[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 51: MAKING D.C. THE 51st STATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-960 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Katie Porter, California Pete Sessions, Texas
Cori Bush, Missouri Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Andy Biggs, Arizona
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Peter Welch, Vermont Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Scott Franklin, Florida
Georgia Jake LaTurner, Kansas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Pat Fallon, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Byron Donalds, Florida
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Vacancy
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Mark Stephenson, Director of Legislation
Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 22, 2021................................... 1
Witnesses
The Honorable Muriel Bowser, Mayor, District of Columbia
Oral Statement............................................... 8
The Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District
of Columbia
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Mr. Fitzroy Lee, Interim Chief Financial Officer, District of
Columbia
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Mainon A. Schwartz, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research
Service
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Wade Henderson, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Harry Wingo, D.C. Veteran
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Zack Smith, Legal Fellow, Meese Center Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Testimony of Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh; submitted
by Rep. Norton.
* ACLU report regarding constitutionality of H.R. 51; submitted
by Rep. Norton.
* List of 111 organizations who have endorsed H.R. 51;
submitted by Rep. Norton.
* D.C. resident letter regarding support for statehood;
submitted by Rep. Norton.
* D.C. Affairs Community letter regarding support for
statehood; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* D.C. Developmental Disabilities Council testimony; submitted
by Rep. Norton.
* Environmental and Faith Coalition letter regarding support
for statehood; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* GWAC letter regarding support for statehood; submitted by
Rep. Norton.
* GWU President letter regarding support for statehood;
submitted by Rep. Norton.
* NARFE letter regarding support for statehood; submitted by
Rep. Norton.
* SEIU letter regarding support for statehood; submitted by
Rep. Norton.
* CAC letter regarding support for statehood; submitted by
Chairwoman Maloney.
* DC Ban Factsheet; submitted by Chairwoman Maloney.
Documents entered into the record during this hearing, and
Questions for the Record (QFR's) with responses are available
at: docs.house.gov.
H.R. 51: MAKING D.C. THE 51st STATE
----------
Monday, March 22, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn B.
Maloney [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly,
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Mfume, Tlaib, Porter, Davis,
Wasserman Schultz, Welch, Johnson, Sarbanes, Kelly, DeSaulnier,
Gomez, Pressley, Comer, Jordan, Gosar, Foxx, Hice, Grothman,
Cloud, Higgins, Norman, Sessions, Keller, Biggs, Clyde,
Franklin, Fallon, Herrell, and Donalds.
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Last Congress, I was proud to preside over the first markup
of legislation to grant D.C. Statehood since 1993. And for the
first time ever, the House passed legislation in 2020 that
would have made D.C. a state. But the Republican-controlled
Senate refused to even have a hearing or consider that bill.
Even though we are only a few months into the new Congress,
H.R. 51 already has 215 cosponsors. After years of stagnation
and indifference to the rights of thousands of D.C. residents,
there is real and sustained momentum behind this effort.
This legislation would fulfill the promise of democracy for
more than 712,000 Americans who call Washington, DC, their
home.
D.C. residents are American citizens. They fight honorably
to protect our Nation overseas. They pay taxes. In fact, D.C.
pays more in Federal taxes than 22 states and more per capita
than any state in our Nation.
D.C. residents have all the responsibilities of
citizenship, but they have no congressional voting rights and
only limited self-government.
These fundamental disparities for hundreds of thousands of
Americans conflict with the core principles of our Republic.
Our country was founded on the belief that no people should be
subjected to taxation without representation or be governed
without the consent of the governed.
Representative government only functions properly when all
people have a voice in the laws that govern them. Our honorable
colleague, Congresswoman Norton, represents her constituents
exceptionally well, but is denied the opportunity to vote on
the very laws that her constituents must follow.
Congress has the responsibility to live up to the
Constitution's goals. Statehood will finally grant D.C.
residents full and equal democratic rights.
D.C. residents themselves overwhelmingly support statehood.
In 2016, an astonishing 86 percent voted in favor of becoming a
state.
Unfortunately, there is not one Republican cosponsor of
this bill. In July 2020, Senator Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina stated, and I quote, ``This is about expanding the
Senate map,'' end quote.
He misses the point entirely. The sad truth is that most of
my Republican colleagues oppose D.C. Statehood simply because
they believe it would dilute their power.
In 2016, then Ohio Governor John Kasich was very blunt
about this. He said, and I quote, ``What it really gets down
to, if you want to be honest, is because they know that's just
more votes in the Democratic Party,'' end quote.
Adding D.C. Statehood and adding a state should not be
about politics. It's about equality. It's about democracy. It
is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that Americans are
given their full rights demanded by the Constitution.
My colleagues across the aisle are so concerned about
maintaining the status quo that they are willing to make claims
with no basis in fact in an effort to continue disenfranchising
712,000 Americans.
Just last week, in a press release about this hearing,
Ranking Member Comer claimed that H.R. 51 doesn't address the
financial burden on the new state. This is simply incorrect.
The bill specifically includes transition assistance to the new
state, something Congress has historically done when admitting
new states into the Union.
The simple truth is that the right to democracy should not
be contingent on party registration.
Today, I urge all members of this panel to rise above
partisanship. I encourage everyone to have a respectful and
robust debate with the fundamental goals of our Founders in
mind. As President Abraham Lincoln declared in the Gettysburg
Address, a true democracy is government of the people, by the
people, and for the people.
I thank all of our witnesses for being here today.
I also thank the people of the District of Columbia for
your patience, dedication, and fierce will to secure the rights
for the people that they deserve.
I now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr.
Comer, for an opening statement.
Mr. Comer. Thank you.
Let's be very clear. Today's hearing is all about creating
two new Democratic Senate seats.
If you don't believe me, then listen to what our colleague
across the aisle, Mr. Jamie Raskin, told The Washington Post,
and I quote: ``But there's a national political logic for it,
too, because the Senate has become the principal obstacle to
social progress across a whole range of issues.''
H.R. 51, D.C. Statehood, is actually plan B of the Democrat
political power grab. Plan A was to eliminate the filibuster in
the Senate. But since it appears Joe Manchin isn't going to
play these dirty Democratic games, now Speaker Pelosi is
stepping in with an unconstitutional bill to make Washington,
DC, a city smaller than Columbus, Ohio, and a city that just
happens to be 90 percent Democratic, the 51st state.
D.C. Statehood is a key part of the radical leftist agenda
to reshape America, along with the Green New Deal, defunding
the police, and packing the U.S. Supreme Court.
Many problems exist with H.R. 51. The first is that it is
flatly unconstitutional.
But don't take my word for it. Take the word of civil
rights champion Robert F. Kennedy, who said 60 years ago that
granting D.C. Statehood, absent a constitutional amendment, was
inconceivable and would produce an absurdity.
Take the word of all the Justice Departments from President
Kennedy's to President Obama's.
Take the word of John Dingell, a liberal titan, the
longest-serving Member of Congress, who supported every single
civil rights measure that passed before Congress for 40 years.
Take the word of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who
dismissed what he called the statehood fallacy.
Take the word of the former Delegate from D.C., my
colleague Eleanor Holmes Norton's predecessor, who had opposed
statehood and recognized the constitutional problem.
Take the word of the Democratic-controlled Congress in
1960, which explicitly rejected statehood and instead passed
the 23rd Amendment, which gave D.C. three votes in the
electoral college.
Democrats even acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the
bill by inserting language trying to fix it. Of course this
language is meaningless, because the only way to fix it is by a
constitutional amendment.
The second problem is that this bill goes flatly against
what the Founding Fathers wanted for our Capital City. The
Founding Fathers were smart. They knew D.C. would grow as large
as it is today. They envisioned it to be the size of Paris,
which at the time is roughly equivalent to the size of D.C.
today. They envisioned a thriving Capital City, with
residential communities, green space, ports, and close access
to America's leaders.
The Founding Fathers knew this is what D.C. would become,
everything that it is today, and they didn't want it to be a
state. In fact, they overwhelmingly rejected it. They had other
options, New York, Philadelphia, Trenton. Instead, they created
D.C.
Every Democrat who supports this bill should be asked one
simple question: Is it their contention that the Founders did
not anticipate all the arguments that are currently being made
for D.C. Statehood?
If they believe the Founders did not anticipate the
arguments, they are wrong. Alexander Hamilton, in fact,
proposed granting representation in the House to the District,
and it was rejected while ratifying the Constitution.
If Democrats believe the Founders did anticipate the
arguments that they are making, they should be asked how we
modify the Constitution for any other radical departure from
the Founders' interpretation. The answer is simple, a
constitutional amendment.
I will not address the practical negative ramifications of
D.C. Statehood, but will let me colleague from Georgia present
those, and there are many.
Liberal progressives supporting this bill support stealing
billions from their very own constituents to send it straight
to D.C. It's no wonder statehood for D.C. is so unpopular. For
years, support for statehood across the country hasn't even
reached 30 percent. Today, well over half of Americans reject
D.C. Statehood.
The Democrats arrogantly say that is because the American
people don't understand what statehood means. But my
constituents in Kentucky's First congressional District know
exactly what it means, consolidating Speaker Pelosi's power in
Washington to enact radical policies that have consistently
been rejected by the American people.
The Democrats want you to ignore the issues I've addressed,
but we aren't going to let that happen. If Democrats were
serious about D.C. becoming a state, they would introduce a
constitutional amendment, like the U.S. Constitution implies
must happen in not one but two places.
But Democrats are not serious. Instead, they are setting
aside the Constitution in order to give progressives a quick
win so they can achieve their goals of defunding the police and
enacting a Green New Deal.
There is zero chance this bill would pass judicial review.
The courts know better. The Senate knows better. All of our
constituents, who Democrats prefer to call ignorant, even
though they understand basic civics classes, know better.
H.R. 51 is an unconstitutional and unworkable bill and is
rejected by the American people. Congress must reject this
proposal. Congress knows better.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Congresswoman Norton for her opening
statement.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Maloney.
Let me say at the outset that this hearing will refute each
of the contentions just raised by the ranking member.
Along with the residents of the District of Columbia, I
greatly appreciate and thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for this
hearing today.
This has been a historic year for D.C. Statehood. I
introduced H.R. 51 with 202 original cosponsors. Today, the
bill has 215 cosponsors, which virtually guarantees passage in
the House, even with cosponsors alone.
The Senate version, S. 51, was introduced with 38 original
cosponsors and now has 41 cosponsors. We are particularly
grateful to our Senate sponsor, Senator Tom Carper, who has
gathered the largest number of original cosponsors ever. That
speaks to mounting support for H.R. 51.
When the House passed the D.C. Statehood bill last
Congress, it was the first time in history that a Chamber of
Congress had passed the bill. With Democrats controlling the
House, the Senate, and the White House, we have never been
closer to statehood.
Under H.R. 51, the state of Washington, DC, which would
consist of 66 of the 68 square miles of the present day Federal
District. The reduced Federal District over which Congress
would retain plenary authority would be two square miles and
consist of the Washington that Members of Congress and visitors
associate with the Nation's Capital, including the U.S. Capitol
complex, the White House, the Supreme Court, the principal
Federal monuments, and the National Mall. It would be called
Capital.
H.R. 51 has both the facts and the Constitution on its
side. The Constitution does not establish any prerequisites for
new states, but Congress generally has considered a prospective
state's population and resources, support for statehood, and
commitment to democracy.
D.C.'s population of 712,000 is larger than that of two
states. Indeed, the state of Washington, DC, would be one of
seven states with a population under 1 million.
D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any state, any
state already in the Union already with statehood, and pays
more Federal taxes than 22 states. D.C.'s budget is larger than
that of 12 states.
Eighty-six percent of D.C. residents voted for statehood in
2016. In fact, D.C. residents have been petitioning for voting
rights in Congress and local autonomy ever since the District
became the capital. That's 220 years ago.
The Constitution's Admissions Clause gives Congress the
authority to admit new states, and all 37 states have been
admitted by an act of Congress. The Constitution's District
Clause, which gives Congress plenary power or authority over
the Federal District, sets a maximum, not a minimum size of the
Federal District.
Congress previously has reduced the size of the Federal
District by 30 percent. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution
does not establish a minimum geographic or population size of
the District.
Conservative legal scholar and practitioner Viet Dinh, who
served as an Assistant Attorney General in the George W. Bush
Administration, has opined that the state of Washington, DC,
can be admitted by an act of Congress.
D.C. residents have fought and died in every American war,
including the war that led to the creation of the Nation
itself, the Revolutionary War. The servicemembers from our
Nation's Capital have helped get voting rights for people
throughout the world, but continue to come home without those
same rights or even the same rights of those with whom they
served.
My own family has lived through almost 200 years of change
in the District of Columbia, since my great-grandfather,
Richard Holmes, as a slave walked away from a plantation in
Virginia and made his way to the District.
Today, it is my great honor to serve in the city where my
family has lived without equal representation for almost two
centuries.
Congress can no longer allow D.C. residents to be sidelined
in the democratic process, watching as Congress votes on
matters that affect the Nation, with no say of their own, or
watching as Congress votes to overturn the laws of the duly
elected D.C. Council with no say of their own.
Full democracy requires much more. D.C. residents deserve
full voting representation in the Senate and House and complete
control over local affairs. They deserve statehood.
Congress has two choices. It can continue to exercise
undemocratic, autocratic control over the American citizens who
reside in our Nation's Capital, treating them, in the words of
Frederick Douglass, as aliens, not citizens, but subjects. Or
it can be live up to this Nation's promise and ideals, end
taxation without representation, and pass H.R. 51.
Again, Madam Chair, thank you for your leadership for D.C.
equality.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair recognizes Mr. Hice for his opening statement.
Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This bill is not the answer to voting rights in D.C.
If D.C. were to become a state, the Founding Fathers
recognized that it would be the first among states, and that is
because the district where our Federal Government resides would
be reliant upon the surrounding state, in this case D.C., for
basic things like security, sewage, water, and a host of other
needs.
It would require foreign governments to negotiate with that
state for embassies and other international matters.
And, quite frankly, the Founding Fathers wanted none of
this. They wanted Congress to have oversight over the District,
something that Congress must retain to protect Federal
interests.
And it has worked for over 230 years. In fact, it has
worked well. It's our duty as Representatives for all Americans
that we safeguard their capital.
But that's not good enough for progressives on the left,
which leads me to some of the major practical problems with
this bill.
First of all, it is written to maximize the benefit of a
new state of D.C. while burdening the American taxpayer. The
lines, for example, of this newly envisioned state of D.C. are
completely gerrymandered to maximize tax revenue. They do not
include some of the Federal property contiguous with the map,
but they do include others.
Well, why did they do this? Well, the answer is simple:
It's all about money. D.C. wants to become a state so it can
levy taxes on people who are working in D.C.
So, this means, if you live in Maryland, or Virginia, or
West Virginia, Pennsylvania, wherever, but you work in D.C.,
your taxes are likely to go way up.
This is going to result in stolen tax revenue from those
states and potentially cripple their economies and their
budgets, so that every time an American comes to Washington for
spring break, for vacations, or whatever, and they cross one of
the iconic bridges coming from the airport, they are likely
going to be paying
[inaudible].
But it gets worse than that even. D.C. currently relies on
hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal funding each year.
The last time D.C. had full responsibility for its budget, the
Federal Government had to step in and rescue D.C. from
financial ruin. Currently, the Federal Government pays for the
court system in D.C.
That's right, one-third of D.C.'s entire government is paid
by the American taxpayers.
D.C. also currently doesn't have a prison. The Federal
Government pays for thousands of D.C. prisoners in the Federal
system to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every
year.
But D.C. doesn't want to build a prison. For decades the
District has rejected a federally funded prison because D.C.
officials, including our own colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton,
have said that the city is too small for a prison. So, under
this bill the Federal Government would continue to pay for
those prisoners to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars
each year.
D.C. wants to continue to receive their special benefits
for schools, for colleges, for roads, billions of dollars in
Federal funds, in pensions, things that none of the other
states get.
We asked the District government for plans to pay for the
likely major budget shortfalls if it were to become a state.
Not surprisingly, they didn't provide any answers.
Why not? Well, because they expect the Federal Government
to continue funding it in the way that it has for the past 25
years.
So, under this bill, not only would D.C. become a state,
but it would be the only state in the entire country to have
the Federal Government pick up billions and billions of annual
dollars in expenses each year.
In other words, anybody supporting this bill as it is
written is basically saying to their constituents that we think
the people living in D.C. are entitled to more benefits than
you are.
D.C. wants the benefits of a state without actually having
to operate like one. They want to be treated differently. They
want to be treated better than all other states.
D.C. wants to keep all these special perks, plus gain two
more Democratic U.S. Senators. This would effectively shift the
power to the left-wing progressives so that they can enact
their radical agenda that Americans have rejected time and
again.
Under this bill, D.C. would, in fact, become the first
among states, which is exactly what our Founders sought to
avoid.
D.C. would be the only state--the only state--without an
airport, without a car dealership, without a capital city,
without a landfill, without even a name on its own, and we
could go on, and on, and on.
But who would be left to provide all these services while
it continues to receive billions of dollars for special
programs? Well, we know the answer to that: The American people
would.
D.C. Statehood would mean a money grab from neighboring
states and a power grab for the U.S. Senate, all done in an
impractical and unconstitutional fashion.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness today is the Honorable Muriel Bowser, who
is the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
Next, we will hear from the Honorable Phil Mendelson, who
is the Council Chairman for the District of Columbia.
Then, we will here from Mr. Fitzroy Lee, who is the interim
Chief Financial Officer for D.C.
Next, we will hear from Ms. Mainon Schwartz, who is the
Legislative Attorney with the nonpartisan congressional
Research Service.
Then, we will hear from Wade Henderson, who is the interim
president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights.
Next, we will hear from Harry Wingo, who is a District of
Columbia veteran.
Last but not least, we will hear from Zack Smith, who is a
legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in.
Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative. Thank you.
Without objection, your written statements will be part of
our record.
With that, Mayor Bowser, you are now recognized for your
testimony.
Please, your mic, your mic.
STATEMENT OF MURIEL BOWSER, MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mayor Bowser. Thank you, Chairman Maloney, Ranking Member
Comer, Congresswoman Norton, and members of this esteemed
committee. On behalf of 712,000 residents of the District of
Columbia, I thank you for convening this hearing on H.R. 51,
the Washington, DC. Admission Act.
In particular, we thank you for shepherding this measure to
passage during the 116th Congress and we respectfully ask you
to do it again.
I want to especially thank our Congresswoman, Eleanor
Holmes Norton, who has championed equality for Washington, DC,
throughout her tenure, while skillfully delivering jobs,
opportunity, and greater self-determination.
I am Muriel Bowser, I am Mayor of Washington, DC, and I'm
honored to come before this committee to ask this Congress to
right the wrong that happened 220 years ago when the residents
of the District of Columbia were stripped of their full
congressional representation.
Two years ago, in the 116th, I came before this committee
under the leadership of the late Elijah Cummings to dispel
erroneous arguments against D.C. Statehood. These are bad faith
arguments, and I'm sure we will hear them time and time again
this morning.
They say Washington, DC, Statehood is unconstitutional,
even though constitutional experts have refuted this claim.
Article 1 of the Constitution is not an obstacle. As H.R. 51
makes clear, a ``Federal district'' will remain for the Federal
Government, its buildings, and its workings, and the rest of
the area where people live will become the 51st state.
They say Washington, DC, is too small, our economy is not
diverse enough, even though we are bigger by population than
two states and pay more per capita than any state. We pay more
in total Federal taxes than 22 states.
They say Washington, DC, can't take care of itself. This is
simply not accurate. In fact, by many objective measures, D.C.
is a better-governed jurisdiction than most states. We have
balanced our budgets for 25 times in the last 25 years.
And we already operate as a state and perform the same
functions as states do. During the coronavirus pandemic, for
example, we have led COVID-19 testing, contact tracing, and
vaccination efforts, just as states do. And we are treated like
a state in more than over 500 citations in Federal law.
