[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 195 (Wednesday, November 19, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4800-H4805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMON-SENSE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY NOW IN DC ACT OF 2025
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up
the bill (H.R. 5107) to repeal the Comprehensive Policing and Justice
Reform Amendment Act of 2022 enacted by the District of Columbia
Council, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, printed in the bill, is adopted, and
the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5107
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Common-Sense Law Enforcement
and Accountability Now in DC Act of 2025'' or the ``CLEAN DC
Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF COMPREHENSIVE
POLICING AND JUSTICE REFORM AMENDMENT ACT OF
2022.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of
2022 (D.C. Law 24-345) is hereby repealed, and any provision
of law amended or repealed by such Act is restored or revived
as if such Act had not been enacted into law.
(b) Exception.--The repeal under subsection (a) shall not
apply with respect to--
(1) subtitle S of title I of such Act (sec. 5-365.01 et
seq., D.C. Official Code); and
[[Page H4801]]
(2) subtitle A of title I of such Act (sec. 5-125.01 et
seq. and sec. 5-302, D.C. Official Code).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or
their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garcia) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
General Leave
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I support the CLEAN DC Act, which repeals the majority
of D.C.'s so-called Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Act of
2022.
By repealing this antipolice law, we will make our Nation's Capital
safer. We will also restore the integrity of and faith in the law
enforcement of the District of Columbia.
For instance, this law stripped law enforcement officers of many
tools needed to execute their duties safely and without fear of
retribution, as well as limited their options in situations of life or
death.
It also created new opportunities for antipolice activists to harass
law enforcement officers and added many undue burdens and requirements
to officers in the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.
In 2023, both the House and Senate sought to nullify this law by
passing a joint resolution of disapproval. Unfortunately, this
resolution was vetoed by then-President Biden.
The CLEAN DC Act would largely repeal D.C.'s antipolice law and
ensure that law enforcement officers have the tools to keep visitors
and residents safe. D.C. law enforcement officers, who put their lives
on the line every day for our community, must have the capabilities to
do their jobs as they are trained to do.
By addressing the retention and recruitment crisis gripping D.C.'s
Metropolitan Police Department, Congress can do its part in helping to
boost the number of crime fighters this city desperately needs to keep
violent criminals off of the streets.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) for leading this
effort in this Congress, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in
supporting this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I stand tonight to strongly oppose this bill, which
repeals commonsense criminal justice reforms that were passed by D.C.'s
elected representatives in the wake of George Floyd and the Black Lives
Matter movement.
Mr. Speaker, we know that cities and communities all over the country
passed similar reforms to increase trust, accountability, and safety.
In D.C., these measures increased accountability for bad apples with
independent civilian oversight, clean disciplinary process, and
mandatory reporting for overuse of force incidents.
It prohibited the hiring of officers with prior misconduct, and it
prohibited choke holds. They improved training for officers. The Mayor,
the D.C. City Council, and the community all worked together to pass a
series of reforms and laws, work they were proud of. They empower the
chief of police to lead the police department and do it the right way.
This bill repeals all of that. It would damage the trust between D.C.
police and the communities they protect and serve.
We know communities are safer when residents feel safe calling on 911
and when they feel safe working with the police. We know policies like
de-escalation, expanding body-worn cameras, and improving safety should
not move backwards.
This bill is opposed by D.C. residents. It is opposed by the Mayor of
D.C. It is opposed by the D.C. City Council, and it is opposed by
D.C.'s Member of Congress. This is part of my Republican colleagues'
continued obsession with acting as a super city council for the
District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, D.C., again, has more residents than two States. D.C.
taxpayers pay Federal taxes. D.C., as a whole, contributes more Federal
taxes than 26 other States. D.C.'s government should be allowed to
govern themselves, to hold local leaders accountable, to elect their
own leadership, and to solve problems without Congress consistently
interfering.
We should always continue to support D.C. and their ability to govern
themselves. Congress should focus on national issues and let the
residents of D.C. and their local representatives govern the District.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Clyde), the sponsor of this bill.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my legislation, H.R. 5107,
the Common-Sense Law Enforcement and Accountability Now in DC Act, or
affectionately known as the CLEAN DC Act for short because that is what
it is intended to do, and that is to clean up the city of Washington,
D.C.
