1. Short title This Act may be cited as the District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act . 2. Findings Congress finds the following: (1) Article I, section 2, clause 1 of the United States Constitution states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states. . (2) The Founding Fathers did not consider the proposed district that would become Washington, DC, a State under the Constitution, as evidenced when Alexander Hamilton offered an amendment to the Constitution during the New York ratification to provide full congressional representation to Washington, DC, but the convention rejected the amendment on July 22, 1788. (3) Chief Justice Marshall held in Hepburn v. Ellzey in 1805 that the term states in Article I, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution does not include Washington, DC, for representation purposes. (4) Seven Supreme Court Justices affirmed Chief Justice Marshall’s Hepburn reasoning in National Mut. Ins. Co. of Dist. of Col. v. Tidewater Transfer Co. in 1949. (5) A Democrat-controlled Congress in 1978 attempted to amend the Constitution to provide Washington, DC, with full congressional representation. The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives reported the resolution and stated that granting congressional representation to the District of Columbia as it is presently constituted would require a constitutional amendment, because statutory action alone will not suffice . (6) Amending the Constitution requires two-thirds approval by each house of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the States. In 1978, there was success in obtaining a favorable vote from two-thirds of both the House and the Senate on a constitutional amendment to provide Washington, DC, with full congressional representation, but the requirement for ratification by three-fourths of the States could not be obtained. (7) An alternative to a potentially lengthy and difficult constitutional amendment process is ceding Washington, DC, back