Hearing Wrap Up: Republicans Warn H.R. 51 is an Unconstitutional, Unworkable Democrat Power Grab
Outline Constitutional, Fiscal, and Practical Issues with H.R. 51
WASHINGTON—Today, the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a hearing on the Democrats’ unconstitutional legislative proposal, H.R. 51, to grant statehood to the District of Columbia. During the hearing, Republicans warned the Democrats’ bill is an unconstitutional power grab that will result in the District receiving greater benefits than citizens of any other state. H.R. 51 would make D.C. the first among states, exactly what the Founding Fathers sought to avoid.
Ranking Member James Comer (R-Ky.) opened the hearing by outlining the Justice Department has been consistent for 60 years in saying a constitutional amendment is required to make D.C. a state. He went on further to say H.R. 51 is a power grab by Democrats to add two liberal senators. He said, “[Democrats] 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. . . H.R. 51 is an unconstitutional and unworkable bill and is rejected by the American people. Congress must reject this proposal.”
Subcommittee on Government Operations Ranking Member Jody Hice (R-Ga.) outlined the massive financial benefits the District of Columbia receives from the federal government and how H.R. 51 and the District of Columbia want to keep these benefits. He said, “[H.R. 51] is written to maximize the benefit to the new state of D.C. while burdening American taxpayers … Currently, the federal government pays for the court system of D.C. That’s right—one third of D.C.’s entire government is paid for by American taxpayers …D.C. wants to keep all these special perks plus gain two Democrat U.S. Senators.”
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) exposed the political motives of Democrats in seeking D.C. statehood. She said, “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.”
Subcommittee Ranking Member Hice asked Zack Smith, legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, about the political nature of adding states in pairs. Smith confirmed that’s been the practice and stated, “Political considerations have always been a part of admitting new states to our Union … When the states have been admitted in pairs it has traditionally been in part to balance those political considerations. There would typically be a pairing of a presumed state of one party with a presumed state of another party.”
Hice clarified further saying, “So, there was an attempt in the past then to avoid a potential party getting the upper hand of another party. So, when we admitted states, we did it in pairs with both sides coming in at the same time.”
Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) asked Zack Smith about the constitutionality of H.R. 51 and if there is a path forward for D.C. statehood within the parameters of the Constitution. Smith said, “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, remove any doubt about the status of the District of Columbia. Additionally, if . . . Congress wanted to give other voting rights to the residents of 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.”
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) questioned Heritage Foundation Legal Fellow Smith whether the 23rd Amendment would remain intact if H.R. 51 became law and allow the President’s family to control three electoral college votes.
Norman said, “[With] the 23rd Amendment and Article 1 Section 8, this new tiny area would become the nation’s capital and the new seat of power, [and] it would still have the three electoral college votes for President and Vice President…” Norman went on to say, “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. . . . So, really the only permanent residents in this new created seat of power would be the President occupied by Mr. Biden …” Smith confirmed that under H.R. 51, it is possible the First Family would control 3 electoral college votes.
Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) pressed Democrats on their refusal to consider reasonable, constitutional methods for statehood and instead going ahead with H.R. 51. He said, “There is a way to make Washington, D.C. a state, but it’s not through simple legislation introduced by this chamber …”
Ranking Member Comer pushed D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to answer a single question as to how the District would make up for the funding the federal government currently provides to it, but she would not provide specifics about how the District would make up for a loss in federal funding.