My legislation, co-led with Senator Ted Cruz, repeals the antipolice
provisions of the D.C. City Council's so-called Comprehensive Policing
and Justice Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 2022. If there is one
thing that act doesn't do, it is create more justice. It creates
injustice.
The CLEAN DC Act is essential to restoring public safety in our
Nation's Capital. For far too long, Washington, D.C., a city meant to
embody freedom and prosperity, has been overwhelmed by violent crime.
As millions of people visit D.C. every year, it is imperative that our
Nation's Capital is safe for all residents and visitors. Yet, in recent
years, this simply has not been the case.
{time} 1430
In 2024, D.C.'s homicide rate exceeded 27 homicides per 100,000
residents, higher than that of any State and nearly three times that of
Islamabad, Pakistan, and 18 times that of communist-run Havana, Cuba.
That same year, the city recorded nearly 30,000 crimes, including
thousands of violent offenses, robberies, and car thefts.
So far in 2025, D.C. has already seen over 2,200 violent crimes and
more than 120 homicides, including the tragic killing of a 21-year-old
Capitol Hill intern. That was an incredible tragedy. Of course, any
homicide is an incredible tragedy, but that one really was.
Despite these alarming trends, the radical D.C. Council has chosen to
undermine the very department responsible for protecting the city. Its
antipolice law strips the Metropolitan Police Department officers of
due process protections. It weakens collective bargaining. It restricts
the use of nonlethal tools during civil unrest and has fueled a
devastating staffing collapse.
Since the law took effect under emergency authority in 2020, the
Metropolitan Police Department has lost over 2,000 officers, leaving
the department critically understaffed and unable to adequately respond
to this crisis.
One of my neighbors here where I reside in D.C. had a terrible,
violent incident that happened to her with her child. When the incident
was over, she had lost her pocketbook. She had lost her phone. When
they called the MPD to come take a police report, the response was: You
will have to come down to the station because unless you are actually
hurt yourself, we don't have the officers to go out and actually go to
you. You have to come to us. That is just not right. That is an example
of a completely understaffed police department.
Thankfully, in August, President Trump initiated a Federal takeover
of the Metropolitan Police Department and deployed the National Guard
to confront this massive crime crisis. Since then, violent crime has
dropped by 30 percent. Even D.C.'s Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser has
acknowledged fewer homicides and a sharp decline in carjackings since
President Trump's intervention.
[[Page H4802]]
Repealing the antipolice policies enacted by the procriminal D.C.
Council will further strengthen President Trump's efforts and restore
common sense to law enforcement in Washington, D.C.
Last Congress in the 118th, I led a joint resolution of disapproval
alongside then-Senator JD Vance, now Vice President JD Vance, to repeal
this same misguided D.C. Council law. The resolution passed both the
House and the Senate with bipartisan majorities, yet President Joe
Biden foolishly vetoed our commonsense measure, underscoring just how
little the previous administration cared about the American people's
safety and law enforcement officers' well-being.
Thankfully, we now have new leadership in the White House, strong,
forceful, America-first leadership, and I look forward to sending this
commonsense legislation to President Trump's desk to restore law and
order in our Nation's Capital and support our brave men and women in
blue. Public safety should not be a partisan issue. It is just plain
common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 5107 so we can
codify the progress we have made under the Trump administration and
transform D.C. from a crime-ridden capital into a safe, free, and
thriving city.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which repeals the police
accountability and transparency law that the District of Columbia
enacted in 2023.
Last year, violent crime in D.C. was down 35 percent, reaching an
over 30-year low. This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 28 percent
compared to the same period last year.
D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act, among
other things, gave the police chief more authority to discipline
officers for serious misconduct and crimes; strengthened civilian
oversight of the police department; improved public access to body-worn
camera video; and imposed limitations on the purchase of military
weapons and the use of force. D.C. police chiefs have requested more
authority to discipline officers for at least 25 years before enactment
of this law. This bill would take away this authority from the police
chief.
The difficulty D.C. has had recruiting and retaining police officers
is not unique. It is a nationwide issue that predates the police
accountability and transparency laws enacted across the country after
the murder of George Floyd. In 2019, before the murder of George Floyd,
the International Association of Chiefs of Police conducted a survey
that found ``The challenge of recruiting law enforcement is widespread
and affects agencies of all types, sizes, and locations across the
United States.''