Again, two years ago, we debunked those claims as thinly
veiled attacks on our political leanings and, quite frankly, on
our diversity and history of Black political power.
Today, I come to urge this committee and this Congress to
move beyond the tired, nonfactual, and, frankly, anti-
democratic rhetoric and extend full democracy to the residents
of the District of Columbia as the Founding Fathers saved for a
later day.
I was born in Washington, DC, and generations of my family,
through no choice of our own, have been denied the fundamental
right promised to all Americans, the right to full
representation in Congress.
The simple fact is denying American citizens a vote in the
body that taxes them goes against the founding principles of
this great Nation.
The disenfranchisement of Washingtonians is one of the
remaining glaring civil rights and voting rights issues of our
time. Even as the Constitution was being drafted, several
members foresaw the situations that Washingtonians face today,
a Capital city of second class citizens.
When White residents were the only population to be
affected, as they were the only ones with suffrage at the time,
the Founding Fathers pledged to correct the wrong, and the
Continental Congress was eager to offer amendments to correct
it.
But, ultimately, the Constitution did not resolve the
concerns around the future Federal District's congressional
representation or self-governance.
Why did the motivation to right the wrong disappear? As
time passed, the District became majority African American. The
drive to correct the wrong was replaced by racist efforts to
subvert a growing and thriving Black city.
Historic records abound with statements of successive
Members of Congress referencing the ``Negro problem'' or the
``color problem'' within D.C. as a justification to withhold
congressional representation. This was their way of saying
African Americans are unable to govern themselves, or vote for
their best interests or, I dare say, be the face of the
Nation's Capital.
Surely, in 2020, this body cannot associate themselves with
that view.
Next month, we will celebrate President Lincoln signing the
Emancipation Act that freed the slaves in the District of
Columbia, April 16, 1862, months before the Emancipation
Proclamation freed other enslaved people in our country.
I hope to remind this Congress that District residents are
still not free as we remain disenfranchised by this body. I
urge all of you to do what over two centuries of lawmakers have
failed to correct and grant full democracy to D.C. residents
through statehood.
The incremental enfranchisement of the District, limited
enfranchisement, has historically been a bipartisan effort, but
it is in no way a substitute for full representation in this
Congress.
Washington, DC, has been a true partner to the Federal
Government in every aspect, even though Congress and Presidents
have been sporadic partners to us. We have supported continuing
the critical operations of this body and other Federal agencies
within our borders.
The Federal Government leaned on our health department to
process coronavirus tests and administer vaccines to Federal
employees and contractors. However, several provisions of
Federal aid to respond to the coronavirus pandemic denied us
state-level funding, shortchanging us $755 million in fiscal
relief, even though we operate as a city, county, and state.
We now thank you, Madam Chair, Speaker Pelosi, Leader
Schumer, our Congresswoman, and your Democratic colleagues and
President Biden, for righting that wrong last week with the
American Rescue Plan.
The events of January 6, where Congress was overtaken by
insurrectionists, show that Congress need not fear the new
state of Washington, DC, as it does not currently fear the
states of Maryland or Virginia. Rather, the new state will be a
necessary partner to securing the Federal interests, not a
detractor.
Arguing that Washingtonians must remain disenfranchised to
protect the interests of the Federal Government is dangerous,
outdated, and downright insulting.
After years of disinvestment and disinterest when Congress
did exercise full exclusive jurisdiction over the District and
ran all of District governance, my predecessors and I, with
Council Chair Mendelson and his colleagues and their
predecessors, have worked hard to develop the fastest improving
urban schools, invest in housing, healthcare facilities,
recreational facilities, as well as a sports and entertainment
and meetings based economy.
We have proven our sound leadership, and there is no reason
for this Congress not to right this wrong.
Thank you again for allowing us to speak. And I'm happy to
answer your questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Chairman Mendelson, you are now recognized for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF PHIL MENDELSON, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Mendelson. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, our congressional Representative, Eleanor Holmes
Norton, and members of the committee.
I am Phil Mendelson, Chairman of the Council of the
District of Columbia. I am pleased to be testifying today on
behalf of the Council in support of H.R. 51.
Full and fair representation of the over 700,000 citizens
residing in the District of Columbia is only possible through
achieving statehood. And so I urge this committee and this
Congress to move favorably and expeditiously on this measure.
I want to make two fundamental points.
First, it is time to recognize that the citizens of the
District are citizens of the United States with all the
responsibilities of citizenship, but they do not have the full
rights of U.S. citizenship.
We send our sons and daughters to war, we pay more in
Federal taxes than 22 states, we pay more per capita than any
state. There is nothing asked of citizens of the 50 states that
is not asked of the citizens of the District of Columbia.
And we step up. We pay or dues. But we do not have the most
important privilege of United States citizenship. We do not
have a vote in Congress, nor do we have sovereignty like the 50
states.
That is what we demand, that Congress give us what it has
given to the citizens of 37 other states, full citizenship,
statehood.
We have sought incremental gains since the 1973 Home Rule
Act, but the incrementalism leaves us short. Statehood is the
only way to give to our citizens locally elected
Representatives to enact purely local laws that will not be
subject to national debates over divisive social issues.
It is the only way to ensure a judicial system that is
sensitive to community values. Statehood is the only way to
give residents a full, guaranteed, and irrevocable voice in the
national legislature.
Statehood means the United States citizens of the District
of Columbia will have the same rights and privileges enjoyed by
the United States citizens of the 50 states.
My second point is that opponents give lots of arguments,
lots of arguments against statehood, but none of them overcome
the basic principle that there should be no taxation without
representation.
Many Americans believe, incredibly, that the District
government is still an agency of the Federal Government,
existing on Federal appropriations. Therefore, they say, we
should not have statehood.
Well, they are wrong. As you know, we are not a Federal
agency. In fact, less than one percent of our budget, $138
million, is a discretionary Federal payment.
Yes, we receive formula funds, but as a proportion of our
budget, it is less than what other states receive in formula
funds.
In fact, our citizens contribute more in Federal taxes than
22 other states. We are a so-called donor state.
Many opponents have argued that the District is not capable
of governing itself in a fiscally responsible manner.
Well, today the District's financial status is the envy of
jurisdictions across the country. Our revenues are growing--
outside of the pandemic--our spending stays within budget year
after year, both our pension and our other post-employment
benefit funds are fully funded, using conservative actuarial
assumptions.
No other state, no other state can boast this. For the last
two years, our rainy day reserves equaled 60 days operating
costs, a best practice.
We are more than capable of governing ourselves.
Some have argued that population size is a
disqualification. Population size should not be a condition
predicate to democracy. Nevertheless, the District's population
is greater than that of Vermont or Wyoming and only slightly
smaller than North Dakota and Alaska.
And then some argue that retrocession is a better
alternative and that it makes historical sense. This is
unpopular with the citizens in both the District and Maryland.
You may say, ``So what?'' to the citizens of the District,
but you cannot say that to the citizens of Maryland. Congress
cannot force retrocession on Maryland, so the idea is
impractical.
Some argue that there is too much federally owned land in
the District. That is not a reason to disenfranchise over
700,000 people. Nevertheless, as a percentage of total land,
the District ranks 13th among states. We rank behind such
states as Alaska, Arizona, Montana, and Wyoming.
Another argument is that the Constitution intended it to be
this way. I disagree. I don't believe the Founding Fathers
actually intended this. There is no evidence, no evidence in
Madison's notes or the Federalist Papers of discussion about
disenfranchising the citizens of the Federal District.
Rather, James Madison in Federalist 43 wrote that the
citizens of the Federal District ``will have had their voice in
the election of the government which is to exercise authority
over them.'' Well, without statehood, we don't have that voice.
Moreover, even though the Constitution is a great document,
it is not perfect, as evidenced by its 27 amendments. The
original method for electing the President and Vice President
was flawed. The method for electing Senators has changed.
Civil rights have changed radically, such as the 13th
Amendment abolishing slavery and the 19th Amendment giving
suffrage to women. Indeed, the issue before us is about civil
rights, about the civil rights of District citizens to full
citizenship.
If you want to argue originalism, what was of concern to
the Founding Fathers in creating a Federal District was to
protect the government from riots, like Shays' Rebellion.
But rather than the District of Columbia being the
facilitator of the recent January 6 riots, the District came to
your rescue. Yet we were impeded in trying to send the D.C.
National Guard because we are not a state.
Self-governance is the essence of democracy and freedom.
The only option to gain both voting representation and full
self-governance is to adopt H.R. 51 and grant statehood to the
District.
Not only are we not an agency of the Federal Government
existing off its Treasury, but even if we were, that is not a
reason to deprive over 700,000 individuals full sovereignty and
representation in Congress.
Not only are we small, but that is irrelevant to whether
over 700,000 individuals should enjoy full citizenship.
Not only do we run our government well, but we run it
better than other states, and they have statehood. But how well
people run their government has nothing do with whether they
should be treated as United States citizens.
The Council appreciates the committee's consideration of
this matter and urges the adoption of H.R. 51 by the committee
and the House.
Thank you for hearing us.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Lee, you are now recognized for your testimony.
Mr. Lee.
STATEMENT OF FITZROY LEE, INTERIM CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Lee. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member
Comer, and members of the House Committee on Oversight and
Reform. I am Fitzroy Lee, interim Chief Financial Officer of
the District of Columbia.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is an independent
agent charged with ensuring the District's long-term financial
health and viability. I am pleased to provide testimony today
on the District's finances, the current relationship between
the District's budget and the Federal Government, and how the
District of Columbia can transition to statehood.
Like many jurisdictions, the District of Columbia's economy
faces challenges as a result of the COVID-19 public health
emergency. The pandemic caused an estimated $2.6 billion in
lost revenues through the year 2025, hitting the District's
budget as hard as any state.
Through careful recession planning, prudent use of our
reserves, and responsible decision-making by its elected
leadership, the District has weathered this unprecedented
challenge while still funding its budget priorities.
The District of Columbia concluded its most recent Fiscal
Year with a positive general fund balance of over $3.2 billion.
The District's triple-A credit rating, an important
indicator of overall financial health, is an accomplishment
achieved by only 10 of the 25 largest cities and a rating
higher than 32 other states.
The bond rating is a testament to the sound financial
management practices that have been established in law and
continue to be enhanced by the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer and the District's elected leadership.
These practices include a balanced budget and multiyear
financial plan, a six-year capital improvement plan, quarterly
revenue estimates, a self-imposed debt limit to restrict
borrowing, and the best practice level of cash reserves,
including six days of operating revenues.
The District has implemented a capital asset inventory
system and long-range capital financial plan to bring all
assets or infrastructure to a state of good repair by the year
2031. No other city or state has developed an implementable
program to reach this goal.
The District also is unique in having fully funded its
public safety and teacher pension trust funds, as well as its
retiree healthcare benefits trust funds.
Finally, the District has received 24 consecutive years of
clean independent audits.
A common misperception is that the District is strictly a
government town. Yet, only 25 percent of the work force are
Federal Government employees. From 2010 to 2019, while Federal
Government employment declined by 15,000, private sector jobs
grew by 95,000.
The District has developed into a vibrant and dynamic
jurisdiction with a diversifying economic base. Some of the
fastest growing private sector industries over the last several
years include professional services, hospitality, sports, and
entertainment.
The District is a destination where people choose to live,
work, and play, with five major sports teams, world class
restaurants, and thriving neighborhoods.
The District's population has grown 25 percent over the
last two decades and now stands at over 700,0000, making it the
20th largest city.
This economic diversity increases our resilience and
financial dexterity, and we expect that robust private sector
growth will continue to anchor the District's solid economic
performance.
In many respects the District already functions as a state.
The District collects income taxes, administers worker's
compensation and unemployment insurance, and runs a Department
of Motor Vehicles. In addition, the District funds and provides
services such as police, public works, and education to
residents, businesses, commuters, and visitors.
The District does not receive an annual Federal payment to
cover its operations. Over 75 percent of District revenue is
generated from our local taxes and fees. The District budget is
comparable to other states in its reliance on Federal dollars
for Medicaid, education, other human services, and
transportation.
With transition to statehood, we expect that certain
functions currently managed by the Federal Government will fall
to the new state.
The true financial impact of statehood will depend on
policy decisions yet to be made by Congress and the newly
elected state government, as District policymakers adopt future
budgets to take over responsibilities that are currently
Federal.
My office stands ready to advise on the policies being
considered to accommodate new state functions.
In conclusion, the fiscal foundation of the District is
extremely strong, even in the face of the global pandemic. The
District is more than capable of transitioning to statehood and
will work with the Federal Government to ensure a smooth
transition.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide
testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Ms. Schwartz, you are now recognized for your testimony.
Ms. Schwartz.
STATEMENT OF MAINON SCHWARTZ, LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Ms. Schwartz. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and
distinguished members of the Committee on Oversight and Reform,
my name is Mainon Schwartz, and I am a Legislative Attorney in
the American Law Division of the congressional Research
Service. Thank you for inviting me today to discuss Congress'
constitutional authority to enact H.R. 51, the Washington, DC.
Admission Act.
H.R. 51 would, if enacted, confer statehood on a portion of
what is currently the District of Columbia pursuant to the
Admissions Clause found in Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S.
Constitution. That clause gives Congress the sole authority to
admit new states into the Union, subject to the condition that
new states may not be formed within the jurisdiction of an
existing state, nor by combining other states or parts of
states without those states' consent.
The new state, Douglass Commonwealth, created by H.R. 51,
would not be formed within the jurisdiction of an existing
state nor by combining others. However, it would be the first
state to be formed from land previously designated as the seat
of Federal Government, pursuant to the District Clause found in
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.
This clause gives Congress the authority, quote, ``to
exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over
such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by
Cession of particular states, and the Acceptance of Congress,
become the Seat of Government of the United States.''
Scholars disagree over whether the District Clause poses a
constitutional barrier to Congress' ability to exercise its
Admissions Clause powers over a portion of the District of
Columbia.
Those who oppose statehood argue, for example, that once
the District had been established it became permanent, or that
a minimum size is necessary to carry out the functions that the
Framers envisioned.
Those who support statehood point out that those
restrictions are not found within the text of the Constitution
and may reflect policy judgments rather than constitutional
objections.
A separate challenge may arise under the 23rd Amendment,
ratified in 1961, which directs, quote, ``the District
constituting the seat of Government of the United States,''
close quote, to appoint electors who will be considered as
electors appointed by a state for the purpose of electing the
President and Vice President in the electoral college.
Although H.R. 51 provides for expedited consideration of a
constitutional amendment to repeal the 23rd Amendment, that
cannot be effectuated by simple legislation and requires the
votes of three-fourths of the states to ratify the new
constitutional amendment. Congress, of course, cannot guarantee
that that will happen, even with the expedited consideration of
the bill to do so.
In short, novel legislation, like H.R. 51, is likely to
invite legal challenges raising issues of first impression. The
interplay among these constitutional provisions has rarely been
raised in Federal courts, so there is very little judicial
guidance.
One of the only pieces of judicial guidance we have comes
from the 1875 case of Phillips v. Payne, which raised
constitutional objections to the retrocession of what was the
western portion of the District of Columbia that had been ceded
by the state of Virginia.
However, because the retrocession was effectuated in 1846,
but the case did not make its way to the Supreme Court until
1875, the Supreme Court declined to examine the constitutional
issues on the merits and refused to disturb what was by then
the settled situation with Virginia having accepted back the
portion of land that it had originally ceded to the District.
As such, that case does not provide much guidance on the
constitutional issues at play today.
So, whereas here, with H.R. 51, reasonable minds can
differ, the outcome of any constitutional challenge to H.R. 51
cannot be predicted with any certainty.
In fact, there is a substantial possibility that courts
would decline to hear a constitutional challenge altogether
pursuant to the Court's justiciability doctrines. As such,
Congress should carefully consider these issues when deciding
what action to take on H.R. 51.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you again.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Henderson, you are now recognized for your testimony.
Mr. Henderson.
STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, INTERIM PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN
RIGHTS
Mr. Henderson. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak before you today regarding the Leadership
Conference's strong support for H.R. 51, the Washington, DC.
Admission Act.
The Leadership Conference is the Nation's premier civil and
human rights coalition, with over 220 national organizations
working to build an America as good as its ideals.
I would like to speak about this bill, both as a lifelong
civil and human rights advocate, as well as a native
Washingtonian.
Throughout my career I have seen and fought for changes
that have made our Nation a more perfect Union, a Nation more
fully aligned with its founding principles of justice,
fairness, and inclusion.
I have seen this progress in Washington, DC, as well. When
I was born in the old Freedman's Hospital on Howard
University's campus, the city's hospitals were segregated along
racial lines by law. That is no longer the case.
Bloomingdale, where I grew up and where I now own a home,
was once a segregated neighborhood by law and by custom. Today,
however, people of all races live in the area as my neighbors
and friends.
Gone, too, are the remnants of de jure separate schooling
that sent me to an all-Black elementary school despite the fact
that I started grade school after the landmark ruling in Brown
v. Board of Education that outlawed racial segregation.
Yet one thing still has yet to change for me as a lifelong
resident of Washington. In spite of all the progress we have
seen and in spite of all my efforts to speak out on Capitol
Hill on behalf of other Americans, I have never had anyone
meaningfully represent me on Capitol Hill.
For more than 200 years, my hundreds of thousands of
neighbors and I have been mere spectators to our democracy.
Even though we pay Federal taxes, fight courageously in wars,
and fulfill our obligations of citizenship, we still have no
voice when Congress makes decisions on matters as important as
taxes and spending, healthcare, justice reform, education,
immigration, and the environment.
From a broader civil and human rights perspective, the
disenfranchisement of D.C. residents stands out as the most
blatant violation of the most important civil right that
Americans have--the right to vote--and it only perpetuates the
underlying animus that has been present since the District's
founding.
For example, when Congress was deliberating the question of
voting rights for D.C. residents toward the end of the 19th
century, Alabama Senator John Tyler Morgan argued that rather
than grant political power to the District's Black population,
Congress should, and I quote, ``deny the right of suffrage
entirely to every human being in the District.'' He said it was
necessary to, quote, ``burn down the barn to get rid of the
rats,'' unquote.
More than 100 years later, this stain of racial voter
suppression persists. In the past year, D.C. residents have
been subjected to several humiliating reminders of our second
class status.
Last March, Congress shorted the District by $755 million
in COVID-19 assistance because it treated the District as a
territory rather than as a state, even though its residents pay
Federal taxes just like residents of every other state.
Last summer, the former administration called in Federal
law enforcement and National Guard troops from other states
over the objection of our Mayor to disrupt peaceful protests
against police brutality and racism, including violently
clearing a street to allow for a Presidential photo-op in front
of St. John's Church.
And on January 6, the same administration dragged its heels
for hours, again over the objections of our Mayor, before
finally deploying D.C.'s National Guard to quell the deadly
attack of right-wing militia on the U.S. Capitol.
We simply cannot be the democracy we say we are when the
lives of more than 700,000 people are at the mercy of political
whim.
Our Nation has made great progress throughout its history
in expanding the right to vote. In the process, it has become a
model for the world. Yet, it remains painfully clear that the
right to vote is meaningless if we can't put anyone into
office.
Washingtonians have been deprived of this right for more
than two centuries, often on grounds that had nothing to do
with constitutional design and everything to do with matters of
race. Until statehood is achieved, the efforts of the civil
rights movement will remain incomplete.
Extending representation and self-governance to D.C.
residents is one of the highest legislative priorities of the
Leadership Conference, as it is for me on a very personal
level. D.C. residents should not have to abandon our homes and
move elsewhere to secure the rights of citizens enjoyed by
others.
H.R. 51 will move us closer to our shared ideals for which
District residents have fought and died. I am grateful that you
brought the D.C. Statehood bill up for discussion, and I look
forward to working with you to make it a reality.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee
today. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Wingo, you are now recognized for your testimony. Mr.
