting rights? It seems to me, there is a two step process: you retrocede to Maryland the geographical area of the District of Columbia, and then in the same act retain Federal properties therein.

Mr. THORNTON. The retrocession would not be of geographical area. It would not be a total retrocession, but rather a retrocession of certain aspects of sovereignty.

It could be done as you described, by retroceding all and retaining part-in other words, you would suggest retroceding everything except what is retained. It might be that that would be the suitable way of describing the mechanism for change.

Mr. VOLKMER. Rather than doing it your way and saying we are going to retrocede the right to vote in congressional elections in the State of Maryland.

Mr. THORNTON. The question is: Which way would more appropriately describe the rights which are retroceded? One way would be to affirmatively list the rights which are retroceded and say we are retroceding those rights. The other would be to say we are retroceding all rights except those which are retained by the United States in the military arsenals, forts, et cetera, which are found throughout the United States.

Mr. VOLKMER. Thank you very much.

Mr. EDWARDS. How does this work for elections of Senators.

Mr. THORNTON. For the Senators you would have the population of approximately 750,000, approximately, of the District of Columbia who would be eligible to vote in the senatorial elections of Maryland.

This population would have a significant impact upon the selection of Senators from that State.

After one election, the Senators who would represent the State of Maryland would be very cognizant of their constituency within the District of Columbia. This would have the effect, also, of not diluting the representation in the Senate and thereby making it easier for a legislation like this to pass that body.

Mr. EDWARDS. Of course, under the one-person, one-vote rule, the two Members of the House of Representatives would not necessarily come from Washington, D.C.

Mr. THORNTON. That's correct. The redistricting lines would be drawn by the State of Maryland. In districting, it would be possible to either form the two districts as metropolitan districts in which the representatives would be clearly responsive to the voting constituency within the city, or you could have districts which reached into the city and into rural areas.

However, in looking at the makeup of population in this area, it would seem to me that any effort to subdivide the city and carry parts of the city out into the surrounding communities would result in the residents of the District of Columbia not electing just two representatives, but probably having a majority vote in three of four representative elections.

So I think it most likely to the districting which would be accomplished would be according to metropolitan lines.

Mr. McCLORY. The problem that bothers me is this:

How do we establish these congressional districts? If we are going to establish congressional districts on the basis of a State legislature elected by voters from the State of Maryland without the participation of voters in the District of Columbia who are granted only the right to vote in the national elections, it seems to me that we are going to be confronted with a virtually insurmountable problem.

I would question that the Congress by legislation could grant voting rights to persons to vote in State legislative bodies.

Mr. THORNTON. My suggestion was that the voting rights be retroceded to the State of Maryland for Federal elections. However, I think it would be very difficult, once that retrocession occurs, for the State of Maryland not to permit voting of citizens of the District of Columbia for State elections as well.

With regard to the other question, Mr. McClory, I can only suggest that in my view the proposal is one that can be accomplished by statute, and I recognize that there might be an argument as to whether it could be done that way.

But I think the language of the Constitution, because this negotiation of voting rights is only inferentially drawn, and because deprivation of voting rights certainly is counter to the whole body of thought in the United States, legal presumptions would tend to validate a statute designed to accomplish the worthwhile objective of granting voting rights.

Mr. MCCLORY. If the Chairman would yield.

If I understand your position, it is not that the Congress should by legislation grant voting rights to these persons who are in the retroceded area to vote for members of the State Legislature of the State of Maryland. We would assume that if the right to vote in the