``The difficulty of recruiting law enforcement officers and employees
is not due to one particular cause. Rather, multiple social, political,
and economic forces are all simultaneously at play.''
In 1973, Congress passed the D.C. Home Rule Act, which established
locally elected chief executive officer and legislature. The purpose of
the Home Rule Act is to ``grant to inhabitants of the District of
Columbia powers of local government'' and ``relieve Congress of the
burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters,'' yet
the House today is denying D.C. residents local self-government and
spending its time on local D.C. matters.
Mr. Speaker, I remind my Republican colleagues what Republican
President Richard Nixon said when he signed the Home Rule Act: ``One of
the major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for
local functions under local control and to provide local governments
with the authority and resources they need to serve their communities
effectively. The measure I sign today represents a significant step in
achieving this goal in the city of Washington. It will give the people
of the District of Columbia the right to elect their own city officials
and to govern themselves in local affairs.
``As the Nation approaches the 200th anniversary of its founding, it
is particularly appropriate to assure those persons who live in our
Capital City rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most
of their countrymen.''
The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and
Brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from
the D.C. Mayor, from the D.C. Council, and the D.C. Attorney General,
all of whom were elected by D.C. residents.
September 10, 2025.
Hon. James Comer,
Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: As Mayor and
Chief Executive Officer of the District of Columbia, I am
proud of the work we have accomplished to invest in our
people, strengthen our neighborhoods, and drive down crime.
Building on this progress, my Administration established the
Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center to coordinate
public safety and beautification efforts as the presidential
emergency declaration ends. This structure ensures that DC
will remain proactive--bringing together local and federal
partners to sustain momentum on reducing crime and improving
quality of life for every resident.
We have worked collaboratively with this Committee on
shared priorities, including public safety, the federal
Return to Work, implementing a DC budget Fiscal Year 2025 fix
(which is still pending in the House) and revitalizing the
RFK campus; but I write now to ask you to reject 13 of the DC
bills before you today that encroach on DC's Home Rule:
Bills like H.R. 5183, the District of Columbia Home Rule
Improvement Act, make the District less efficient,
competitive, and responsive to the needs of a highly complex
unique local government that serves local, county and state
functions. Bogging down legislative and executive action only
adds costs and uncertainty, making it more difficult to
handle the economic headwinds and growth opportunities ahead.
Bills like H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail
Reform Act, make DC less safe. Replacing our very effective
pre-trial detention regime, which focuses on charged violent
offenses and repeat violent offenders, not just on cash bail.
I credit recent changes to our laws related to pre-trial
detention for helping to drive down violent crime in the last
two years.
And the bills to abolish the Judicial Nominations
Commission and to convert the elected DC Attorney General to
a Presidentially appointed legal officer for the District are
both less democratic and untenable for District operations.
The Judicial Nomination Commission, with seven members
appointed by the Mayor, DC Council, President, US District
Court for DC, and the DC Bar, works. As recently as last
month, President Trump nominated three federal judicial
nominees who were selected from the Commission's candidate
pool--a process that demonstrates the value of maintaining
local input. DC residents also voted to elect an Attorney
General who represents the public interest. Changes to these
charter agencies would significantly undercut the already
thin ties to autonomy that limited home rule provides.
Finally, I urge you not to up end our three-pall education
funding SOAR Act. I have long supported the program to expand
opportunity for DC students. However, my support has always
been contingent on parity among all three education sectors--
public, private, and charter--and this approach is working.
We will not support changes that tip the scales away from
this core principle of fairness for DC families. As the
fastest improving urban school system, DC has become a model
for urban education. We outpace the national average on all
tested subject areas. We boast free, full-day Pre-K access
serving more than 13,200 young learners--an investment which
supports our children and our workforce. DC ranked top of the
nation in parental satisfaction regarding school choice.
Mayoral control, council oversight, and deep, targeted
investments in our students, teachers, and buildings made
these remarkable achievements possible.
I look forward to continuing a productive partnership with
the Committee--one that respects the will of DC residents and
honors the principles of home rule. Together, we can build on
our successes while protecting the autonomy that, as history
reflects, has made our city stronger.
Sincerely,
Muriel Bowser,
Mayor.
____
Council of the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2025.