Wingo.
STATEMENT OF HARRY WINGO, D.C. VETERAN
Mr. Wingo. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member
Comer, Congresswoman Norton, and other members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support
of H.R. 51, legislation to finally grant statehood to the
712,000 residents of Washington, DC.
I am Harry Wingo, a D.C. veteran. I work for the U.S.
Department of Defense, but the views I express today are my own
and do not reflect the official policy or position of my
employer, the National Defense University, DOD, or the U.S.
Government. I only speak for myself and for those many D.C.
veterans who support D.C. Statehood.
I'm not here today to discuss constitutional law, even
though I'm a Yale law grad. Today, I simply ask that as you
consider D.C. Statehood, you pause to take into account the
sacrifice of the over 30,000 veterans who live in Washington.
I'm one of those veterans.
I'm a third-generation military veteran, in fact. My
grandfather served in the trenches and survived the horrors of
poison gas in World War I. My father, Harry Wingo, Sr., served
35 years in the Army and Army Reserve, rising from the rank of
private to the rank of chief warrant officer three. I
personally spent 6-1/2 years in the U.S. Navy SEAL teams, after
graduating from Annapolis. After graduating with BUD/S class
157, I earned my Trident.
As a Navy SEAL officer, I focused first on underwater
demolitions with SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team ONE, locking out of
nuclear submarines with mini-subs. Next, I spent several years
leading men in the conduct of counter-drug operations
throughout Latin America, including being a military adviser in
the jungles of Colombia. That was with Special Boat Unit 26,
reporting to Naval Special Warfare Unit 8 and U.S. Southern
Command. Then I came home to attend law school and began a
career in technology, law, and policy, that led me to where I
currently serve at the National Defense University at the
College of Information and Cyberspace.
I saw firsthand, before that, as CEO of the D.C. Chamber of
Commerce, the contributions that D.C. veterans make to the
vibrant economy of Washington. The business leaders, the
businesses large and small. In 2015, Mayor Bowser selected me
to be chairperson of the Advisory Board on Veterans Affairs for
the District of Columbia, a role that I was honored to fulfill.
No taxation without representation has been a worthy
rallying cry for D.C. Statehood. D.C. veterans have more to
say. We should not have to sacrifice without representation.
According to a July 2020 report by the congressional Research
Service, the number of D.C. veterans who have given their lives
in combat compares honorably to other states, perhaps
remarkably given our disenfranchisement. According to that
report, 202 D.C. servicemembers died in combat in World War I;
in World War II, 1,449 were killed in action; in the Korean
War, 158 from D.C. died, a number greater than the deaths for
10 other states. In Vietnam, 242 from D.C. died in combat,
surpassing the number from 10 other states.
More recently, publicly available DOD information from the
Defense Casualty Analysis System lists five D.C. veterans among
the fallen from Operation Iraqi Freedom and lists four from
Operation Enduring Freedom. These grim statistics demonstrate
the price D.C. veterans have paid and continue to pay for the
inalienable rights of others, even though we are denied those
rights ourselves.
To those who oppose D.C. Statehood, I respectfully ask: How
can you ask D.C. veterans to keep carrying the burden of
disenfranchisement when we have shouldered the burden of
defending our country, having D.C. veterans earn no less than
the full represented democracy that comes only with statehood?
Before this hearing, I listened to the stories of fellow
D.C. veterans, including members of Veterans United for D.C.
Statehood, led by Hector Rodriguez. I listened to Ms.
Antoinette Scott, the first female member of the D.C. National
Guard to be awarded the Purple Heart after being wounded in an
IED attack in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I spoke with D.C. native
Dr. Howard Clark, a Marine, who during combat deployments to
Iraq and Afghanistan wondered why some in Congress supported
giving residents of Baghdad and Kabul the right to vote for
their national legislature but denied this very right to
Americans, much less military veterans in our own capital.
It was only after my naval service and law school that I
ventured routinely in the Federal court downtown D.C. to clerk
for the late Honorable Judge James Robertson, a Navy veteran,
and as service counsel to the late great Senator Ted Stevens of
Alaska, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and a
World War II veteran, an aviator. Now I live in northwest D.C.
with my wife and daughters, and like so many D.C. veterans, we
are for statehood because of our sacrifice.
Since the founding of the Nation, the people of D.C. have
since grown to share a unique culture for its common experience
and tradition, including the sacrifice of military service.
Congress should choose freedom and equality for all
Washingtonians and especially for D.C. veterans.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to any
questions you may have.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Smith, you are now recognized for your testimony. Mic,
please.
STATEMENT OF ZACK SMITH, LEGAL FELLOW, MEESE CENTER, HERITAGE
FOUNDATION
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Good afternoon. We're here today to answer one simple
question: Does Congress have the power to transform our
Nation's capital into our Nation's 51st state by simple
legislation for historical, practical, and, most importantly,
constitutional reasons? The answer is resoundingly no.
Now, while some have said that the objections I plan to
discuss today are specious legal arguments, are bad-faith
arguments, as Mayor Bowser has previously said, this just isn't
true. Both Republican and Democratic Justice Departments who
have looked at the issue have said that a constitutional
amendment is required for D.C. Statehood. More troublingly,
some have said or implied that race or racism is behind these
objections. Again, that's just not true.
These objections are based on the text and structure of the
Constitution. Delegate Norton's predecessor, Walter Fauntroy,
did not favor statehood for the District of Columbia because he
said it would be in direct defiance of the prescriptions of our
Founding Fathers. Even Mayor Bowser's predecessor, Walter E.
Washington, the District's first home-rule mayor, for practical
reasons opposed statehood for the District of Columbia. He said
that the Federal interest in this city goes beyond Pennsylvania
Avenue, it goes beyond Constitution Avenue, and that the
Federal interest and the city's interest are intertwined; that
to tear them apart would rip the city at the seams and would
threaten its continued viability.
So, what are the constitutional objections to D.C.
Statehood? Well, the first and most significant involves the
23rd Amendment. Now advocates for H.R. 51 certainly recognize
that the existence of the 23rd Amendment poses a constitutional
problem for them. Unfortunately, H.R. 51 seeks to deal with
this problem in a wholly inadequate and itself unconstitutional
manner. It seeks to nullify the clear commands of the 23rd
Amendment that the District, constituting the seat of
government, shall appoint electors for President and Vice
President, and it proposes to nullify this by simple
legislation. It does propose a constitutional amendment and
hopes and encourages Congress and the states to pass it in
order to avoid the absurd result where only a handful of people
living in the new Nation's rump capital would control three
electoral votes.
It should be clear to everyone that Congress cannot,
Congress should not nullify a constitutional provision by
simple legislation.
Now, we've also heard the argument that the Admissions
Clause, Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, allows
Congress to take this action and that, in fact, Congress has
previously taken this action 37 times in our Nation's history.
Well, fair enough, but for our purposes here today, the
Admissions Clause is constitutionally irrelevant because none
of those other 37 states owe their very existence to a separate
constitutional provision. The District owes its existence to
the District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. But even
if Congress could transform the District into a new state by
simple legislation, we have to ask the question whether it
should. And, again, the answer is no.
The Framers of our Constitution wanted a separate Federal
District to preserve the safety and security of the Federal
Government. We've heard some mention of that here today, but it
doesn't take much imagination to imagine a different mayor or a
different city government disagreeing with the Federal
Government over essential security functions. In fact, we saw
some of that this past summer.
The Framers also wanted to avoid one state having undue
influence over the Federal Government. There's no question that
D.C. residents already impact the national debate. For the
members here today, how many of you saw D.C. Statehood yard
signs or bumper stickers or banners on your way to this hearing
today? I certainly did. Where else in the Nation could such
simple actions reach so many Members of Congress?
And then there are practical reasons why the District
should not become our Nation's 51st state. It would be our
Nation's only city-state. It'd be 17 times smaller than our
next smallest state, and would lack many amenities and
resources found in nearly every other state. Unfortunately,
H.R. 51 takes a grant statehood now, work out the details later
approach, especially with regards to funding for courts and
prisoners.
There's no question that years of litigation, nearly every
law or action passed by the new state or the Federal Government
could be called into question and that even a future
Presidential election could be called into question if the 23rd
Amendment is not resolved. Advocates for D.C. Statehood do no
one, not themselves, not the District residents, not our Nation
any favors by seeking D.C. Statehood in this manner. Because if
we stretch and bend the Constitution, even for what we may
perceive to be laudable purposes, where would we turn in the
future when we may need its protections.
Thank you. I welcome any questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Norton. Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to enter several items into the record.
Chairwoman Maloney. So granted.
Ms. Norton. The testimony of former George W. Bush
Administration Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh in support
of the constitutionality of the D.C. Statehood bill; the ACLU
analysis in support of the constitutionality of the bill; a
list of 111 organizations, including 84 national organizations
that have endorsed the bill; and a letter from a D.C. resident,
Andrea Renee Reed, in support of statehood.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes herself for five minutes for
questions.
The United States is the only democratic country that
denies voting representation in the national legislature to the
residents of its capital. In the year 2021, we should not need
to discuss the importance of voting rights in a democracy, but
Republican opposition to H.R. 51, as well as the voting
restrictions Republican legislators are trying to impose across
the country, requires us to revisit first principles.
Now, I have heard today and I've heard in discussions when
we discussed this issue from my friends on the other side of
the aisle, and they try to frame that the support, that the
push for D.C. Statehood is a power grab from the Democrats. And
I would say that the real power grab is denying 712,000
taxpaying American citizens the right to vote.
This is not about politics; it is a fundamental voting and
civil rights issue. And it is outrageous that Republicans would
play a partisan politics just to block 712,000 Americans from
having full equality in our democracy. Every American deserves
a voice in their own government. Taxation without
representation was the battle cry of our revolution, and it is
still a battle cry.
I would like to direct my first question to Mr. Henderson,
who is the CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, and he speaks with some authority on these issues. In
the last year, we lost several giants of the civil rights
movement, including the former chair of this committee, Elijah
Cummings, and also our dear colleague, John Lewis, a civil
rights hero. And they were both strong supporters of D.C.
Statehood.
So, my question to you is that you said that until D.C.
residents have a voting Congress, and I'm quoting you, ``the
efforts of the civil rights movement will remain incomplete,''
end quote. Can you elaborate on your statement? Why do you view
this as a continuation of the civil rights movement? Mr.
Henderson.
Please unmute, Mr. Henderson.
Mr. Henderson. So sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As you described our Nation's contribution to the world, it
is quite clear that we are the most significant representative
democracy the world has ever seen, and yet we are burdened by
contradiction, even as we attempt to bring democratic values to
the rest of the world. We deny 700,000--over 700,000 citizens
of our Nation's capital, citizens of the country, the right to
participate meaningfully in our national legislature and in our
democratic debate, while seeking to bring that same level of
protection to the residents of Kabul, Afghanistan, or Baghdad,
Iraq.
That is noble; however, that contradiction simply cannot
stand. It makes us look weak. It makes us look fearful of the
contributions that others have. I heard arguments this morning
that suggest, well, Congress created this enclave known as the
District of Columbia to ensure that it was not dependent on the
support of surrounding states to protect its interest. That
argument is absolutely laughable, having seen the insurrection
of January 6 in which our Congress of the United States was
virtually overthrown the first time since the war of 1812 by
individuals who had absolutely no respect for the rule of law
or the interest that Congress purports to represent.
It is quite clear that the decision to deny voting rights
to D.C. residents has been influenced by issues of race and
concerns about the population of the District as, at one time,
a majority Black population coming into our Union. I quoted
from an Alabama senator who previously recognized this dilemma
and spoke openly about his hostility to providing coverage to--
citizenship coverage to the residents of the District because
of race.
All of these reasons taken together suggest that, indeed,
the deprivation of rights to D.C. residents is one of the
greatest denials of the most fundamental rights that citizens
of the United States enjoy.
And one last point. It is, you know, arguable that someone
has said that D.C. residents getting citizenship is a power
grab. But let me suggest to you that in the state of Maryland,
which is traditionally seen as, quote, a democratic bastion, we
have a very popular Republican Governor who enjoys widespread
support of all citizens of Maryland.
We also have had advocates in the past, including Frederick
Douglass, but also more recently, Jack Kemp and Senator Bob
Dole, who have been strong advocates for D.C. Statehood. Far be
it for me to suggest to any member of a political party that
they are unable to compete for the votes of D.C. residents
simply by virtue of their political affiliation. I think there
is much evidence to suggest that is simply not true.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. My time is up.
I just want to answer and complete with, as Republican
Dwight Eisenhower said in his 1954 State of the Union, and I
quote: ``In the District of Columbia, the time is long overdue
for granting national suffrage to its citizens and also
applying the principle of local self-government to the Nation's
capital,'' end quote. I could not agree more.
And I yield back.
And I now recognize Ranking Member Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I'm going to direct my questions to Mayor Bowser. But,
first, a couple of my colleagues and a couple of the Democrat
witnesses have mentioned that Republicans are playing partisan
politics with D.C. Statehood. I just want to clarify for the
record. This Congress, the House of Representatives' two
priority bills that have passed are H.R. 1, the election--the
Federal election takeover bill, as I call it, and the $1.9
trillion stimulus bill. Both those bills passed the House of
Representatives without a single Republican vote. So, when we
look at partisanship, I think that the Democrats thus far in
this Congress have displayed partisanship at unprecedented
levels and I hope that we can change that.
But, Mayor, is it accurate to say that you think statehood
is necessary to ensure D.C. residents are on equal footing with
every other American? If D.C. were to become a state and
receive all the benefits, shouldn't it have the same
obligations as well?
Mayor Bowser. Congressman, yes. If your question is, do
D.C. residents expect to participate fully in our American
democracy, the answer is yes. Just as we do today, paying our
fair share--some would argue more than our fair share--of
Federal taxes without representation or full autonomy.
Mr. Comer. So, it should have the same obligations as well,
correct, with respect--let me further elaborate. D.C. has a
legislative, executive, and judicial branch, but with respect
to the judicial branch, how is that funded?
Mayor Bowser. The judicial branch is part of the Federal
Government, and D.C. residents look forward to having a
judiciary that is accountable to its citizens.
Mr. Comer. So right now, the Federal Government provides
funding for over $600 million per year for the D.C. judicial
branch. Under H.R. 51, the D.C. Statehood bill, if D.C. were to
become a state, would Washington, DC. pick up that $600 million
tab?
Mayor Bowser. Our courts, our prosecutor's office, our
Federal parole board would become state departments.
Mr. Comer. With respect to Medicaid, the Medicaid rate for
Washington, DC, paid for by the Federal Government, is 73.5
percent. You have mentioned previously that D.C. has a state
population higher than Vermont and Wyoming.
Do you know the current Medicaid rate paid for by the
Federal Government for those states, by any chance?
Mayor Bowser. I do not.
Mr. Comer. Wyoming, it's--the Federal Government pays for
52.6 percent of their Medicaid, and Vermont's 59.3 percent, but
in Washington, DC, it's 73.5 percent. And, again----
Mayor Bowser. But, Congressman, I have to tell you, it's
not the same in each state. In fact, I'm not sure what it is in
Kentucky or in other states, but we actually think that we
would make the argument for rates that are commensurate with
our health statistics.
Mr. Comer. I wonder, if Washington, DC. were to become a
state--and we will repeatedly make the point through this
hearing, the minority will, that that will require a
constitutional amendment. But if that were to happen, I wonder,
Mayor, do you think this would lead other states to split and
try to create their own states?
For example, in California, there's been a movement for
many, many years to create the 51st state there. A lot of--in
fact, the majority of the map of California feels
disenfranchised because so much of the population lives in San
Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and they don't feel like the
representation in Sacramento or their Representatives in
Washington represent their values. And, oh, by the way,
conservatives would like it because that would bust up
California's electoral college number and potentially elect one
or two Republican Senators.
Now, I just wonder if you feel like that would lead to a
movement among other states to do the same thing?
Mayor Bowser. Congressman, the people of the District sent
me here for a singular purpose, and that was to advocate for
them. And we know that the only way to achieve full quality as
American taxpayers is through statehood. And the people of
California who you mention have two Senators. We do not. So,
the situations are not analogous. We are here to demand that
the 220-year history of us not being represented in the capital
of our country be corrected, and this Congress has within its
full authority to do that.
Mr. Comer. Should every city have two U.S. Senators? Would
Washington consider rejoining Maryland as a state----
Mayor Bowser. Every American, Congressman, who pays taxes
deserves representation. Our Congresswoman should have a vote
and we should have two Senators. Citizens of other cities and
states in the United States of America have two Senators. We do
not.
Mr. Comer. Well, we're going to make the argument, Madam
Chair, that many Democrat Presidents, many Democrat attorneys
general have made in the past, and we look forward to a vibrant
discussion on this. But I will conclude by saying, H.R. 51 is
an unconstitutional bill. I think most people here realize
that. I think this is another political game that the Democrats
are playing, but, hopefully, we can get to a point this
Congress where we can work together in truly bipartisan ways to
do the things that the American people sent us up here to do.
So, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton,
is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Norton. It's interesting, Madam Chair, that the
gentleman cites a small movement in California to succeed from
the state. The District is asking for the opposite, to join the
Union, with full equality, with the states.
My questions are for Ms. Schwartz of the congressional
Research Service. I'd like to look at three issues that have
been mentioned here: that H.R. 51 violates the District Clause,
the Admissions Clause, and the 23rd Amendment. That would be
three violations, but the way to look at this issue is to look
at the statute itself as the primary reference.
So, Ms. Schwartz, how many numbers are used in the District
Clause?
Ms. Schwartz. I'm sorry. Your question is how many numbers
are used in the District Clause?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Ms. Schwartz. There's a provision that the District may not
exceed 10 miles square.
Ms. Norton. That's the number that's important to focus on
here. Remember, I'm looking at statutory construction. Is that
number, 10 miles square, preceded by words ``not exceeding'' or
``not less than''?
Ms. Schwartz. Not exceeding.
Ms. Norton. The District Clause says Congress shall have
the power to, quote, exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all
cases whatsoever over the District, and the Supreme Court has
held this phrase means Congress has plenary authority over the
Federal District.
Ms. Schwartz, for the nine lawyers watching this hearing,
and I'm trying to settle on exactly what the statute says here,
statutory construction, Ms. Schwartz, the text of--watching
this hearing--does the term primary mean--what does the text
plenary--I'm sorry--plenary mean in this context?
Supreme Court has held that the phrase means Congress has
plenary. That's technical language. What does that mean?
Ms. Schwartz. Plenary means very close to absolute.
Ms. Norton. All right. The text of the District Clause is
clear. Congress has complete, and the witness has testified,
absolute authority over the district, and there is a maximum,
not a minimum size of the Federal District. The Congress has
used its complete authority over the Federal District to
previously reduce the size of the Federal District by 30
percent. Now, some argue that the state of Washington, DC.
would be too small. We've heard that argument here, and does
not have diverse industries or enough amenities.
Ms. Schwartz, does the text of the Admissions Clause
describe any characteristics of the new state, such as
geographical or population size, industries, amenities, or
anything of the kind?
Ms. Schwartz. It does not.
Ms. Norton. I will read the relevant part of the Admissions
Clause, and I'm quoting: ``New states may be admitted by the
Congress into this Union.''
Now, it says nothing. Those are the words. It says nothing
about characteristics of the new states.
Let's turn to the assertion that the Admissions Clause
requires Maryland to consent to the admission of the state of
Washington, DC.
Ms. Schwartz, does Maryland, which gave the land that
constitutes today's District of Columbia to the Federal
Government, own that land today?
Ms. Schwartz. It does not.
Ms. Norton. Does Maryland have any jurisdiction over the
District of Columbia today?
Ms. Schwartz. It does not.
Ms. Norton. Isn't it true that Ohio came from lands
partially ceded by Connecticut to the Federal Government from
the Northwest Territory?
