21

(B) not be construed to include any area situated

outside of the District of Columbia boundary as it ex-
isted immediately prior to the date of the enactment of
this Act, nor be construed to include any portion of the
Anacostia Park situated east of the northern side of the

Eleventh Street Bridge, or any portion of the Rock
Creek Park.

HR 325 IH

SECTION BY SECTION OUTLINE

H. R. 325

A Bill to provide for the admission of the State of
New Columbia into the Union

SECTION 4

SECTION 5

Short Title - "New Columbia Admission Act."

Sets forth declaration that the State of New Columbia is a State of the United States and is admitted into the Union on an equal basis with all other States.

The declaration is conditioned upon the President of the United States issuing a proclamation (provided for in Section 7(d)(1) of this Act) finding that the voters in the District of Columbia have adopted the following propositions (found in Section 7(c)(1) of this Act):

(A) That New Columbia shall be admitted
into the Union.

(B) That the Boundaries as described in
this Act shall be the boundaries of
the State of New Columbia.

(C) That the provisions of this Act are
fully consented to by the people of
New Columbia.

Provides that the Constitution of New Columbia shall always be Republican in form and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

- Establishes the boundaries of New Columbia
as consisting of the territory and waters of
the District of Columbia, including the
District Building, but excluding the National
Capital Service Area (the National Capital
Service Area is described in Section 16).

- Provides that New Columbia surrenders all
right and title to lands not granted to the
State and preserves existing claims against
the United States. Further provides that New
Columbia may not impose taxes on property of
the United States and preserves the annual
federal payment to the State as established
in Section 502 of the District of Columbia
Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization
Act (Public Law 93-198).

SECTION BY SECTION OUTLINE / H.R. 325

SECTION 6

SECTION 7

rage 2

Provides for the retention of all right and
title by New Columbia of all property within
the boundaries of New Columbia and not set
aside for use of the United States. Property
set aside for use by the United States shall
remain the property of the United States,
except that five years after the date of
admission of New Columbia each Federal agency
having control over property retained by the
United States must determine if it is needed,
and if it is not needed, it shall be conveyed
to New Columbia.

Establishes the election procedures for all
State elective offices and for two Senators
and one Representative in Congress. Not more
than sixty days after enactment of this Act,
the President must certify its enactment to
the Mayor and not more than thirty days after
the President's certification, the Mayor must
issue a proclamation for the elections.

The Mayor's proclamation shall provide for
both a primary and general election. The two
senatorial offices must be seperately
identified so that no person may be a candidate
for both. The Constitution of New Columbia will
govern the elections.

The Mayor must also issue a proclamation (which may be a part of the proclamation for elections) submitting to the voters for adoption or rejection, certain propositions (detailed in Section 2 of this Outline). If the propositions are adopted, the Constitution of New Columbia will be deemed amended accordingly. If the propositions are rejected, this Act is no longer effective.

Until New Columbia is admitted into the Union, officials of the District of Columbia will retain their authority. Once admitted, non-elected officials will continue to function under the government of New Columbia.

The Governor of New Columbia certifies the election of Senators and the Representative, and these officials will serve in the Congress on the same basis as Senators and Representatives from the other states.

rage s

SECTION BY SECTION OUTLINE / H.R. 325

Provides for the election of one member of
the United States House of Representatives
from New Columbia until the next
reapportionment and increases the membership
in the House by one on an interim basis.

All laws of the District of Columbia will
remain in effect upon admission of New
Columbia into the Union, unless modified
by this Act or the Constitution of New
Columbia. All laws of the United States
will be of the same force and effect as in
any other State.

All civil suits and criminal prosecutions
and all civil causes of action and criminal
offenses pending in the District of Columbia
at the time of admission shall continue in
effect and be transferred to New Columbia.
Substantive law, criminal and civil, in
effect at the time of admission shall remain
in effect.

Appellate rights, civil and criminal, are
preserved and transferred to New Columbia.

Upon the admission of New Columbia into the
Union, New Columbia will join the District of
Columbia as part of the District of Columbia
Circuit for the United States Courts of Appeal.
The District of Columbia and the State of New
Columbia will constitute one judicial District.
Property owned or controlled by the United
States immediately prior to the admission of
New Columbia shall remain under. the exclusive
legislative authority of the Congress upon
admission. New Columbia however shall retain
the right to serve criminal or civil process
within such property, and such property may be
transferred to New Columbia. Even if such
property is transferred, military installations
within such property shall remain under the
exclusive legislative authority of Congress.

U.S. Nationality is unaffected by this Act.

All acts in conflict with this Act are repealed.

Outlines the boundaries of the National Capital
Service Area (Identical to boundaries of the
National Capital Service Area found at Section
739(f)(1) of the D.C. Self Government and
Governmental Reorganization Act, P.L. 93-198).

Mr. FAUNTROY. The Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs and Health will come to order.

We open, today, the third in a series of at least four hearings this subcommittee intends to conduct on the issue of statehood for the District of Columbia.

At our first hearing, we heard from Members of the House and Senate. Among those who presented testimony were Senators Kennedy, Specter, and Inouye, as well as Congressmen Udall, Gray, and Don Edwards.

That hearing, the record of which can be found in D.C. Committee Print 98-7, together with oral and written comments we had received from other Members of Congress, formed the basis for the work performed by an informal task force to perfect the proposed constitution which accompanied the District's request for statehood.

The results of this effort by the task force, after laboring for a full year, can be found in the D.C. Committee Print S-2.

The amendments proposed by the task force formed the basis for our second hearing.

The Mayor of the District, the council chairman, and the District's Statehood Party representative on the D.C. Council offered testimony.

We also heard from a panel of persons who served on the Statehood Constitution Task Force, including Mr. Charles Cassell, the president of the D.C. Statehood Constitutional Convention; Ms. Josephine Butler, chairperson of the D.C. Statehood Commission; and attorney Joseph Sellers, a member of the Washington Council of Lawyers.

The record of that hearing can be found at D.C. Committee Print 99-3.

Today, we will hear from several distinguished members of the legal profession on the academic side, as well as on the practitioner side.

We have asked some of our witnesses to respond to several key legal and constitutional issues that have emerged in connection with D.C. statehood.

Others of our witnesses have been asked to comment on the proposed constitution.

At least one of our witnesses will comment on the legal and constitutional issues, as well as the proposed constitution.

Before we call our witnesses, I think it is useful to share an opinion expressed very early in this century by another professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, Prof. Frank Perry.

In a 1920 article written for the Georgetown Law Journal, Professor Perry stated, and I quote him:

From a study of the wording of the Constitution and of the original grants of this territory from the States of Maryland and Virginia; from an examination of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States; and from the action of the political branch of the government in retroceding a portion of this area to the State of Virginia; it must be conceded that the weight of precedent and authority is in favor of the proposition that Congress has authority, without a constitutional amendment, to erect out of the District of Columbia a sovereign state.

Professor Perry's observations, nearly 70 years ago, stand today as a statement of not only what is just and proper, but also as the