Hon. James Comer,
Chair, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: The Council
of the District of Columbia is aware that the House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform
[[Page H4803]]
is planning to mark up more than a dozen proposed measures
that would severely and negatively impact the operations,
public safety, and autonomy of the District of Columbia. We
ask that you oppose these measures in full, save one, H.R.
2693, District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal of
Legislation Act. While we have not seen the final text of
this legislation, the public summary of H.R. 2693 is
consistent with the long held request by the District of
Columbia to allow the ability to electronically transfer
legislative acts to Congress, rather than only allowing
physical copies be transferred. The challenge and barriers
created by this current requirement were clearly exposed
during both the recent COVID pandemic restrictions as well as
the Capitol campus restrictions following the January 6, 2021
attacks on the Capitol.
The other 13 measures that have been shared with us would
do direct and serious harm to the District of Columbia and we
urge you to reject these measures completely. These bills
represent an unprecedented attack on the autonomy and home
rule of our local government and the more than 700,000
Americans that call it home. The breadth of these bills is
remarkable, and if passed, would result in an erosion of
accountability and public safety for the District of
Columbia. They range from eliminating and replacing our
elected and accountable Attorney General for the District of
Columbia with a President's hand-picked and unaccountable
associate requiring no confirmation by the U.S. Senate and no
local ties, to a full repeal of multiple local DC laws that
have been in place for many years, if not decades, that are
tested, proven, and effective components of our public safety
infrastructure and ecosystem. The effect of these
Congressional repeals would put our legal and Court system
into chaos and directly undermine successful tools that focus
on serious accountability and effective rehabilitation when a
crime occurs. As always, when revisions or amendments to DC
laws are necessary, those changes should only take place
within our local legislature which has the best capacity to
provide effective oversight and accountable actions for the
residents of the District of Columbia.
We respectfully request that all members of the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, and all members of
Congress, reject these harmful measures whether in committee
mark up or before the full House of Representatives. Given
the breadth of the multiple measures before you, we also
request an opportunity to provide a more in-depth discussion
of each bill before the Committee's mark-up, especially in
light that the Committee will not hold public hearings on
these measures.
Sincerely,
Chairman Phil Mendelson; Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, At-
Large; Councilmember Anita Bonds, At-Large; Councilmember
Christina Henderson, At-Large; Councilmember Robert White,
Jr., At-Large; Councilmember Brianne Nadeau, Ward 1;
Councilmember Brooke Pinto, Ward 2; Councilmember Matthew
Frumin, Ward 3; Councilmember Janeese Lewis George, Ward 4;
Councilmember Zachary Parker, Ward 5; Councilmember Charles
Allen, Ward 6; Councilmember Wendell Felder, Ward 7;
Councilmember Trayon White, Sr, Ward 8.
____
Government of the District of Columbia,
Office of the Attorney General,
Washington, DC, September 9, 2025.
Hon. James Comer,
Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: The House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is scheduled to
markup fourteen bills tomorrow related to the operations of
the District of Columbia. With the exception of H.R. 2693,
the District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal Act, I write
in strong opposition to these bills. They address inherently
local issues and laws that were passed after careful
consideration by the District's elected representatives, who
are directly accountable to District residents. Members of
this very Committee have long advocated for the principles of
federalism on which this nation was founded. They have
consistently condemned federal overreach and fought
forcefully and convincingly for the uniquely American values
of local control, freedom, and self-governance. These
principles should apply to the more than 700,000 people who
call Washington, DC home, just as they do for your
constituents across the country.
I specifically want to call attention to the significant
incursion on local self-governance reflected in two bills,
the District of Columbia Attorney General Appointment Reform
Act and the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform
Act. Both laws would displace the ability of District
residents to have a voice in the selection of local leaders
who wield significant power over local judicial matters: the
judges on our local courts and the Attorney General for the
District. The judges on the DC Court of Appeals and DC
Superior Court rule on inherently local matters such as
criminal prosecutions, landlord-tenant cases, probate
proceedings, civil cases, and divorce proceedings, all of
which have profoundly important impact on our community. For
more than 50 years, the Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC)
has successfully allowed DC residents to have a voice in
judicial appointments, while also granting the President and
Senate a role in confirming our judges. I urge the Committee
not to overturn that well-established process.