Ms. Schwartz. I----
Ms. Norton. And did Connecticut have to consent to the
admission of Ohio?
Ms. Norton. I have not looked at the specifics of where
Ohio originated, but I do know that there were states that came
from the Northwest Territory, and there was not a separate
question about whether the states that had formerly ceded that
territory would consent, again, when the new states were
created.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
I will read the text of the Admissions Clause. No new state
shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other
state, et cetera.
The District Clause is not within the jurisdiction of
Maryland, so Maryland's consent is not required to admit the
state of Washington, DC, as some argue the 23rd Amendment,
which gave the Federal District electoral votes, precludes
admission of the state of Washington, DC. Mr. Smith said that.
Does the text of the 23rd Amendment describe the
geographical or population size of the Federal District?
Ms. Schwartz. It does not expressly do so.
Ms. Norton. The text only refers to, and I'll quote: ``The
district constituting the seat of government.'' It says nothing
about the geographical or population size of the District of
Columbia. Those of us who believe that H.R. 51 is Constitution
only need to do what I have just done, read the words written
into the Constitution.
I thank you, Madam Chair.
Voice. May I respond to that?
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, is recognized for
five minutes.
Voice. May I respond to that?
Chairwoman Maloney. Pardon me?
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mayor Bowser, in what section is the District of Columbia
mentioned in the Constitution specifically?
Mayor Bowser. I'm sorry. Was that for me, Madam Chair?
Mr. Gosar. Yes, Mayor Bowser.
Mayor Bowser. What was your question again, sir?
Mr. Gosar. In what section is the District of Columbia----
Chairwoman Maloney. Turn your mic on.
Mr. Gosar. Can you hear me?
Mayor Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Gosar. OK. In what section is the District of Columbia
mentioned in the Constitution?
Mayor Bowser. Are you referring to the District Clause,
sir?
Mr. Gosar. I'm asking, the District of Columbia, where is
it mentioned in the Constitution?
Mayor Bowser. The District Clause.
Mr. Gosar. It is not mentioned. It is not mentioned. It
does mention the Federal District, but it does not mention
specifically the District of Columbia. But the Constitution--
and that's Article I, Section 8.
In what context is the Federal District mentioned in
Article I, Section 8?
Mayor Bowser. I'm happy to go and refer to your references,
but I'm not--I don't have the cites off the top of my head.
Mr. Gosar. Well, it's to exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over such district as may become the seat
of the Government of the United States.
What--that same section says the Congress will have the
authority to purchase places for the erection of forts,
magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings for
the District. Your proposal makes the National Mall, the White
House, and the Capitol complex the new district in the
Constitution. Where are the forts going to be and where are the
dockyards going to be?
Mayor Bowser. The forts? There is a system of forts around
the District of Columbia currently, as you know, and those
forts remain. I do think that your question may be somewhat
outdated, sir. And when we think about the threats to our
Nation, we see it not in the form of people descending on the
District where we need to be on high ground to defend. What
we've seen, actually, in our most recent history, that our
threats are domestic; that we have to be concerned about how
the national intelligence apparatus can keep our Nation safe. I
think what we've also seen is that----
Mr. Gosar. Reclaiming my time. You're going beyond----
Mayor Bowser.--the new state will be a supporter of the
national security and not a----
Mr. Gosar. You're going beyond our scope here, and if you'd
like to get into that, I'd be happy to get into that. Because
if you're bringing up insurrection, were there any weapons
confiscated on the 6th?
Mayor Bowser. Yes, sir, there were. And there were weapons
confiscated leading up to the 6th.
Mr. Gosar. No. That's not what we've heard.
Mayor Bowser. And there was also--there were also an
explosion--an incendiary device that was located very close to
this Congress----
Mr. Gosar. I think you made--I think you made my point.
Mayor Bowser.--and where lawmakers were put in grave
danger.
Mr. Gosar. I think you made my point.
Mayor Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Gosar. Now, it sounds like the Constitution clearly
contemplates the District to be an actual city, doesn't it?
Were the Founding Fathers just wrong in wanting a separate
district controlled by Congress?
Mayor Bowser. Could you repeat that, sir?
Mr. Gosar. Yes. It sounds like the Constitution clearly
contemplates that the District be a separate city, doesn't it?
Were the Founding Fathers just wrong in wanting a separate
district controlled by Congress? Were they just wrong?
Mayor Bowser. I think that the Founding Fathers recognized
that they were stripping the people of the District of Columbia
at the time, only White men at the time could vote, and that
they recognized that that was an issue that was going to have
to be dealt with, both for the representation in the national
legislature and for self-government.
Mr. Gosar. So, now, just going back to the size of the
city. You said it's about 700,000. Do you think that the size
of Paris at the time that we considered this district was taken
into consideration for the design of the District? What was the
size of Paris in 1801?
Mayor Bowser. I'm not sure what the size of Paris was in
1801.
Mr. Gosar. It was about 630,000. So, I think they took that
well into consideration.
Can you tell me when the District came under congressional
authority?
Mayor Bowser. The District--1801 Organic Act, is that what
you're referring to, when the residents of the District of
Columbia were stricken of voting representation in the national
legislature?
Mr. Gosar. You're right. Yes.
Mayor Bowser. Yes. 220 years ago.
Mr. Gosar. Can you tell me--can you tell me from what
states the district received its territory originally and when?
Mayor Bowser. Congressman, I'm happy to go over a history
lesson with you at the appropriate time. We, as you know, the
states of Maryland and Virginia granted to the Federal
Government lands that now comprise the District of Columbia.
Mr. Gosar. One last question to Mr. Smith. In the fact of
the retrocession, House made it illegal--passed a bill finding
it illegal. Mr. Smith, do you actually hold that that argument
you heard from the delegate, Ms. Norton Holmes, in regards to
being owned by Maryland suffices?
Mr. Smith. I think there are three points to make----
Chairwoman Maloney. Put your mic on, please, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
I think there are three points to make in response to that.
The first is the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether that
retrocession was constitutional. They--at the time they were
asked to consider it, they said too much time had passed. So,
certainly a timely challenge today would raise many of the same
issues that that retrocession raised.
Additionally, it was a much smaller area that was being
retrocessed at the time, only about a third of the District.
And, most importantly, Virginia consented to that retrocession.
And so it only makes sense that Maryland would need to consent
to a different use of the land today.
Additionally, there's also the issue of the 23rd Amendment,
which even if a specific size wasn't specifically--for the
District wasn't contemplated under the District Clause, I think
there's a very compelling argument that the 23rd Amendment,
when adopted, certainly contemplated the District being a
certain size with a significant population. And that's a view
that Attorney General Robert Kennedy also shared.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much. Can you hear me?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can.
Mr. Lynch. OK. That's great.
I think it's important to remember that the residents of
the District of Columbia have been giving their blood and
treasure to a country that still denies them voting
representation in Congress and full self-government.
As the chair has pointed out and Ms. Norton has pointed
out, D.C. residents do pay Federal taxes, which contributes to
fund our military operations. They register for Selective
Service, they enlist in America's Armed Forces, and they
bravely deploy abroad in defense of our Nation, yet they do not
share in the full rights and privileges of American
citizenship.
D.C. residents have no vote in the Senate on confirmation
of its military leadership, and until a recent act of Congress,
the military was not even required to display the D.C. flag
when it displayed state flags. Over the course of America's
history, hundreds of thousands of D.C. residents have served in
the military. Today, there are 30,000 living D.C. residents who
are veterans.
D.C. residents have fought in every single American war.
D.C. has suffered more war casualties than many states. In
World War I, nearly 26,000 District residents served and 635
made the ultimate sacrifice, with D.C. suffering more
casualties than 10 states. More than 89,000 D.C. residents
served in World War II, which witnessed about 3,900 D.C.
casualties and more, more casualties than four states. And,
again, in the Vietnam war, D.C. suffered 243 casualties, more
casualties than 10 states. Nearly 40 D.C. servicemembers have
received the congressional Medal of Honor, our Nation's highest
military award for bravery.
Mr. Wingo, I want to thank you for your service and your
testimony, and the testimony of all the witnesses today. Thank
you for trying to help Congress do its work. Mr. Wingo, you're
a native Washingtonian, you're also a graduate of the Naval
Academy, a former Navy SEAL, and you served in both the Federal
and legislative branches. I think you offer a very unique
perspective, an important one.
I want to ask you, as a veteran and a military professor,
how do you reconcile the fact to people that we actually have,
and have for a long time, we have residents of D.C. stepping
up, joining the military, deploying overseas to fight for and
defend the rights of foreign citizens to have basic rights that
you are denied when you come back to your own Nation's capital?
How do we reconcile that? Help me with that.
Mr. Wingo. Congressman Lynch, I can't reconcile it. We
should not have to sacrifice without representation. And I
think that, as a veteran, I hear from so many other veterans
that, as you say, we have honorably served and we've died in
these wars. And, in fact, thank you for sharing those numbers.
For the Vietnam war, 243 total deaths. It turns out, and this
is a grim statistic, for Vermont, there were 100; for Wyoming,
there were 119.
So, the calculus of proportionality, it has been--we've
honorably served. So, I cannot reconcile that we are denied our
inalienable rights and we should not be.
Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, sir. I think your testimony and your
perspective are extremely important here, and it gets right to
the crux of this question.
And I want to thank Chairwoman Maloney for holding this
hearing. I also want to thank Ms. Holmes Norton for her
persistence and her resilience, and the fact that this bill has
gotten this far and got this far in the previous Congress is
largely due to her representation. So, I want to thank her for
trying to right this injustice.
And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, is now
recognized.
Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
My first question is for Mayor Bowser. Where would you
place the ideological makeup of D.C. relative to other cities
in the country? Is it slightly Democratic, very Democratic,
very Republican?
Mayor Bowser. It's more than slightly Democratic,
Congresswoman.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Mayor Bowser, if Democrats eliminated
Washington, DC. and instead created a state of Washington,
Douglass Commonwealth, what political affiliation do you
anticipate the two new Senators would be?
Mayor Bowser. I don't know. That will be up to the people
of the District of Columbia.
Ms. Foxx. OK. But with a very Democratic population, you
can't anticipate what that would be?
Mayor Bowser. I can anticipate that there will be a lot of
very capable Washingtonians running to elect their fellow
citizens.
Ms. Foxx. Well, thank you. Thank you. Let's assume that
those would be Democrats who would be elected. So, do you think
that they would be moderate Democrats or liberal Democrats?
Mayor Bowser. I think that the people of Washington, DC.
have elected moderate Democrats and very progressive Democrats.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
Mayor Bowser. And they've also elected Independents and
Republicans.
Ms. Foxx. Why thank you, Mayor Bowser.
Madam Chairman, from what I'm hearing, this Democrat-led
Congress is attempting to use a razor-thin majority that it has
to entrench itself in power by passing measures such as H.R. 1
to nationalize our elections, then moving to add two additional
Democrats to the Senate by attempting to make D.C. a state.
D.C. is a pawn being used by congressional Democrats to gain
power, all without regard to the constitutional and practical
issues that making the district a state presents.
The opinions being offered here today by the witnesses that
the Democrats have brought show me that there is an attitude of
little respect for the Constitution, and how people have
convoluted things that have happened in the past to negate the
clear language of the Constitution is truly a 1984 experience
to me.
Mr. Smith, are there alternatives to D.C. Statehood that
would provide representation to D.C. residents in Congress
without violating the Constitution?
Mr. Smith. There are alternatives--thank you. There are
alternatives, Congresswoman, and they've certainly been
explored in the past. There was previously a constitutional
amendment in the 1970's that would have treated the District as
though it were a state for voting purposes and representation
in Congress, and certainly those alternatives would be
available today as well.
Ms. Foxx. Well, thank you. Was district representation in
Congress for the Federal District ever contemplated by any of
the Founding Fathers?
Mr. Smith. Well, the time the District was established, it
was not. It's a clear decision the Founding Fathers made. It
was controversial. At the time, it was immediately debated. The
decision was clear, and some such as James Madison thought the
tradeoff of living close to the seat of the Federal Government
would be sufficient compensation. And to quote the Carter
Justice Department, if that balance has changed today, the
appropriate way to deal with that change is through a
constitutional amendment.
Ms. Foxx. Well, I completely agree with you. If the
District of Columbia wishes to become a state, I believe that
we must pass a constitutional amendment. I swear to uphold the
Constitution every time that I am sworn in and I think about it
every day that I am on the floor. Thank you very much.
Thank you Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly, is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you,
Eleanor Holmes Norton for your implacable support for righting
a wrong.
This issue today is really about Democratic unfinished
business. It's not--it's not really about so much of what has
been discussed. My friend Jody Hice criticizes D.C. as not
being viable because it doesn't have car dealerships--not true,
by the way; it does--and it doesn't have a landfill. So, now
we're going to have a new test of statehood: Do you have a
landfill? The absurdity of the arguments being propounded on
the other side of the aisle are all subterfuge.
And I'm grateful for our last questioner on the Republican
side, my friend, Ms. Foxx, for actually letting the cat out of
the bag. This is about race and partisanship and affiliation.
She asked a series of questions of the Mayor of the District of
Columbia that I think are profoundly inappropriate. To
characterize how people might vote were they granted the right
of statehood to have two Senators and what kinds of particular
philosophical attitudes those two Senators might have.
We have never made partisanship a condition of statehood.
And I might add, the danger of that assumption is that things
change. In 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii were paired in
statehood, creating the 49th and 50th state, Alaska was assumed
to be a Democratic state and Hawaii was assumed to be a
Republican state. And, indeed, initially, that's how they
performed.
Today, nobody would think that way. Hawaii is clearly a
strong Democratic state and Alaska is clearly a strong
Republican state. Assumptions are dangerous. Behavior changes.
We can't make decisions on that basis.
Ms. Schwartz, I want to make sure I understood your answer
to Ms. Norton. The Admissions Clause in the Constitution grants
near absolute power to the Congress in terms of admitting a new
state into the Union. Is that not correct?
Ms. Schwartz. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. Are there conditions? Is there conditionality
in the Admissions Clause?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes. The conditions are that no new state can
be formed within the jurisdiction of another state, nor by the
joining two states together or parts of states together without
the consent of the legislators of those states.
Mr. Connolly. Right. So, Mr. Comer's question to somebody
about, how about we split up California, would actually be in
violation of the very provision, without the consent of
Californians, you decided?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes. California's consent would be required.
Mr. Connolly. And Congress--somebody asked you earlier
about Ohio. The Northwest Territory at the time, in fact, was
created by the cession, the voluntary cession of a number of
states, including my own, Virginia, out of which Ohio was
fashioned. Do you recall that?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And when Texas was admitted, which was very
controversial--took a while, but when Texas was finally
admitted to the Union, Congress insisted on boundary changes
that actually added territory to what is now New Mexico and
took it away from Texas. Do you recall that?
Ms. Schwartz. I am not familiar with the specifics of the
boundaries of Texas at the time of statehood, unfortunately.
Mr. Connolly. Trust me on that. In other words, Congress
exercised broad power, not only to admit a state, but to decide
on the physical configuration of that state.
You know, let me just say, Madam Chairwoman, I grieve at
what's happened to the party of Lincoln, the party of
emancipation, the party of 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. You
have to look at what we're discussing in a context, and the
context on the other side of the aisle, tragically, is about
voter suppression. 200 bills have been introduced in 43 states
since the election last November to restrict, repress, suppress
the vote, the ability of people to vote early and with
facility.
In fact, in Mr. Hice's home state of Georgia, we have seen
some of the most repugnant bills since Jim Crow to do just
that, restrict the vote. And I think we have to be looking at
this issue of whether we continue to restrict the vote in D.C.
in that context. We're either about empowerment and winning
elections fairly and squarely by competing or we're not. We are
either the world's greatest democracy or we cherry pick who
enjoys the benefits and blessings of that democracy.
This is a wrong based in race, based in very sorted history
that is long overdue to be righted. Let's do the right thing.
Let's stop arguing about false history, let's stop the
subterfuge, and let's empower the 712,000 fellow Americans to
exercise their American right to make their choice any way they
wish in a free election that empowers them as a state.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, is now recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Hice. I thank the Chairwoman. And I thank Mr. Connolly,
my friend from Virginia, for just letting the cat out of the
bag himself. He stated very clearly that what this is all about
is unfinished Democratic business. That's exactly what this is
all about, the Democratic Party attempting a political power
grab of obtaining more Senators. That's entirely what this is
all about, and my comments that he referenced have nothing to
do with a new test for admission. They're based on reality.
If D.C. became a state, it'd be the only state that has no
airport. If there's a car dealership in D.C., I apologize for
being wrong, I have no idea where it is, but it'd be a state
without a capital city. It would not have a landfill, and we
could find a ton of other issues that are just matters of fact
that would be absent here.
Mayor Bowser, let me ask you, is D.C. Statehood a
bipartisan issue, in your opinion?
Please turn your mic on.
Mayor Bowser. I'm sorry, Congressman. My response was it
should be. We never----
Mr. Hice. That's not the question. That's a good answer,
but that's not the question.
Mayor Bowser. OK.
Mr. Hice. Would you consider it a bipartisan issue?
Mayor Bowser. Congressman, it is a bipartisan issue and
here's why.
Mr. Hice. What Republicans do you know that support it?
Mayor Bowser. Oh, I'm quite sure there are Republicans who
support it.
Mr. Hice. That's not my question, again. Let me go to Mr.
Smith.
Mr. Smith, let me ask you, in the past when other states
have been admitted, this whole concern that many have that this
is about Democratic Senators, in the past when states have been
admitted, isn't it true that most of the time, if not all the
time, they were admitted in pairs?
Mr. Smith. That's certainly been the practice for the 20th
century. Alaska and Hawaii came in as a pair. Also, Arizona and
New Mexico came in as a pair as well. And even prior to that,
states would often come in in pairs or groupings in order to
balance partisan considerations.
Mr. Hice. How is that balanced? Describe the balance.
Mr. Smith. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear your question,
Congressman.
Mr. Hice. Mr. Smith, when you say to balance, what do you
mean?
Mr. Smith. That political considerations have always been a
part of admitting new states to our Union. And so when the
states have been admitted in pairs, it has traditionally been,
in part, to balance those political considerations. And so
there would typically be a pairing of a presumed state of one
party with a presumed state of another party.
Mr. Hice. So, there was an attempt in the past, then, to
avoid a potential party getting the upper hand on another
party. And so when we admitted states, we did it in pairs with
both sides coming in at the same time. Is that what you're
saying?
Mr. Smith. Correct, but I think it's important to note as
well, none of those other states faced the significant
constitutional issues that the District faces in coming in as a
state by simple legislation.
Mr. Hice. Yes, I get that.
Mayor Bowser, are you aware of any movement afoot that
would create a state to counterbalance D.C.?
Mayor Bowser. Congressman, we don't accept the notion that
our enfranchisement is dependent on anybody else or the
readiness----
Mr. Hice. OK. Please answer my question. I'm not interested
in what your assumptions are. I ask you, are you aware of any
other movement afoot for another state to be admitted that
would be a counter to D.C.?
Mayor Bowser. I'm not sure if this Congress has any other
bills like H.R. 51 and the D.C. Admissions Act. We are, of
course, familiar with----
Mr. Hice. OK. Well, I can tell you there's not.
Mayor Bowser. We can----
Mr. Hice. There's not.
Let me ask you this. If there was another----
Mayor Bowser. Excuse me, Congressman. I want to completely
answer your question. I----
Mr. Hice. You did. You completely answered my question, so
please don't continue.
If there was another movement to admit another state, would
you be in favor of that? If there was a Union pair, would you
be in favor of it?
Mayor Bowser. I can only answer your question this way,
Congressman. The people of Washington, DC, have voted to
endorse statehood. We have approved a constitution. We have
approved our state boundaries. Our Congresswoman has introduced
a bill that has a historic number of sponsors. And this
committee should advance that bill to approval in the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mayor Bowser, but that's, again, a
great question--all due respect, a great answer to a question
that I did not ask.
D.C. residents have been voting in Presidential elections
since 1961. There have been, what, at least 15 Presidential
elections since that time until now. The most that any
Republican President has ever received over that period of time
is 20 percent coming out of Washington, DC, And that 20 percent
was when the Republican President won with 520 electoral votes,
and yet D.C., the most ever, voted Republican 20 percent in
that election, clearly out of step with America.
And that, combined with the fact that our history as a
Nation admits states that are paired together so it does not
throw off balance the political structure of our country.
Mr. Smith----
Mayor Bowser. Well, Congressman----
Mr. Hice [continuing]. Let me just finish with you. Can you
briefly explain, Mr. Smith, why adding a state to the Union for
the sole purpose of gaining political advantage, as seems to be
the case here, is not the intention of our structure and why it
is potentially dangerous?
Chairwoman Maloney. This is--the gentleman's time has
expired. The gentlelady, the Honorable Bowser, can answer the
question.
Mayor Bowser. Thank you----
Mr. Hice. What about the one I addressed the question to,
Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Maloney. Oh, it was to Mr. Smith? It was to Mr.
Smith. OK.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. You can answer the question.
Mr. Smith. Yes, Congressman, I think admitting the District
of Columbia in this way sets a dangerous precedent because of
the many constitutional issues that are unique to the District.
It is certain that years of litigation would follow this
decision. Potentially every act of the new state and of the
Federal Government during that time period before these issues
are resolved could be called into question. And, certainly, if
the 23rd Amendment issue is not resolved before a future
Presidential election, even that Presidential election could
itself be called into question.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Raskin, is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me now?
Madam Chair, can you hear me?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for
calling the hearing.
Thank you, Ms. Norton, for your hard work on this.
I want to thank Mr. Wingo and the tens of thousands of
veterans in Washington, DC, who've served the country.
I also want to thank all of the 712,000 American citizens
who you represent, Mayor Bowser and Chairman Mendelson, for
having a very strong and legitimate grievance about being
disenfranchised and not represented in Congress and yet never
attacked the U.S. Congress, broke our windows, stormed our
chambers, or caused the deaths or injuries of more than 100 of
our police officers. So, I want to thank you for following the
nonviolent and constitutional path to political equality in
America, which is set forth in the Constitution itself.
Under Article IV of the Constitution, we have the power to
admit new states. We started with just 13 states, and we've
admitted 37 new states, which means that nearly three-quarters
of the states have been admitted by Congress, none of them by
constitutional amendment. And no statehood admission has ever
been invalidated by any court in the land, including the
Supreme Court of the United States.
And it is simply false to assert that there were not
constitutional objections made to numerous state admissions. It
was said Texas could not be admitted because it used to be its
own country and there was no provision for admitting a foreign
country as a state. It was said that Utah and Arizona were too
Mormon or too Catholic, and New Mexico was too Catholic;
therefore, it was theocratic. Kentucky used to be part of
Virginia. West Virginia used to be part of Virginia. Tennessee
used to be part of Virginia.
I mean, come on. Like, learn about American history and you
will understand that all of the fraudulent arguments being made
against the admission of Washington, DC, as a new state have
been made against almost every state in the past. They were too
big; they were too small. Everyone knew you couldn't admit
Hawaii and Alaska because they weren't contiguous to the Union,
right? Like, this is what the history is.
Now, the argument that they are trying to make seriously is
that somehow Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the District
Clause, should be read as a kind of straitjacket on Congress
and a straitjacket on hundreds of thousands of taxpaying,
draftable citizens who live there.
But it's already been established that Congress can modify
the boundaries of the Federal District. When the question was
asked before, is the District of Columbia--is the map in the
Constitution, the answer is no. In fact, the Federal District
could be relocated to a different part of the country. It's up
to Congress to decide. It is a political question for Congress
to decide in all cases whatsoever, including the modification,
the shrinking of the District or the enlargement of the
District within the 10-mile square maximum. But there is no
minimum, there is no floor.
So, could Congress decide, for the purposes of
enfranchising a new state and guaranteeing political equality,
to cede the lands to a new state? Of course it could. In 1846,
it shrunk the boundaries of the District to retrocede
Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax County back to Virginia
because the slave masters were rightfully afraid that Congress
was about to abolish the slave traffic in the District of
Columbia.
Which, actually, was the main political agenda of a great
Republican Member of the House of Representatives named Abraham
Lincoln, who spent his time in his one term in the House trying
to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. That is a
Republican we should all look up to for his determination to
bring justice to people in Washington, DC.
So, a couple of other stray points here.
You know, it was said at a couple of points there's no car
dealership in the District of Columbia. Of course, that's not a
constitutional restriction. It turns out there is a car
dealership in the District of Columbia. At that point, now, do
all the Republicans say, ``OK, at this point, we agree that
people in D.C. should enjoy equal political rights''? Of course
not, because they are simply trying to gin up whatever
arguments they can think of.
Someone said there's no bowling alley in the District of
Columbia. These are frivolous arguments. This is--you know,
this is just flotsam and jetsam floating around, reflecting the
fact that people are actually--while invoking partisanship as a
problem, you guys are creating partisanship as the problem. And
I know partisanship is in the eye of the beholder, but you are
the ones constantly trying to create a political and
ideological test for admission to the Union.
It is simply, I think, unconstitutional and un-American to
be asking how people are going to vote once they're admitted.
The question is, are these taxpaying, draftable American
citizens who are subject to all the laws of the country who
deserve equal rights? And of course they are. It's way too late
in the day to be manufacturing these kinds of phony arguments
to keep other people down. It's wrong.
And let me just say finally, there is another potential
state that may be seeking admission to the Union, Puerto Rico.
And that has been in the Republican platform for many decades.
So, where are my friends there? Are they arguing for Puerto
Rico?
You want a deal? You want to trade? You want to bring in
two states together, the way Kansas and Nebraska came in, or
Hawaii and Alaska? Why aren't you fighting for Puerto Rican
admission? It's been in the Republican Party's national
platform for several decades. So, let's see you step up to the
plate there and say, that's the deal.
Some people want to look at it as a political deal. That's
not the way the Mayor sees it, and I understand exactly why.
But if there are people in Congress who look at it that way,
then stand up for what the Republican Party has said. Say you
are going to support statehood for Puerto Rico and let's admit
Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico together. Let's get the engines
of democratic progress moving again in our country.
Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you for having me.
I've always felt the answer here is relatively obvious:
Because Washington is a city, not a state, and that's why, when
our forefathers created it, they didn't make it a state.
I have a good friend, and he talks about, you know, what it
takes to build a good economy, and he says we either have to
manufacture it, we have to grow it, or we have to mine it. Of
course, you can milk it too. I guess what he's saying is,
wealth is created by manufacturing, agriculture, or natural
minerals. And those are things that I think every state has in
some degree.
I'd like to ask anyone up there if they have an idea as far
as the number of manufacturing jobs in Washington, DC. I mean,
usually with a big city--Milwaukee, Chicago--it's substantial.
Talk a little bit about the agriculture in Washington, DC, and
talk about the mining or drilling in Washington, DC.--all three
of which have to be very tiny compared to that what we get in a
normal state.
So, I'll ask, oh, I guess anybody who wants to take a stab
at that. Because we have people talking about the work force of
Washington, DC.
Mayor Bowser. Thank you, Congressman. This is Mayor Bowser
speaking.
And let me just say, you referred to us as just a city and
not really a state, when the truth is we function as a city and
a county and a state right now. So, in fact, what we are is
special. We're different. And we're different in a lot of good
ways, and the way that we're different that is un-American is
that we don't have two Senators.
You say, what does it take to build----
Mr. Grothman. Well, I only have five minutes. I'm sorry, I
only have five minutes, and I wish you'd----
Mayor Bowser. Well, let me answer your question about our
good economy. We have a great economy, even----
Mr. Grothman. No, I----
Mayor Bowser.--in the face of COVID----
Mr. Grothman. Your economy is based on government, and your
economy is based on tourism, which is a different thing--in
other words, retail--which is a different thing other than
manufacturing, agriculture, or mining or drilling. And there
might be some little manufacturing I'm not aware of, but,
compared to even other cities--you know, a Chicago, a
Milwaukee, a Detroit--I have a feeling----
Mayor Bowser. Well, there may be states who rely on
manufacturing, and I would argue that their economies aren't as
good as ours.
And you heard our chief financial officer already tell you
that the makeup of our jobs is, in fact, 25 percent Federal
Government----
Mr. Grothman. You're not answering my question, and I only
have five minutes. Could you talk--manufacturing is so
important for creating wealth of the country, in a way that
retail or tourism is not. Can you tell me about the
manufacturing or agriculture or mining in your district?
I think, normally, when a congressman or, even more, a
senator weighs the bills that are out there, they have to
address how they will affect manufacturing, agriculture, and
mining, which is where the wealth of the country comes from.
And I'm not aware----
Mayor Bowser. Sure. Well, let me----
Mr. Grothman [continuing]. Of virtually any of that in your
city.
Mayor Bowser. We do not have any mines, Congressman.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mayor Bowser. But we are investing in other energy sources.
For example, we believe that a way to create jobs and employ
Washingtonians is to invest in solar energy, for example.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mayor Bowser. We are also, Congressman----
Mr. Grothman. OK. I----
Mayor Bowser.--very focused on how we attract--I'm trying
to answer your question, sir. You asked me about manufacturing.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mayor Bowser. And we're very intent on how we attract
businesses who are investing in creating solar panels and
employing D.C. residents.
Further, our hospitality sector--and I ask you not to not
take it----
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Mayor Bowser.--very seriously, because it employs people,
it----
Mr. Grothman. I'm sorry. You're dodging the question, so
let me ask somebody else a question.
Mayor Bowser.--contribute--I have to finish. It----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair----
Mayor Bowser.--helps us contribute----
Chairwoman Maloney. The time belongs----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair----
Chairwoman Maloney.--to the gentleman from----
Mr. Comer [continuing]. Let the questioner----
Mr. Grothman. I'd like to go on to another question because
she won't answer these, and I think it's because there really
is none.
Mayor Bowser.--for me to answer your question----
Mr. Grothman. A general question as to----
Ms. Norton. Madam Chair--Madam Chair, the members on the
other side have repeatedly kept our witnesses, especially the
Mayor of the District of Columbia, from fully answering
questions, even though you have been----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, your side does that every time.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz----
Chairwoman Maloney. Regular order. Regular order. The time
belongs to the gentleman----
Mr. Comer. The five minutes----
Chairwoman Maloney. Regular order.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. Belong to Mr. Grothman.
Ms. Norton. She has been generous in----
Chairwoman Maloney. The time belongs----
Ms. Norton [continuing]. Allowing time. So, she has allowed
time for the other side----
Mr. Comer. You all----
Ms. Norton [continuing]. To ask their questions.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. Do this every session. You have so
much----
Chairwoman Maloney. Regular order. Regular order.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. Memory on that side.
Chairwoman Maloney. The time belongs to the gentleman from
Wisconsin to ask his question. And we will recognize the
gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Mayor Bowser, to give
an answer that she feels that she--at the end of his
questioning.
OK. Congressman, you're recognized. The time is yours right
now.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
I guess the point I'm making is, the electorate in
Washington is very different from other electorates, and, as a
result, they make strange decisions.
The District of Columbia has the second-highest per-pupil
spending in the United States, at over $22,000 a pupil,
compared to around $15,000 for Maryland and $12,000 for
Virginia. Nevertheless, the District of Columbia ranks last in
the country in fourth-and eight-grade reading assessments and
worst in the Nation in writing assessments.
This concerns me, in that, insofar as they right now have
control of certain things, on education you could arguably say,
given the cost and the results, they're the worst in the
country.
And I wondered if somebody would care to comment on, given
it's such a wealthy district in the first place, largely
because the seat of government is there, what conclusions we
can draw, in that we have the second-highest-spending district
state in the country, if it were a state, and arguably the
worst test scores in the country.
Mayor Bowser. Well, I would disagree with that assessment,
Congressman. I don't know what you're pointing to, but if you
look at what is frequently called the ``Nation's Report Card,''
also known as the NAEP scores, it has shown for the level
several years that the District of Columbia is among the
fastest improving urban school districts in the country.
We--and I know I speak for Chairman Mendelson when I say
this--regard our investments in education as our top priority
in Washington, DC.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mfume, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Mfume. Can you hear me OK?
Chairwoman Maloney. We can hear you.
Mr. Mfume. OK. Then I won't proceed
[inaudible] still showing, so I didn't know.
Chairwoman Maloney. We can hear you. We can--try to unmute
yourself.
Mr. Mfume. Can you come back to me, Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes. You are recognized.
Mr. Mfume. Every time I----
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. All right. We will come back to
you. There's a technical problem.
OK. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson. I thank the gentlelady for holding this
historic hearing today.
And I want to commend Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton
the Great for the Herculean work that she has done to get us to
this moment. The District of Columbia has a fierce advocate in
Congress who will never stop fighting for their representation,
and I believe that there has been no better champion for
democracy to be afforded to D.C. residents than my
distinguished colleague Mrs. Norton.
I'm a proud Washingtonian. I'm a proud Washington, DC,
native. I was born at Freedmen's Hospital. I attended the D.C.
school system, which prepared me for college, law school, and
adulthood. And I'm honored to have been elected to return to
Washington, DC, to represent the citizens of Georgia's Fourth
congressional District.
And it's not lost upon me that I was once one of the
citizens of D.C. who have been denied the basic and fundamental
right to participate in American democracy like the people I
represent in Georgia. And that's not fair. It's not right. It's
anti-democratic. And it's past time for the people of
Washington, DC, to be afforded equal rights, to be represented
by fully empowered legislators in Congress.
The people of D.C. pay taxes, so they deserve equal
representation. ``No taxation without representation'' is more
than a political slogan for the people of Washington, DC.; it
is the cruel reality of their citizenship.
Mr. Smith, you are a well-studied lawyer, and you and other
opponents of D.C. Statehood argue that D.C. Statehood requires
a constitutional amendment and cannot be accomplished by simple
legislation like H.R. 51. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Smith. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Johnson. And, Attorney Smith, having thoroughly studied
the issue, can you cite a single case where the Supreme Court
has held or even suggested in dicta that Congress does not have
the authority to admit new states by simple legislation?
Mr. Smith. Respectfully, Congressman, this issue is unique
because the District of Columbia----
Mr. Johnson. Well, can you cite me a single case, Attorney
Smith, where the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress does not
have the authority to admit new states by simple legislation?
Mr. Smith. No, because no other state owes its very
existence to a separate provision of the Constitution like the
District of Columbia does.
Mr. Johnson. Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Smith. How many
new states have been admitted to the Union by way of a
constitutional amendment?
Can you answer that question?
Mr. Smith, can you answer that question?
Ms. Schwartz, can you answer the question?
Ms. Schwartz. Yes. Your question was, how many other states
have been admitted by constitutional amendment?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Schwartz. The answer is none.
Mr. Johnson. And how many facts have been--oh, excuse me--
how many states have been admitted by simple legislation?
Ms. Schwartz. Thirty-seven.
Mr. Johnson. And isn't it a fact, Ms. Schwartz, that H.R.
51 follows the more-than-200-year precedent our Nation has
followed in admitting new states?
Ms. Schwartz. I have to say that, although it does follow
precedent in terms of being simple legislation, it is true that
it would also be the first state to be formed out of the land
set aside for the Federal District.
Mr. Johnson. Well, let's talk about that a little bit. You
and--many--or some--there are some who argue that Maryland's
consent would be necessary for the admission of D.C. because
the new state would consist of land ceded by Maryland to the
Federal Government to establish the Federal District.
And the argument is that this Maryland statute that ceded
land requires that Maryland give its consent--it still
requires, even though the statute that ceded the land has no
reversionary clause and it states that the land is, quote,
``forever ceded and relinquished to Congress and Government of
the United States, in full and absolute right.''
Ms. Schwartz, what is your response to the argument that
Maryland's consent is required before Congress can admit
Washington, DC, as a new state?
Ms. Schwartz. So, that--as you say, the cession of land
from Maryland to the Federal Government does not contain an
explicit reversionary interest or a provision saying that if it
ever fails to become the seat of government that it would
automatically go back to Maryland. There's no explicit text
addressing that.
It does, however, provide that the cession is for the seat
of the Federal Government. So, the argument comes from, if the
Federal Government is no longer using it for the purpose for
which it was ceded, that it would need to seek Maryland's
permission.
I don't have a view on that because it's a novel question
and we don't have guidance from the judiciary about how they
would view that argument.
Mr. Johnson. So, that's just an argument that some would
make but it would have to be decided by the courts.
But you must recognize the fact that, when the statute was
passed in Maryland that ceded the land, it had no reversionary
clause. Is that correct?
Ms. Schwartz. That is correct. There's no----
Mr. Johnson. And it stated----
Ms. Schwartz [continuing]. Explicit reversionary clause.
Mr. Johnson. And it stated in its terms that the land is,
quote, ``forever ceded and relinquished to Congress and the
Government of the United States, in full and absolute right,''
end quote.
That would support the argument that the land was ceded
without any interest, reversionary or otherwise. It's a very
strong argument. Would you not admit that?
Ms. Schwartz. That is the language that would be cited in
support of the argument that there was no reversionary
interest.
Mr. Johnson. And, I mean, it means what it says and it says
what it means. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Schwartz. It does say what it says, sir.
Mr. Johnson. And it means what it says.
Is Mr. Smith back on the line yet? Those were some tough
questions I was asking, and he went out as soon as----
Mr. Smith. I am, Congressman.
Mr. Johnson. Sir?
Mr. Smith. I am back on the line, Congressman.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well--so you can't cite to us a single
case where the Court has ruled--the Supreme Court has ruled
that a state must be created by way of a constitutional
amendment, correct?
Mr. Smith. No, Congressman, because no other state has a
unique status or owes its very creation to a separate
constitutional provision like the District of Columbia does.
Mr. Johnson. Well, what constitutional provision would
prohibit the Congress from admitting Washington, DC, as a
state?
Mr. Smith. Well, certainly the biggest impediment is the
23rd Amendment, Congressman. And Attorney General Robert
Kennedy----
Mr. Johnson. Well, in the 23rd Amendment--the 23rd
Amendment has to do with electoral college votes, correct?
Mr. Smith. It does, but Attorney General Robert----
Mr. Johnson. Well, what does that have to do with--what
does that have to do with admission of Washington, DC, as a
state to this Union----
Mr. Smith. Respectfully----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. And Congress's ability to pass
legislation just like it has done in 37 other instances? What
factors would distinguish Washington, DC, from the other 37
instances where Congress has passed legislation to admit those
37 states as states into the Union?
Mr. Smith. Well, respectfully, Congressman, if I may finish
my answer, I'm happy to answer your question.
Again, the first is that no other state was created as a
result of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the District Clause.
Then again, the 23rd Amendment also certainly envisioned a
district of a specific size with a significant population. And
Attorney General Robert Kennedy, when delivering his opinion to
Congress, said, quote, ``A persuasive argument can be made that
the adoption of the 23rd Amendment has given constitutional
status to the existence of a federally owned district,
constituting the seat of government of the United States,
having a substantial area and population, so that a
constitutional''----
Mr. Johnson. Well, I'm going to interrupt you there, sir.
I'm going to interrupt you there, because that is simply not a
persuasive argument against the ability of Congress to propound
and pass legislation that would admit Washington, DC, as a
state.
You're talking about the opinion of others. And, of course,
you have to respect the contrary opinions of others who happen
to be among those who have propounded this legislation in the
form of H.R. 51 that we stand ready to pass in Congress
shortly. I mean, so two sides----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired, but--
--
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Two sides of the coin.
Chairwoman Maloney.--may answer the question.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Congresswoman Maloney.
Again, respectfully, no other state is in the unique
position of the District of Columbia or owes its existence to a
separate constitutional provision.