The DC Attorney General, as the District's chief law
officer, is also responsible for local legal issues, namely,
protecting the District and its residents in a wide range of
matters, such as enforcing child support laws, handling abuse
and neglect proceedings in the child welfare system,
enforcing our housing code, and defending District agencies
and officers when they are sued. In no other place in the
United States are such local issues determined by a federally
appointed person with no local accountability. The proposed
legislation would be especially undemocratic in light of the
fact that, in 2010, an overwhelming majority of District
voters (76%) exercised their right to amend the District
Charter to make the DC Attorney General an independent,
elected office, rather than a position appointed by and
subordinate to the Mayor. With that vote, District residents
clearly expressed their desire that the Attorney General
should be independent and accountable to them. The pending
bill would displace that choice in favor of installing an
Attorney General accountable not to District residents, but
to the President. Given that the U.S. Attorney for the
District is already appointed by the President, if passed,
this bill would concentrate all criminal and civil litigation
authority in the President, divesting the District and its
residents of any local control over these essential
functions.
No one knows or cares more about keeping DC safe than DC
residents who work, live and raise their families here. Our
democratically elected officials work closely with local law
enforcement, policy experts, and community leadership to pass
laws that are in the best interests of all Washingtonians.
Substituting the will of DC voters with the whim of federal
politicians is un-democratic and un-American.
I urge you to reject these measures and uphold the values
Congress sought to advance more than 50 years ago when it
passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act: that District
residents should enjoy the ``powers of local self-
government'' that all other Americans enjoy. See DC Code
Sec. 1-201.02.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian L. Schwalb,
Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, D.C. residents have all the obligations of
American citizenship, including paying Federal taxes, serving on
juries, and registering with the Selective Service, yet Congress denies
them full local self-government and voting representation in Congress.
{time} 1440
The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C.
statehood.
I include in the Record a letter from leading constitutional scholars
explaining why the D.C. statehood bill is constitutional.
May 22, 2021.
Re Washington, D.C. Admission Act, H.R. 51 and S. 51 (the
``D.C. Admission Act'').
Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressional Leaders: As scholars of the United
States Constitution, we write to correct claims that the D.C.
Admission Act is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge in
the courts. For the reasons set forth below, there is no
constitutional barrier to the State of Washington, Douglass
Commonwealth (the ``Commonwealth'') entering the Union
through a congressional joint resolution, pursuant to the
Constitution's Admissions Clause, just like the 37 other
states that have been admitted since the Constitution was
adopted. Furthermore, Congress's exercise of its express
constitutional authority to decide to admit a new state is a
classic political question, which courts are highly unlikely
to interfere with, let alone attempt to bar.
The D.C. Admission Act. The House passed the Act, as H.R.
51, on April 22, 2021, and as of this writing, the
substantively identical companion bill (S. 51) is under
consideration by the Senate. The Act provides for the
issuance of a congressional joint resolution declaring the
admittance as a State of most of the territory currently
comprising the District of Columbia, while the seat of
government (defined as the ``Capital'') will fall
[[Page H4804]]
outside of the boundaries of the new State and remain under
federal jurisdiction. The Act also repeals the provision of
federal law that establishes the current mechanism for
District residents to participate in presidential elections,
pursuant to Congress's authority under the Twenty-Third
Amendment; and provides for expedited consideration of the
repeal of that Amendment.
The Admissions Clause grants Congress constitutional
authority to admit the Commonwealth into the Union. The
starting point for a constitutional analysis of the Act is
the Constitution's Admissions Clause (Art. IV, Sect. 3),
which provides that ``New States may be admitted by the
Congress into this Union.'' The Clause ``vests in Congress
the essential and discretionary authority to admit new states
into the Union by whatever means it considers appropriate as
long as such means are framed within its vested powers.''
Every State admitted into the Union since the Constitution
was adopted has been admitted by congressional action
pursuant to this Clause; no State has been admitted pursuant
to a constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court has broadly construed Congress's assigned
power to admit new states and has never interfered with
Congress's admission of a state, even when potentially
legitimate constitutional objections existed. For example, in
1863, Congress admitted into the Union West Virginia, which
had been part of the State of Virginia, in potential
violation of a provision of the Admissions Clause that bars
the formation of a new State out of a portion of the
territory of another State without the consent of the ceding
State. The Supreme Court, however, did not bar West
Virginia's admission; to the contrary, it later tacitly
approved of it.