And as to your earlier point, Congressman, about Maryland
and the land that it granted to the District, it explicitly
said it was for the purpose of--to be used as the seat of
government. And certainly no one would have contemplated that
Congress could have immediately turned around and used the land
for a different purpose or created a new state. And so what
Congress could not immediately have done it cannot do today
simply with the passage of time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is recognized
with additional time. Because of the technical difficulties, we
gave Mr. Johnson extra time, so, Mr. Higgins, you are also
entitled to extra time.
Mr. Higgins, you are now recognized.
Mr. Higgins. That's very kind of you, Madam Chair. I
appreciate you holding this hearing.
My, goodness gracious. My fellow citizens watching right
now, let me help to clarify this, and for my respected
colleagues on both sides of the aisle but especially my friends
across the aisle in the Democratic Party.
D.C. is unique because it was expected to be unique. It was
envisioned to be forever unique. It's built upon land ceded by
sovereign states at the exact location chosen by President
George Washington.
James Madison articulated in Federalist 43 that if a
capital city was situated within a state, the Federal
Government would be subject to undue influence of the host
state. The Founders wanted the capital separate from any state.
Additionally, the original tenor of the Founders was clear:
The Federal District was intended to not simply be the seat of
government for the Republic, but expected to be a thriving
Federal city, separate from the control of any single state.
Article IV, Section 3: New states may be admitted by the
Congress into this Union, but no new states shall be formed or
erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any
state be formed by the junction of two or more states or parts
of the states without the consents of legislatures of the
states concerned as well as the legislation by Congress.
In the case of D.C. Statehood, my colleagues across the
aisle, respectfully, you just can't get past the uniqueness of
D.C. and the legal and constitutional debate, legitimate
debate, surrounding D.C. Statehood.
My friend and colleague Representative Raskin compared it
to ``Let's Make a Deal'' with Puerto Rico and D.C. Statehood.
Respectfully, good sir, that's not a deal. We're not looking
for a deal. We're only trying to follow the Constitution and
the law. That's the bottom line.
And to my veteran brothers and sisters, Representative
Lynch, my colleague and friend, asked you, how do you reconcile
your service as a citizen of D.C., in these United States and
our Republic, how do you reconcile your service? And surely, my
veteran brothers and sisters of D.C., surely you would support
reconciliation within the parameters of the Constitution and
the laws of our Republic. That's what we're discussing today.
So, let me lay this out. If you want to make D.C. a state,
this is what you have to do. We don't have to argue about, you
know, whether or not it's a good idea or what the politics are
or the money of the state and the financial sustainability of a
51st state in the form of D.C.
The land was originally ceded by Maryland--that was
originally ceded by Maryland--Virginia got its land back long
ago. The land now we're talking about was ceded by Maryland--
must be returned to the people of Maryland. This would require
a constitutional act, legislation. You can't get past that.
Whether or not there was a specific provision in the original
cession does not negate the fact that the spirit of the ceded
land was to form the land upon which the Nation's capital would
be built.
So, in the spirit of that original agreement and cession of
land, it'd have to be returned to the people of Maryland. Then
the Maryland state legislature would have to pass new
legislation ceding the land to a proposed 51st state.
So, Congress would have to pass legislation giving the land
back to Maryland; then Maryland would have to pass legislation
allowing the land to be ceded to a proposed 51st state. Good
luck with both of those. But the reality is, that's what would
have to be done.
Then the 23rd Amendment--you can't get past this. The 23rd
Amendment will have to be repealed by an additional amendment
to the Constitution. There's no guarantee that that would
happen. That would have to be done first.
And then, finally, every one of these clearly required
legislative actions at the Federal and state level will no
doubt be challenge via Article III. These court challenges will
have to be defeated in Congress in order to move forward with
any intent to make D.C. a state.
So, Mr. Smith, I ask you, please, in my remaining time,
sir, just as briefly as you can, just comment on whether or not
there is a path forward for D.C. Statehood? And does it not
require legislative action in Congress, at the state level in
Maryland, and then by constitutional amendment?
And I thank Madam Chair for her kindness regarding our
time.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Congressman.
Yes, there is a pathway to D.C. Statehood, and it's through
the Article V amendment process. That way would certainly
remove any questions, would remove any doubt, about the status
of the District of Columbia.
Additionally, if other voting rights want--if Congress
wanted to give other voting rights to the residents of the
District of Columbia, again, they could certainly do that
without making the District a state through a constitutional
amendment.
Any litigation, doubts, questions could be resolved by
invoking the Article V amendment process.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Mfume--and we apologize for the technical problems we had. Mr.
Mfume, you're now recognized.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thanks
again for holding this hearing.
The ``mute'' button wouldn't let me mute, so I couldn't get
off of the screen to do that. But, anyway, now that we're back
in operation, I want to go back to Mr. Smith's testimony, if I
might.
Mr. Smith, you were naming a number of significant people,
elected and appointed, who were opposed to statehood, and you
mentioned former Congressman Fauntroy. What was his opposition,
do you know?
Mr. Smith. I do, Congressman. Delegate Fauntroy was
advocating for other voting rights legislation for District
residents, but he was saying that he--he wanted to be clear
with other Members of Congress that he was not advocating for
D.C. Statehood----
Mr. Mfume. Well----
Mr. Smith [continuing]. Because, in his words, that would
be in direct defiance of the----
Mr. Mfume. I'm going to reclaim my time on that, Mr. Smith.
I'm not trying to figure out where Mr. Fauntroy was in the
1970's but, rather, where he was all along since then. And he
was a big, strong advocate of D.C. Statehood. In fact, we took
a train, he and I and a number of Members of Congress, from New
York back down to Washington, with each stop having a rally for
D.C. Statehood. So, I think you probably want to check your
facts on that, because Walter Fauntroy was not against
statehood.
Now, on the other side, I want to just go back, if I might.
I think I might be, Madam Chair, one of the only three or four
Members of Congress that voted in 1993 in favor of statehood
and voted last year the same way. And I remember the argument
then from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It was
not ``this is a power grab,'' as we continue to hear now, but
it was that D.C. couldn't handle its own finances, so go show
us and prove to us that you can run a city and be financially
responsible and then come back and then we'll consider
statehood.
Well, 28 years later, here we are. And I want to go to Mr.
Lee for just a few questions.
Mr. Lee, what is the percentage of revenue generated
locally, not by the Federal Government?
Mr. Lee. About three-quarters of the revenue are generated
locally.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you. And for how many years have you had a
clean audit?
Mr. Lee. Twenty-four years.
Mr. Mfume. And that's been consecutive, correct?
Mr. Lee. Consecutive. That's correct.
Mr. Mfume. And are your pension funds fully funded?
Mr. Lee. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you. And in terms of capital reserves, are
you at a level that most banks and other such institutions
consider to be proper?
Mr. Lee. That's correct. And our triple-A credit rating
that was granted a few years ago is a reflection of that.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you.
So, I think the notion now is no longer can you handle your
own financial business but whether or not this is going to be a
power grab.
Madam Chair, I don't have any other questions. I want to
yield my time to the Mayor of the District of Columbia and
thank her again for her testimony.
Mayor Bowser. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman, for
focusing on the District's healthy finances, and we want to
thank our Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
I also want to recognize the work of the Council of the
District of Columbia and Council Member Chair--Council Chairman
Phil Mendelson. The council has undertaken a number of measures
that we have imposed on ourselves, that are in our local law,
that will help us maintain those healthy finances.
I also just want to say, Madam Chair, there have been a
number of statements about this power grab by Democrats in the
Congress. And I have to say, our quest for statehood has
nothing to do with the current Congress. Our quest for
statehood is longstanding, and it's really rooted in our
values--in the values of both parties. We talk about fairness
and democracy and justice, but we also support the principles
of liberty and freedom and local autonomy. And that is what
H.R. 51 embodies for the residents of the District of Columbia.
So, we stand ready to work with you on the passage. We know
that the issues that have been raised have been roundly
refuted. Our Congresswoman put on the record the testimony of
Viet Dinh, who is a conservative constitutional scholar who
squarely deals with the issues related to the 23rd Amendment.
Your colleague Congressman Raskin, in our last hearing,
squarely dealt with the issues of Maryland's interest--or
Maryland's no-longer interest in what makes up the District of
Columbia.
And H.R. 51 squarely deals with the issue of the Federal
District. The Congress will continue to exercise plenary
authority over the Federal District.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Thank you very much.
The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Norman, you're now recognized.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Let me just bring up some things that we've been discussing
here for the last, I guess, hour and a half. The fact that, you
know, this is simply a power grab. And the reason it's a power
grab is the fact that the 23rd Amendment gets in the way of
what the Democrats are trying to do without any Republican
support.
The things that had been brought up about--D.C. would not
have an airport, which most states have, if not all. The
dealership--I will tell you that the only dealership now is a
Tesla dealership, which is, I think, a high-end car. The only
way the solvency of Mayor Bowser is because of Federal
subsidies that subsidize the city. They have no source of
income. In South Carolina, we have farming. In South Carolina,
we have manufacturing. In South Carolina, we have mining. This
new state, if it's formed, will have none of that.
And, Mr. Smith, let me ask you, getting back--the crux of
this issue is the 23rd Amendment. You acknowledge, in the
Constitution, the seat of government is right now in
Washington, DC, correct?
Mr. Smith. Correct, Congressman.
Mr. Norman. The 23rd Amendment provides D.C. residents
participation in the Presidential elections. It appoints a
number of electors of President/Vice President equal to the
whole number of Senators and Representatives as if it were a
state, and it shall be no less than the least populous state.
What is the least populous state in this country?
Mr. Smith. I am not sure of that right now, Senator.
Mr. Norman. It's Wyoming. It's Wyoming. They have three.
How many electors in the District entitled--which are
entitled under the 23rd Amendment are there?
Mr. Smith. Three electors, Congressman.
Mr. Norman. Three electors. So, it's of the least populated
state, which is Wyoming.
And under if H.R. 51 is passed, the 23rd Amendment would
still stay intact, correct?
Mr. Smith. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Norman. And under the bill proposed, all of D.C. would
become a state, except a tiny sliver, which is the size of a
park, which would become the Federal District, correct?
Mr. Smith. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Norman. So, that means the 23rd Amendment and Article
I, Section 8--this tiny new area would become the Nation's
capital or the new seat of power. It would still have the three
electoral votes for President and Vice President, correct?
Mr. Smith. Under the terms of the 23rd Amendment, that is
correct.
Mr. Norman. OK.
And the new seat of power under this scheme would only have
within it the White House, the U.S. Capitol, and some other
Federal buildings and the National Mall and some monuments. Is
that right?
Mr. Smith. That is my understanding. It's a very small
area.
Mr. Norman. So, really, the only permanent residents in
this new created seat of power would be the President, occupied
by Mr. Biden. Is that right?
Mr. Smith. It is certainly conceivable that the First
Family would be the only residents or one of only a handful of
residents of this new area.
Mr. Norman. Sir, is it your understanding the--Mr. Biden
would become electors and would be voting in the electoral
college in the 2024 election and would be still entitled to
three electoral votes? Is that correct?
Mr. Smith. Well, H.R. 51 purports to deal this situation by
saying, essentially, anyone who lives in this new rump capital
area would be entitled to cast their ballots in their previous
state of residence if they would otherwise be qualified except
for living in this new capital area. And, unfortunately, that
doesn't deal with the constitutional issues and creates some of
its own as well.
But it is conceivable under the 23rd Amendment that, yes,
the First Family would potentially control three electoral
college votes.
Mr. Norman. So, under this plan, the only residents in the
new D.C. would be the President and his or her cronies. Is that
right?
Mr. Smith. They would--I'm not sure if they would be the
only residents, Congressman, but they would certainly be, if
not the only residents, one of only a handful of other
residents of this new area.
Mr. Norman. Because you only have the Capitol, some Federal
buildings, the National Mall, and then, from my understanding,
some monuments.
Mr. Smith. That is correct, Congressman. I'm not sure if
other living arrangements are interspersed to some degree
throughout there. But, again, the First Family would certainly
play an outsized role in the selection of three Presidential
electors.
Mr. Norman. So, in your opinion, this is not voter
suppression, this is not restricting voters, it's not racially
motivated, it's not disenfranchisement. It's about the 23rd
Amendment, which this partisan Congress is trying to avoid and
get around without changing the Constitution.
Mr. Smith. Well, this is a constitutional issue,
Congressman. And a previous Justice Department report that
looked at this issue explicitly said this is not a racial
issue, this is not a civil rights issue, this is a
constitutional issue that goes to the very core of our Federal
system of government.
Mr. Norman. And it's being dismantled by the Democrats.
Mr. Smith. Well, this--H.R. 51 certainly has serious
constitutional issues with it, in my opinion, Congressman.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is now recognized
for five minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairwoman.
And thank you all so much for this critically important
hearing. And really appreciate the partnership and leadership
of Congresswoman Norton on our committee for constantly
bringing this to our attention.
I think it's important to note that D.C. Statehood should
not be a partisan issue. I know that's what you hear here. I
think the messaging on the part of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle would be different if it was a predominantly
Republican district. I mean, we truly are literally talking
about democracy versus, you know, being able not to have
democratic access to making sure that you are represented at
all levels of government. And we also can't claim to support
self-determination and democracy and oppose D.C. Statehood.
It's that simple.
So, since my friends across the side of the aisle love to
talk about taxation, local control, and Federal overreach
whenever it happens in their states, I'd like to focus on these
topics as they impact D.C. residents.
Congress has always required D.C. residents to pay all
Federal taxes while denying D.C. residents a vote in Congress
on how the money is spent. D.C. residents have no vote on the
Federal laws that govern them and no vote on the Federal
executive branch and judicial branch officials who enforce and
interpret those laws.
In fact, we here in Congress, who come from places like
Idaho, Texas, California, have the final says on the local laws
that govern D.C. residents and on the local executive branch
and judicial branch officials who enforce and interpret those
laws.
So, Mr. Henderson, other than the United States, how many
democracies deny the residents of their capital voting
representation in the national legislature?
Mr. Henderson. To my knowledge, Congresswoman, no countries
deny their national capital's votes in the national
legislature.
Ms. Tlaib. That's right, Mr. Henderson, and I appreciate
that. None. That's the answer. This represents an extraordinary
violation of a democratic principle America claims to
represent, right? Our country claims to represent the
importance of representation.
So, now let's look at taxation. In Fiscal Year 2019, we
continue to hear that D.C. paid $27.5 billion in Federal taxes.
That's more than 22 other states and territories. In fact, D.C.
paid more taxes than Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, all the
U.S. territories, and all the U.S. foreign-deployed
servicemembers combined.
Put simply, if you oppose D.C. Statehood, you support
taxation without representation. Do you hear me? If you oppose
D.C. Statehood, then you support taxation without
representation.
And let's not forget that people of D.C. have always
answered the call to serve whenever their country needed them,
right? Including Mr. Wingo, who is with us today. And many of
the National Guard who have protected our Capitol since January
6 come from the D.C. community.
In opposing D.C. Statehood, which is overwhelmingly
supported by the people of Washington, these Representatives
and their dark-money backers over at The Heritage Foundation--
that's right--are telling over 700,000 Americans to sit down,
shut up, and enjoy this authoritarian system implemented by a
bunch of elites who thought it was OK to enslave people for
their selfish monetary gain hundreds of years ago.
It is shameful that anyone would claim to support democracy
and freedom and oppose statehood.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
And the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller, is now
recognized.
Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair.
When our Republic was founded, both New York City and
Philadelphia had been the capital city of the United States,
but in July of 1790, Washington, DC, became the permanent
capital.
The Founders' reasoning for this was, as James Madison
stated in Federalist No. 43, that if the capital city were
situated within a state, the Federal Government would be
subject to undue influence by the host state.
Even discounting the continuous shortfalls in the D.C.
budget on an annual basis, the burden that this new state would
likely put on surrounding states through devices like commuter
taxes, and the alarmingly large unfunded pension liabilities
that would become the responsibility of the American taxpayer,
the fact remains that, without nullifying the 23rd Amendment,
D.C. Statehood is unconstitutional.
I'm sure we've all seen the quote on the D.C. license
plate. It reads, ``End taxation without representation.''
So, Mayor Bowser, thank you for being here today. And I
thank all the witnesses. Is statehood the only way to end
taxation without representation?
Mayor Bowser. Thank you, Congressman. It is, Congressman,
because that's the only way the people of Washington, DC, would
be able to elect two Senators.
Mr. Keller. OK. So, the answer is the only way we can do it
is without--without granting them a state.
What if D.C. were to retrocede back Maryland, allowing D.C.
citizens representation in both the House and the Senate?
Wouldn't that give them representation?
Mayor Bowser. We are not residents of Maryland,
Congressman. We're residents of Washington, DC.
And I'm reminded of a similar----
Mr. Keller. OK----
Mayor Bowser.--question being posed to the people----
Mr. Keller. Is this about----
Mayor Bowser.--of the territory of Arizona. And they----
Mr. Keller. Excuse me. I'm going to claim my time back.
Mayor, I claim my time back.
The point is that the citizens of Washington, DC, can be
able to vote on representation and Senators. But your point is
that they're Washington, District of Columbia. And I know the
bill, at least in the last Congress, actually renamed
Washington, DC. So, I guess the point I would make is, there is
a pathway to have people in D.C. be able to vote for Senators
and Representatives.
And I know there's been a lot of talk about the District's
current unfunded pension liabilities and what might change as a
result of the new statehood being stood up. So, I know there
was testimony for the pension liabilities, but did the Federal
Government put any money into the D.C. pensions?
Mayor Bowser. The Federal Government contributed to D.C.
pensions in early--are you talking about in the Reorganization
Act? Is that what you're referring to?
Mr. Keller. Well, what I'm saying is, it was mentioned that
D.C. was in such good financial standing and their pensions
were fully funded. Do you know how much over, I'll say, the
last 24, 25 years has been contributed to the pension fund from
the Federal Government?
Mayor Bowser. Well, Congressman, I could get back to you
and get you a number on the negotiations around the District
Reorganization Act.
Mr. Mendelson. Madam Mayor?
Mr. Keller. Well----
Mayor Bowser. I think the chairman has a specific----
Mr. Mendelson. Well, I have--Congressman, this is Phil
Mendelson. I have oversight over the retirement board, so I'm
quite familiar with this.
Since 1997, the Federal Government has not contributed to
the District's share of the pensions. Not at all. Not one----
Mr. Keller. Excuse me.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Cent. There are----
Mr. Keller. I----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. A number of Federal Government
employees who are part of the pension program, and the Federal
Government does pick up their share. But the District has 100
percent paid its pension obligations since 1997.
Mr. Keller. The Federal Government did not, over the last
24 years, contribute $4.5 billion to bail out the pension fund?
Mr. Mendelson. No. And not--no, it did not.
Mr. Keller. That's the number--that's the numbers that I
was actually given.
So I guess, Mayor Bowser, do you support--I guess you don't
support retrocession.
Mayor Bowser. I do not support retrocession, and neither do
the residents of Maryland.
Mr. Keller. Well--and, again, this is about giving people
the opportunity to vote on Senators and Representatives. And
it's clear to me that D.C. was never intended to become a state
and has not shown it's ready for statehood.
In any case, we have the things that have happened since
the beginning of our Nation. The fact that in Pennsylvania, in
Philadelphia, in New York was at a point in time the seat of
Federal Government, but it was chosen to be Washington, DC, so
that the Federal Government would not be contained within a
single state that would have any undue influence over the
Federal Government.
I just look at this--there are ways to do this that would
be constitutional. And just looking at that, I think that we
should be looking at those items if we're really serious about
making sure people have that opportunity.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis, can you please unmute?
We're having technical problems. Mr. Sarbanes is now
recognized. We'll come back to Mr. Davis when the
technicalities are fixed.
Mr. Sarbanes, you're now recognized.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Can you
hear me OK?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.
Mr. Sarbanes. Great. Thank you.
Well, first of all, let me thank Congresswoman Holmes
Norton for her amazing leadership over so many years.
[Audio interruption.]
Mr. Sarbanes. I think we've got somebody who's not muted.
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Keller, can you please mute?
OK. Mr. Sarbanes, you're recognized.
Mr. Sarbanes. Can we give me another 15 seconds maybe? I'd
appreciate it.
Anyway, I want to thank Congresswoman Holmes Norton for her
really indefatigable--that means she never got fatigued--
leadership over so many years, certainly over the last two
Congresses, in pushing this legislation forward. It's a credit
to her, the coalition, and the District of Columbia, and all of
those who've stepped forward.
I want to thank Mayor Bowser for her testimony and all
who've been part of the panel today.
Mayor Bowser, when you were speaking, I was taking notes,
because you were capturing the essence of what this is about.
There's been a lot of back-and-forth on, sort of, the
constitutional questions, and I'll probably get to some of
those myself, but here are some of the phrases that you shared
with us.
The need to extend full democracy to the residents of the
District of Columbia.
The right to full representation in Congress.
The fact that the disenfranchisement of Washingtonians is
one of the most glaring remaining civil rights issues of our
time. That's not an overstatement; that's an accurate
recognition of the situation.
You pointed out the fact that, in the early days, there was
high interest in correcting this wrong, but somehow, over time,
that interest began to wane. What changed? Well, you put your
finger on it. You called it out. What changed is the population
of the District changed from White to Black. And then the
standard began to change as well, in terms of this imperative.
You said District residents are still not free, as we
remain--i.e., the residents of the District of Columbia--
disenfranchised by this body, by Congress, which can do things
to fix the situation.
And we keep hearing that this is not the way to do it, that
we should have the property go back to Maryland and then
Maryland should turn around and create the state and so forth.
Mr. Sarbanes. That's not a viable option. Republicans know
it's not a viable option. So, if you keep proposing that, what
you're really saying is you're comfortable with the fact that
700,000 residents of the District of Columbia will continue to
be disenfranchised.
This is a problem that we have to solve, and what Eleanor
Holmes Norton has put forward is that solution: statehood for
the District of Columbia. We just need to get it done.
Now, let me turn briefly to a couple of questions here.
These are things that I've sort of gleaned from the minority
report from last Congress, the views that Republican colleagues
put forward suggesting that this proposal is for clearly
partisan purposes, to abandon the fundamental notion of a
United States by rewriting the very definition of statehood to
include a municipal-level government.
Well, Ms. Schwartz, I'm not aware that a municipal-level
government is not eligible for this kind of change. Does the
Admissions Clause of the Constitution describe particularly
what types of states may be admitted into the Union? Does it
get into that detail?
Ms. Schwartz. No. The text of the Constitution is silent on
that, which means it's left to the discretion of Congress.
Mr. Sarbanes. The minority views have also said that the
Founders deliberately designed the Constitution so the seat of
the Federal Government would not be within any state.
Mr. Mendelson, under H.R. 51, would the Federal District be
solely within the borders of the state of Washington, DC, or is
it actually going to border on two states when we're done with
this?
Mr. Mendelson. It would be--it would border on Virginia and
border on the new District state.
Mr. Sarbanes. So, that's not a problem.
And last, in the last 30 seconds, Mayor Bowser, there's
been a suggestion that somehow the local government wasn't
equipped to shoulder the burden of statehood, especially in
times of crisis, but you were ready to step up recently and
before Federal intervention. And they were suggesting that
somehow the Metropolitan Police Department is not up to the job
in terms of handling violence in the District, but you were
able to do that.
Was D.C. capable of handling the civil unrest that occurred
recently or did it require some unique Federal intervention?
Mayor Bowser. Yes, Congressman, the District is more than
capable of supporting its homeland security, its local
policing, and to be a part of the support for the Federal
District.
And likewise, Congressman, just like we were able to step
up, the residents of Maryland and Virginia and their state
police and National Guard also will step up to support the
Federal District.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is now recognized.
Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. I assume you can hear me
OK?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can.
Mr. Biggs. Great. Thank you.
So, like many of my colleagues, I strongly believe it's
unconstitutional to create a state out of the District of
Columbia by means of H.R. 51 or any similar legislation. But
leaving the constitutional questions aside and turning from
Washington, DC, I think it is a bad, potentially dangerous
policy, and I think many of the Founders understood this very
well.
Here's James Madison writing on the topic of the Federal
District in Federalist 43, which was published in January 1788
as ratification of the Constitution was actually under way.
Quote: ``The indispensable necessity of complete authority
at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It
is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might
say the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it,
not only the public authority might be insulted and its
proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the
members of the general government on the state comprehending
the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of
their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation
of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and
dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.''
Madison understood very well that it would be dangerous to
subject the national capital to the jurisdiction of any one
state in the country as diverse as the new United States.
In fact, Madison had seen that danger firsthand. On June
21, 1783, Madison was serving in the Confederation Congress in
Philadelphia in what is now known as Independence Hall when a
rowdy mob of unpaid soldiers surrounded the building and
prevented delegates from leaving.
Alexander Hamilton, who was also present in Independence
Hall that day, tried to appeal to the Pennsylvania government
to quash the mutiny, but Pennsylvania's President, John
Dickinson, demurred.
The Confederation Congress was subsequently compelled under
considerable pressure to decamp to Princeton, New Jersey.
Now, move back to the present, and I've heard that Mayor
Bowser believes that statehood would have made the events of
January 6 easier to contain. But given that Democratic proposal
to shrink the Federal capital district to little more than the
size of The Mall, I'm not sure I understand how adding yet
another layer of jurisdiction would lead to more efficient law
enforcement.
Even worse, the tiny new Federal District envisioned by
Democrats would be completely dwarfed and surrounded by a new
state over which Congress would have no authority. And this new
state, in turn, could easily bully the tiny Federal enclave
into dependence on all matters of basic functioning related not
just to security matters, but also infrastructure.
Who would be providing electrical power to the new Federal
District, or water, or even snow removal? Now, it's kind of
weird to ask those questions, but I think they're pertinent.
And I want to turn to something else that law professor
John Baker said with regard to the 23rd Amendment, which has
been much discussed today.
He said the 23rd Amendment is clearly the proverbial
camel's nose in the tent, with the tent being statehood for the
District of Columbia. The amendment treats the District of
Columbia as if it were a state for purposes of the electoral
college.
Both the amendment and the argument for D.C. Statehood are
founded on the false premise that failure to accord the
District equality with states discriminates against U.S.
citizens living in the District. That premise is false for at
least four reasons, and these are the reasons he gives.
One, until the 23rd Amendment, citizens of the District
were treated on an equal basis with U.S. citizens who live in
Puerto Rico or a foreign country. After the 23rd Amendment,
citizens of the District have under weight in the electoral
college.
Three, as the capital of the country, the District enjoys
advantages not possessed by any state.
And four, no one state should be home to and legislate for
and have power over the capital of all the states.
And even breaking the District of Columbia into its new
state, if that were to happen under H.R. 51, his fourth
provision is really prescient.
It says, and I'm going to expand on it here, he says in his
piece, the provision for a Federal town in the Constitution
addresses the need for the Federal Government to be separate
from and not dependent on any state. It reflects the experience
in the Philadelphia mutiny of 1783, which I've just referred
to. And I won't go any further into that.
Before I ask my question to you, Mr. Smith, I want to just
say that Utah might have had the problem with being considered
too Mormon, but in the multiple decades that came after it,
when Arizona came into the United States with New Mexico, that
was not the issue at all. And when someone condescendingly says
we should learn our history, maybe they should reflect on that
a bit before that say that.
With regard to that, Mr. Smith, do you worry about the
vulnerability of a Federal District under the conditions that
are currently proposed in H.R. 51?
Mr. Smith. Well, I certainly think one of the reasons the
Founding Fathers created a separate Federal District was
exactly for the reasons you stated. They'd been through the
experience of Philadelphia in 1783. They were concerned for the
physical security of the national capital. They wanted to be
sure they weren't reliant on any one state for that security.
And even though the Mayor here today has said that her
goals are to better protect and cooperate with the national
government for that purpose, it's a laudable goal, but, again,
we don't have to use much imagination for a different mayor and
a different set of circumstances who might disagree with
necessary safety precautions that the Federal Government would
need to take.
And, again, I think we certainly saw some of that
disagreement last summer outside of the White House. And we
even saw some of that disagreement more recently with some
disputes over the fencing around the Capitol complex. So, there
certainly is an inherent conflict that could percolate there.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
Hopefully, the challenges with Mr. Davis have been
resolved.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is now recognized.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for a very
informative hearing.
And I also want to commend our colleague Delegate Norton,
because for as long as I can remember, long before I ever came
to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton was pushing and keeping D.C.
Statehood in front of Congress and in front of the American
people. And so I commend her for that.
I have to admit that I've heard some of the most
intellectually dishonest absurdity that I've ever been
privileged to hear in terms of some of the rationale that I've
heard as to why there should not be statehood for the District
of Columbia.
I've been a proponent of statehood for D.C. since
elementary school when we were taught this notion that there
ought not be any kind of situation where you paid taxes and did
not have the opportunity to be fully represented.
And so this notion of taxation without representation has
always stuck with me. And I've always been amazed that people
in the District of Columbia were paying taxes, but could not be
represented.
Mr. Henderson, I want to thank you for your testimony, as I
thank all of the witnesses for their testimony and
enlightenment that we have been able to get today. But I've
been impressed, I've been listening to you for a number of
years as you have been a principled advocate for many issues
that you have testified before Congress about.
So, what I'd like to ask you, this notion of small states,
large states when people deal with this, are they talking about
geography or are they talking about population?
Mr. Henderson. Well, Mr. Davis, thank you for your
question.
They're clearly referring to geography in the sense that
they're talking about, when they talk about states like
Wyoming, which has a far smaller population than the District
of Columbia, and yet is welcomed into the statehood ambit
without criticism. It's clearly about the geography that
Wyoming represents, not its population.
But the truth is many of the arguments that you've cited
from those on the panel really undermine the basic notion that
we're really talking about voting rights for American citizens.
Now, voting is the language of democracy, Mr. Davis. If you
don't vote, you don't count. And that is, unfortunately, the
history of our country. We have 700,000 disenfranchised
citizens of this country who are denied the right to have a
voting representative in our national legislature.
And one last point that I have to make. Those who cite the
insurrection, the Philadelphia insurrection of 1783, as the
justification for creating a national center like the District
of Columbia to protect the interests of Congress, flies out of
the window in the face of the January 6 insurrection.
We have a national capital in the District of Columbia and
yet our Mayor was denied the right to protect the
Representatives in our Congress from the worst insurrection
that they have experienced since the war of 1812. That argument
has no meaning in the 21st century as we have seen most
recently.
Mr. Davis. Thank you so much.
I've still got a few seconds left, and if Hank Johnson is
still with us and would like the time--if I ever need a lawyer,
Hank would be my guy--I'd give him the additional time that
I've got.
I think Hank may be gone.
So, at that rate, Madam Chairman, I thank you again and
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, is recognized for
five minutes.
The gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Madam Chair.
While this issue is not new to Congress, this is my first
hearing on D.C. Statehood. And so I have questions regarding
the practicality of D.C. Statehood, including financial
repercussions, how the mapping would work out, giving the map--
I've seen actually it leaves out several of the Federal
buildings, like the GSA, the FAA, and the FBI buildings.
But, more importantly, I have serious constitutional
concerns about the push for D.C. Statehood. And on that note, I
must commend my colleague from the good state of Louisiana,
Representative Clay Higgins, for his very persuasive
constitutional argument on the constitutional concerns.
So, my first question is for Mr. Zack Smith.
We know that all of D.C. is on Maryland's land that was
originally ceded from Maryland. We've also heard about the 23rd
Amendment and the need for it to be addressed.
But can you go over, again, what say Maryland should have
in the District's push for statehood.
Mr. Smith. Sure. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
So, one of the issues is the original grant from Maryland
to the Federal Government to create the Federal District said
that it was for the purpose of creating the new seat of
government, for the purposes outlined in Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17 of the Constitution.
And so we've heard a lot today said about Article IV,
Section 3 of the Constitution, the Admissions Clause. And the
Admissions Clause says that no state can be carved out from a
portion of another state or by combining portions of other
states without the consent of those states' legislatures. So,
that constitutional provision is certainly implicated.
But more to the point, again, at the time everyone
understood that Maryland was donating this land, was giving it
in return for it becoming the seat of the Federal Government,
and certainly no one would have understood that Congress could
then immediately turn around and create a new state out of that
land.
So, what Congress could not do immediately, it cannot do
today simply by the passage of time.
Mr. Clyde. All right. That sounds perfectly logical to me.
Now, turning to Mayor Bowser.
Mr. Smith just outlined some of the Founders' intention for
the Federal District. Do you agree that the Founders' original
intent was to have the district be only a Federal city and not
a state? And can you answer that yes or no?
I believe your mic is not on.
Mayor Bowser. The Founders required a Federal District of a
maximum size. They did not limit the size. And so I think they
specifically did not--they said that the Federal District could
only be a certain size large, but they left open the
possibility of it being smaller.
So, the Federal District would persist----
Mr. Clyde. Right. That's not my question. My question is
not the size of it. My question was, do you agree that the
Founders' original intent was to have the district be only a
Federal city and not a state? Do you agree with that, yes or
no.
Mayor Bowser. I do not agree that the Founders didn't
contemplate that this district would have self-governance,
representation, or function as a city, county, and a state,
because that's how we function.
Mr. Clyde. But they didn't make it a state, OK, and I think
that was quite intentional.
All right. So, let's talk about representation that you
just mentioned, all right? Let's go back to Mr. Smith for a
minute.
There are some alternatives to D.C. Statehood which would
provide representation to D.C. residents in Congress without
violating the Constitution. Is that correct?
Mr. Smith. That is correct, Congressman. And, in fact,
those proposals have been put forward before in the 1970's. An
amendment was proposed that would treat the District as though
it were a state for congressional representation without
actually making the District itself a state.
Mr. Clyde. Or it could be those residents could also vote
in Maryland. Is that not correct?
Mr. Smith. If the appropriate constitutional amendment
process was followed, they could do that as well, Congressman.
Mr. Clyde. OK. All right.
So, back to Mayor Bowser.
Is the intent for representation or is the intent for
eliminating taxation?
Mayor Bowser. The District is proud to pay its fair share
of taxes, Congressman. What we are here to ask you to correct
is to make sure that we have representation for those taxes.
Our Constitution----
Mr. Clyde. OK. So, what we could do instead, then, is we
could say, all right, what if the residents of D.C. were exempt
from Federal taxes?
Now, you have representation already when it comes to
Presidential elections. And also you have representation in the
Congress with Delegate Norton. Though she doesn't have a direct
vote, she can certainly introduce bills, because she introduced
H.R. 51.
So, if the residents of D.C. were exempted from, say, 50
percent of Federal taxes because they have some representation
already, would that be acceptable?
Mayor Bowser. It is not acceptable, nor do I think it would
be acceptable to the residents of your district if they were
asked to not get full representation.
Mr. Clyde. But your residents would not pay Federal taxes,
just like Puerto Rico does not pay Federal taxes or Guam or
Mariana Islands or American Samoa. They're not a member of a
state, they're a district, they're a territory, similar to a
territory. So, I think that would be fair.
Mayor Bowser. Well, I'm not aware of a bill before the
Congress that would take away billions of dollars from the
Federal Treasury, the billions that we contribute to the
Federal Treasury each year.
Mr. Clyde. But that would change the taxation without
representation, correct?
Mayor Bowser. I think that it is--it would take away us
paying taxes.
Mr. Clyde. OK.
Mayor Bowser. And I think that that would be a detriment to
the Union.
What we're saying--we're not trying to shirk our
responsibilities as Americans, Congressman. We are demanding--
--
Mr. Clyde. But it would put you in exactly the same place
as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.
Is that not correct?
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady may answer.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Madam. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mayor Bowser. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I mentioned earlier to the ranking member, the residents
of the District of Columbia sent me here for one purpose. They
have voted. Eighty-six percent of our electorate says they want
to be full Americans. They want to be full taxpaying Americans.
They're not interested in shirking their responsibilities as
they have done for the history of our Nation, served our
Nation, paid our taxes.
And all we are asking you today is to correct an anomaly of
our history to make sure that we have full representation, with
our Congresswoman getting a vote and having two United States
Senators.
That is what is before this Congress, and that is what is
in the complete power of this Congress to do, to grant D.C.
Statehood.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
The gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I, too, want to thank our Delegate from D.C.
And thank you to the Mayor for your patience with all of
these questions and the other witnesses.
The Admissions Clause of the Constitution gives Congress
the authority to admit new states. However, the Supreme Court's
``equal footing'' doctrine prohibits Congress from imposing
conditions and limitations on new states that Congress cannot
impose on existing states.
I want to clarify that H.R. 51 imposes no such conditions
or limitations on the state of Washington, DC. The bill
expressly declares that the state would be, quote, ``admitted
into the Union on an equal footing with the other states in all
respects whatever.''
In Coyle v. Smith the Supreme Court struck down a condition
Congress imposed on the new state of Oklahoma, saying, quote,
``The constitutional equality of the states is essential to the
harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was
organized.''
During the markup of H.R. 51 last Congress our Republican
colleagues filed many amendments that would have imposed
policies on the new state as a condition of admission,
including on guns, reproductive health, and collective
bargaining.
Ms. Schwartz, does H.R. 51 comply with the equal footing
doctrine?
Ms. Schwartz. I have not encountered anything in the bill
that would lead me to suspect that it does not comport with the
equal footing doctrine.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mayor Bowser, does the state of Washington, DC, seek to
enter the Union on anything other than an equal footing with
the other states?
Mayor Bowser. That is exactly how we would like to enter,
Congresswoman.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
The state of Washington, DC, is simply seeking to enter the
Union in the same way that every other state entered the Union.
It is asking for equal treatment, not special treatment.
And I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon, is now recognized.
Mr. Fallon.
Mr. Fallon. Yes, Madam Chair. Can you hear me all right?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we can.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you so much for having the hearing. I
find all this interesting. Fascinating, in fact.
I want to thank all the witnesses for coming and sharing
their time with us.
I had a quick question, then some comments.
Mayor Bowser, thank you for coming today. You've answered
lots of questions and you've heard lots of opinions and facts
thrown out by colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans. I had
a quick question for you, because this has been alluded to, not
so much by you, but by others, and you're the Mayor of the
city.
Do you believe that Washington, DC, has been historically
denied statehood based on racial grounds? Do you think that
that has been a premise?
Mayor Bowser. I think it certainly contributed.
Mr. Fallon. OK. So, what I find interesting is, I like--and
thank you for your answer--I like data. And so what we did was,
we looked up the census data from 1800. In Washington, DC, at
the time it was 10,666 White residents and only 4,027 African-
American residents. In 1830, 30 years later, there was still a
White majority with 27,563 and only 12,271 African-American
residents.
Fast-forward 120 years, there's still a White majority in
Washington, DC, 517,865, according to the census, and only
280,803 African-American residents, almost a two-to-one White
majority. Then it did change in the 1950's.
So, I found it disheartening and, quite frankly, insulting
that one of my colleagues, not the Mayor, but one of the
colleagues, congressional colleagues, said that there was great
momentum and interest in D.C. Statehood and then it changed and
then it waned.
Well, for 150 years there was a White majority in the
District and it never became a state. And I'm unawares of any
hearings in Congress to that effect back during those 150
years. There may have been, but I've never seen any reference
to it and I fancy myself an amateur historian and a history
minor in college. So, it doesn't seem like that is, actually,
factually historically accurate at all.
And then, furthermore, we've heard today for hours about
the concern with 700,000 folks not having full rights of a
citizen of these United States. But we don't seem to have a lot
of concern, and, in fact, H.R. 51 was the first bill that we've
heard for any statehood for any of our territories, and yet
there are 3 million residents of Puerto Rico, that's four times
the population of Washington, DC, and we're not having a
hearing on that.
Now, why is that? And is this partisan? Because I've only
been here for three months and I left a state legislature that
prided itself on bipartisanship, but now I'm in a hyperpartisan
environment that, again, is very disheartening, but we'll hope
to change the culture some time and some day.
But in 2012, 91 percent of D.C. residents voted for the
Democratic candidate for President. Only seven percent--seven
percent--voted for the Republican candidate. In 2016, it was 91
percent to 4 percent. And in 2020, it was 92 percent to 5
percent. That is complete and utter dominance.
To say that we don't know what the partisan makeup of the
delegation of Washington, DC, would be is farcical and it's
laughable.
Puerto Rico, on the other hand, while probably we would
agree leans Democrat, they have had Republican governors
recently. So, I suspect that is why we're not hearing a bill
about Puerto Rican Statehood right now but rather Washington,
DC.
And then, last, what is the intent, what was the intent of
the Founders? That clearly was that this would be a Federal
city. There's almost no doubt. And we came here, having a
serious discussion, but of course it was.
And then we have a constitutionality issue with the 23rd
Amendment.
So, there is a way to make Washington, DC, a new state, but
it's not through simple legislation introduced by this Chamber.
Retrocession is an interesting idea because then all 700,000
residents of Washington would have a say in Congress, both the
House and the Senate, and that would solve the no taxation
without representation issue.
Madam Chair, thank you for the time. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, is now recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
I want to, of course, thank the Mayor, and I want to thank
the folks from Washington for your assistance on behalf of the
people you represent.
And, Chair Maloney, I want to thank you for following
through on this.
And, of course, to our wonderful Delegate, Eleanor Holmes
Norton, thank you.
Just one comment to start with. The January 6 issue--
``issue'' is hardly the right word--but my total understanding
from reading the reports is that the Mayor and city of
Washington was ready to respond. And keep in mind, this Federal
District, the folks who came here did so at the invitation of
the person who lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
So, I don't see how statehood for D.C. would have
interfered with the ability of Washington to, in fact, protect
Congress when, in fact, it was the resident of 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue who invited folks to come here.
I am totally in support of the right of citizens in
Washington to be able to have representation through elected
Representatives.
And now what I would like to do is yield the balance of my
time to my colleague, Jamie Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Welch, for that. I
appreciate it.
We've just heard from several of our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle about how Democrats win elections in
the District of Columbia by 90 percent or 92 percent or what
have you, as if we should all understand that the implication
of that is constitutionally relevant; that because it's
lopsided in favor of one party, that those people shouldn't be
represented in Congress.
The Supreme Court rejected precisely this logic in a
decision called Carrington v. Rash in 1965 where military
servicemembers were disenfranchised, actually in Texas, on the
theory that they did not know, they were stationed in Texas for
several years, they didn't really know the local political
culture.
And the Supreme Court said nothing could be more in tension
with the Constitution than the idea that we keep people from
voting by virtue of the way we expect them to vote, that we try
to gerrymander the electorate to keep people from voting based
on the predicted ideology of how they would vote.
Perhaps I could go back to Mr. Wingo, who fought for the
country and is working with veterans apparently to fight for
statehood.
What do you make of all these arguments that the District
of Columbia is too Democratic to be admitted into the Union?
Mr. Wingo. Thank you, Congressman Raskin.
Well, what I make of it is, I agree with you, just is
irrelevant as far as the Constitution is concerned.
And, one, I want to thank Representative Holmes Norton for
her tireless fight and, as a fellow Yale Law grad, what she
said about the Constitution.
What I think is the Founders would point to the fact that
veterans, for those who wanted to fight for their Nation, as
happened out of Maryland. The history of the Baltimore
Independent Company, 400, who Washington, George Washington
himself said, we must not forget what these 400 men did.
And so what I would say, sir, is that the party
affiliation, it's more about people and about those who are
committed to serve democracy and are willing to die for that.
Mr. Raskin. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson
spoke of the consent of the governed as being an organizing
principle for the country, along with the unalienable rights of
the people, but the consent of the governed is at the heart of
it. The first three words of the Constitution are ``We the
people,'' and that, of course, included people who lived in the
area that is now the District of Columbia, although it was not
that when the Constitution was written.
Why do you think we're getting all of these arguments that
are doing everything that they can to run away from the consent
of the governed?
You know, there are no car dealerships in Washington, DC.
The last set of hearings we had they were talking about parking
privileges and how Members of Congress might not have the same
parking privileges if the new state were created?
I was just chastised by one of our colleagues, who I'm not
quite sure I totally understood the argument, but he was
basically saying that it is illegitimate to record the actual
history of race and religion and partisanship being used
against people trying to attain the level of political equality
through statehood admission.
Mayor Bowser, would you agree, from your study of it, that
race and religion and partisanship have almost always been
turned into factors against the major principle which should be
in play, which is the consent of the governed?
Mayor Bowser. Absolutely, Congressman, and thanks for that
question. And I was interested in the earlier question about
the role of race in the history of D.C. suffrage, self-
government, and now the movement for statehood.
In fact, two historians have written about it extensively,
and I commend it to the committee, to read ``Chocolate City.''
It's a big volume.
If you don't have the time to read that, you can read a
recent report by D.C.'s Federal City Council, and the Federal
City Council is one of our preeminent business organizations.
But they commissioned a report as well called ``Democracy
Deferred: Race, Politics, and D.C.'s Two-Century Struggle for
Full Voting Rights.''
The truth is that over 220 years we've had various
experience with suffrage for Black men, with Black men being
able to run for office, to it all being stripped away, to
having appointed officials, to now the situation where we're
at, which is wholly, wholly inadequate, which is limited home
rule.
And what we know with limited home rule, that we don't have
representation here in this House. Our Congresswoman cannot
vote for a final bill. And when Democrats aren't in power she
hasn't been able to vote in committee. So, that's important.
But what we've also seen in the last year is that we don't
have complete autonomy; that the whims of a leader can impose
his will on the people of the District of Columbia, squashing
the voices of their elected officials and squashing their laws.
That's anti-democratic, and it's un-American, and it has to
be fixed now.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Welch.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Vice Chair Gomez, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Real quick, I just want to go remind people that the
Constitution does not establish any prerequisite for new
states. However, Congress has generally considered three.
First, residents must have a commitment to democracy, and I
think that applies to Washington, DC.
Second, residents must support statehood. Each time D.C.
has voted overwhelmingly to support statehood.
Third, the state must have the population and resources to
support itself.
D.C. satisfies all three prerequisites.
First, residents have been petitioning for over 200 years
for local self-government.
Second, D.C. residents supported statehood, and I believe
it was 86 percent in 2016.
Third, D.C. has a larger population than Wyoming and
Vermont, and it has a larger budget than 12 states. D.C. pays
more in Federal taxes than 21 states and more Federal taxes per
capita than any other state. D.C. has a triple bond rating, and
I think most states would be envious of that.
Finally, Federal funds comprise a lower percentage of D.C.
government revenue than the national average for state
governments. For example, the Federal Government provides 39
percent of the state government revenue in Kentucky and only 23
percent of the D.C. government's revenue.
Dr. Lee, in 2014, the late Federal and D.C. budget expert
Alice Rivlin testified that D.C. has the population and
resources to support itself.
Do you agree with Ms. Rivlin's assessment?
Mr. Lee. Yes, I do, Congressman Gomez. And as I've
testified, we have demonstrated that through 24 consecutive
years of audits that shows a balanced budget each of those
years. And so I completely agree with Dr. Rivlin's analysis.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
Mayor Bowser, Senator Tom Cotton has said the following
about D.C. Statehood, and I quote: ``Washington also doesn't
have the 'diversity of interests and financial independence'
that Madison explained were necessary for a well-functioning
state. Yes, Wyoming is smaller than Washington by population,
but it has three times as many workers in mining, lodging, and
construction--and ten times as many workers in manufacturing.
In other words, Wyoming is a well-rounded, working-class state.
A new state of Washington would not be.''
Senator Cotton does not seem to think the right type of
people live in Washington, DC.
Mayor Bowser, what is your response to Senator Cotton's
statement?
Mayor Bowser. It's absurd, but we've heard a lot of absurd
things from him.
And I would just go back to your statements, Congressman,
in your introduction. The Constitution does not set out types
of industry that have to be in a state in order to be admitted
to the state. That is the entire province of this Congress.
And what we have laid out, also importantly, is that we can
support ourselves, that we do support ourselves, that the
Federal interest in the District is no different than it is for
any other state, save for the reimbursement you provide us for
the security that we provide for Federal functions. So, we can
support ourselves.
More than that, you heard from our Chief Financial Officer
that the makeup of our work force, unlike most people think, is
not entirely Federal Government employees. In fact, that's only
a quarter of our work force. And we've seen over the last 10 to
15 years growing diversification of our jobs.
We've also grown, and a lot of the smaller states that
you've mentioned don't have the type of growth that we have and
the type of economic development that we forecast that is going
to allow us to continue to invest in our new state in the
functions that we need to handle.
Mr. Gomez. Mayor Bowser, I graduated from graduate school
in 2003 and I moved to Washington, DC, with a lot of my
classmates, and these folks were committed to public service,
but wanted to do it at the Federal level. And a lot of them
actually live in Washington, DC, and they're so committed that
they've been involved in local politics, they ran for the
school board, help people get elected to City Council.
So, these are folks that are committed, and I know that
there's people that are long-term residents of Washington, DC,
have even greater commitment.
So, I don't understand why we wouldn't allow these folks
who have committed themselves to not only the betterment of
their community, but also the betterment of their country, not
have representation at the Federal level. That's why I support
D.C.'s petition to form a state.
With that, I yield back.
Mayor Bowser. Thank you, Congressman.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is now
recognized for five minutes.
Ayanna Pressley? Ayanna?
I think we lost her. OK.
Before we close, I want to offer the ranking member an
opportunity to offer any closing remarks he may have.
Ranking Member Comer, you are now recognized.
Mr. Comer. Well, Madam Chair, let me begin by sincerely
thanking you for holding this hearing today. We appreciate
that, because a lot of bills that we voted on, on the floor
this year, have had no committee hearings.
So, this is a major piece of legislation, H.R. 51, and I
think it's really important that we try to resemble some form
of regular order in the House of Representatives, and having
committee hearings like this is a step in the right direction.
So, I want to thank you for that.
But let's be realistic about this bill. This bill is only
here because there's a desire from the left to create two new
U.S. Senate seats, for various reasons. This bill is all about
two new U.S. Senate seats.
This is plan B of Nancy Pelosi's political power grab. Plan
A was elimination of the filibuster in the Senate. That has
gone down in flames. So, plan B is to make Washington, DC, a
state, to add two new U.S. Senate seats.
Plan C will be to stack the Supreme Court to ensure plan B
doesn't get thrown out in the courts because it's
unconstitutional.
So, I think that both sides have done an admirable job of
presenting the facts. But the fact of the matter is very
simple: This is another example of partisan political power
grab that we've seen since the beginning of this Congress.
So, I will remind everyone that there's not a single
Republican in Congress, in the House or the Senate, that
supports this bill.
And I think that, hopefully, in the future we can hold
hearings on things that are a little bit more pressing at the
time, like the border crisis, or we still have a number of
schools that haven't reopened, and the issues that the working
Americans care about.
So, Madam Chair, again, thank you for holding this hearing.
I appreciate the Mayor's attendance.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
And in recognition of the Representative from the District
of Columbia, I would like to recognize her for a closing
statement and thank her for her selfless work over 30 years of
achieving this goal of representation.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thanks really
is owed to you for giving us this early hearing.
I'd just like to clarify two technical points.
One has to do with the 23rd Amendment, which kept being
raised. It is true that the District has three electoral votes.
If we got statehood, there would be three more.
May I predict that once that occurred, lightning fast, you
will see an amendment go through the Congress to repeal the
23rd Amendment giving us, the District of Columbia, three
electoral votes. The first to vote, the first perhaps even to
lead it, would be the Members on the other side of the aisle.
Second, on the question of retrocession, which kept being
raised, Maryland gave the land in perpetuity. The issue of
statehood at that time was never raised, so you couldn't deny
it or be for it. There is no remaining interest left if you
look at the words that Maryland used in giving the land to the
District of Columbia.
But isn't it interesting, Madam Chair, that in mentioning
Maryland, my friends on the other side did not mention, even
though Maryland has supported statehood, did not mention what
does Maryland want.
Maryland has only one large city, Baltimore. If, in fact,
somehow the District could be retroceded, if that were even
constitutional, to Maryland, then, of course, Maryland would be
dominated by Baltimore and the District of Columbia.
Therefore, I think, before you go talking about Maryland,
you ought to ask Maryland. I think Maryland has spoken, because
every member of its delegation supports D.C. Statehood except
for one Republican member.
I thank you very much for this very important hearing,
Madam Chair. I think we're on our way to statehood for the
District of Columbia.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much.
And before my closing statement, I want to recognize Ayanna
Pressley from Massachusetts. She was having some technical
difficulties. She's now back on with us. And I'd like to
recognize her for her statement, her five minutes.
Ms. Pressley, you're recognized.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding
this hearing and continuing to prioritize this fight to
establish the state of Washington, DC.
And in this fight, there certainly has been no greater
champion or stalwart than my sister in service, Representative
Eleanor Holmes Norton. You've organized, you've advocated,
you've legislated, and, might I add, you've tolerated some
condescending and, I would add, microaggressions.
Thank you for the grace and thought leadership as a Yale
alumni, law school alumni, that you've brought to this space
today and this work. I'm very honored to serve alongside you.
For many years, D.C. was affectionately known as Chocolate
City. The vibrant Black community defined this town and
provided a professional and cultural scene rich in Black joy,
love, and excellence. But Congress continuously denied D.C. a
locally elected government for much of its history.
Now, today, the state of Washington, DC, would be 46
percent Black, which would make it the state with the highest
percentage of Black people in the entire country, and its
congressional district would be a majority-minority
jurisdiction.
I represent the Massachusetts Seven, a majority-minority
District in my home state. These districts are critical for
making the needs of people of color, for ensuring our voices
are heard in the policymaking process, and for diversifying the
Halls of Congress.
Now, in the Senate today there are only three Black
Senators and not a single Black woman in the entire body. The
structure of the Senate gives disproportionate power to small,
predominantly White states. It has been estimated that the
Senate gives the average Black person in America only 75
percent of the representation of the average White person in
America.
In the midst of our national reckoning on racism and those
who are quick to quote Dr. King and John Lewis but obstruct
things like D.C. Statehood, uplifting Black political power
must be a part of the conversation. We cannot allow electoral
justice for the people of Washington, DC, to be denied any
longer.
Now, last year, the day before the House of Representatives
passed H.R. 51, Senator Cotton said the following about the
bill, quote: ``Would you trust Mayor Bowser to keep Washington
safe if she were given the powers of a governor? Would you
trust Marion Barry?''
Now, both Bowser and Barry, who died in 2014, are Black,
and even on the floor of the U.S. Senate Senator Cotton
apparently felt compelled to communicate to a certain audience.
That wasn't a dog whistle; that was a bullhorn. His objection
to statehood was related to the possibility of an African-
American governor.
Now, he said this with full knowledge of the role White
supremacy has played in our democracy. There have been only two
Black elected governors in the history of this country.
Massachusetts had one of them, Deval Patrick. Now, more than
230 years, only two Black governors.
I'm going to make it plain: D.C. Statehood is a racial
justice issue. And racism kills. And I don't just mean police
brutality and hate crimes and food apartheid systems and
transportation deserts and unequal access to healthcare. I mean
all of that, too. But racism kills our democracy.
Mr. Henderson, as someone who was both born and raised in
D.C. and has been a national civil rights leaders for many
years, what role did race play in that denial and what role
does race play in the opposition to H.R. 51?
Mr. Henderson. Thank you, Representative Pressley, for the
question.
You know, American history is replete with examples of race
interfering with our democracy in the worst possible way.
I've devoted my career and the organizations that I've
worked for, including the Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights, to building an America as good as its ideals, to
helping to develop a more perfect Union. It means coming to
terms with issues of race and juxtaposing those issues with
American democracy in the fullest sense of that.
We are striving now to achieve the ideals that the Founding
Fathers set out for the country but have never been fully
accomplished. That's where we are today. That's what we're
struggling to accomplish. The racial reckoning that you
mentioned in your introductory comments is a very important
part of that.
Hopefully, the D.C. Statehood issue will be seen both as a
democratic issue, but also as a racial justice issue for those
who have so long been denied the opportunity of having full
representation in the District.
Thank you.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. Thank you.
Do I still have time?
Your Leadership Conference has more than 200 civil and
human rights organizations as members. Could you tell me why
D.C. Statehood is a priority for this broad and diverse
coalition?
Mr. Henderson. Of course. It is because we are committed as
a coalition to the fullness of American democracy in all
aspects of what we do. And struggling to accomplish the voting
rights and democracy for the 712,000 representatives or
citizens of the District is an important part of that effort to
build the more perfect Union we've talked about.
Ms. Pressley. And, Mayor Bowser, can you elaborate on how
naming the future state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,
is an act of racial justice?
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired, but
the Honorable Mayor may answer.
Ms. Pressley. I yield.
Mayor Bowser. I'll answer quickly, because, Congresswoman,
you laid it out and made it plain. I had forgotten those
comments of Senator Cotton.
But it is very clear that we are proud of our diversity. We
believe that our diversity makes us stronger. And we're proud
of our history of Black political power.
And in no way do we think that that should prevent us from
what should be our rights as Americans and as taxpayers in this
Nation.
We believe very strongly that it is a civil rights and a
voting rights issue that suppresses the voices of thousands of
African Americans in the Nation's Capital.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Thank you. Thank you.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds, is now back on, is
recognized.
Mr. Donalds.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you so much, Chairwoman.
And to the witnesses, thank you. I've been listening to
this hearing for, obviously, the last several hours on the
road.
I really just have one question. This is actually quite
simple. And this is, I guess, for Mayor Bowser.
Seeing that the layout of the proposed state is essentially
the city limits of Washington, DC, as it is today, are there
plans to dissolve your City Council? Because if you have
essentially a state legislature and a governor, then what is
the purpose of the D.C. City Council at that point?
Mayor Bowser. Well, thank you for that question,
Congressman.
And we have, our voters and our Council, which is our
legislature, has approved the Constitution for our new state,
and our Constitution contemplates making our current Council of
the District of Columbia the state legislature for the state of
Washington, DC. And we would expand that Council by, I think,
seven--eight seats, to expand it by eight seats, to be a 21-
person state legislature.
Mr. Donalds. That's all I got.
I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman yields back.
And that concludes our hearing.
And I now would like to recognize myself.
I'd like to thank all the members for a strong debate and
thank the witnesses for their insight and participation on this
critical civil rights issue.
As has been said many times today, statehood for D.C. is
about fairness and equality. Our Nation is founded upon the
idea that all people should have a voice in their government.
But without voting representation in Congress, the people of
D.C. are denied that most basic right.
The demand for D.C. residents to be given their equal
rights, that they are the very foundation of our democratic
Republic, is not a political ploy. It is an effort to right the
wrong of more than 200 years of disenfranchisement.
D.C. residents are American citizens. They fought, they
fought honorably to protect our Nation overseas. They pay
taxes. They deserve representation. I want to, again, thank
them for their patience and their dedication to securing the
rights they deserve.
And a very special thank you to Eleanor Holmes Norton
today.
In closing, I want to thank our panelists for their
remarks, and I want to commend my colleagues for participating
in this important conversation.
With that, and without objection, all members will have
five legislative days within which to submit additional written
questions for the witnesses to the chair, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses for their response. I ask our
witnesses to please respond as promptly as possible.
And this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:01 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]