Some critics of the D.C. Admission Act have suggested that
Maryland's consent might be required under the foregoing
provision of the Admissions Clause. This objection mistakenly
presupposes that Maryland retains a reversionary interest in
the territory currently composing the District of Columbia,
which Maryland ceded to the federal government when the
District was established in 1791. In fact, Maryland expressly
relinquished all sovereign authority over the territory at
issue when the federal government accepted it. The express
terms of the cession state that the territory was ``for ever
ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the
United States, in full and absolute right, and exclusive
jurisdiction . . . .'' As Viet D. Dinh, who served as an
Assistant Attorney General during the presidency of George W.
Bush, has explained, because Maryland's cession of the
territory now constituting the District was full and
complete, it severed D.C. residents' now far distant
``political link with'' Maryland. The current District is not
part of Maryland, and Maryland has no claim on any portion of
the District's territory. There is accordingly no basis to
require Maryland's consent for the establishment of the new
State.
The Constitution's District Clause poses no barrier to
admitting the Commonwealth into the Union. The Constitution's
District Clause grants Congress power 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
the Government of the United States.'' Based on this Clause,
Congress established the current District of Columbia, which
(as explained) was taken from territory ceded by Maryland, as
well as Virginia.
The D.C. Admission Act complies with the District Clause
because it provides that the Capital--which is defined in the
Act to include (among other things) the White House, the
Capitol Building, the United States Supreme Court Building,
and the Federal executive, legislative, and judicial office
buildings located adjacent to the Mall--will not become part
of the new State and will remain under the sovereignty of the
federal government.
Some critics have argued that the District Clause somehow
mandates that the District of Columbia permanently retain all
of its current territory, and that its size may neither be
increased or reduced by Congress. The plain language of the
District Clause says no such thing; it does not mandate that
the District be any size or shape, except it limits the
maximum size of the federal enclave to ten square miles.
Historical practice confirms that Congress can change the
size of the District. In 1791, Congress altered the
District's southern boundary to encompass portions of what
are now Alexandria, Virginia and Anacostia. Then, in 1846,
Congress retroceded Alexandria and its environs back to
Virginia. As a result, the territory composing the District
was reduced by a third.
At the time of the 1846 retrocession, the House's Committee
on the District of Columbia considered, and rejected, the
very argument that critics of the D.C. Admission Act are
raising today, reasoning that the ``true construction of [the
District Clause] would seem to be solely that Congress retain
and exercise exclusive jurisdiction'' over territory
comprising the ``seat of government.'' The language of the
District Clause, the legislators observed, places no mandate
on the size, or even the location, of that seat of
government, other than preventing the government from
``hold[ing] more than ten miles for this purpose.'' The
House's judgment was correct in 1846, and remains so today.
The Twenty-Third Amendment does not prevent Congress from
granting the Commonwealth statehood. Opponents of statehood
have suggested that the Twenty-Third Amendment bars Congress
from exercising its constitutionally enumerated authority to
grant statehood to the Commonwealth. In fact, the Amendment
poses no barrier to the admission of the Commonwealth into
the Union through an act of Congress, in accordance with the
plain language of the Admissions Clause, just as Congress has
done in connection with the admission of several other
States, including most recently Alaska and Hawaii.
Section 1 of the Twenty-Third Amendment, which was ratified
in 1961, provides:
The District constituting the seat of Government of the
United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress
may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice
President equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives in Congress to which the District would be
entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the
least populous State; they shall be in addition to those
appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for
the purposes of the election of President and Vice President,
to be electors appointed by a State.
By its plain terms, the Amendment poses no barrier to
Congress's admission of the Commonwealth into the Union.
Indeed, it is entirely silent on the matter.
The only question raised by the existence of the Twenty-
Third Amendment is a practical, not a constitutional one: How
best to address the Twenty-Third Amendment's provision for
the assignment of presidential electors to what will become a
vestigial seat of government, with virtually no residents?
The Act satisfactorily addresses this question by providing
for the repeal of the provision of federal law that
establishes the current mechanism for District residents to
participate in presidential elections, pursuant to Congress's
authority under the Twenty-Third Amendment, as well as by
commencing the process for repealing the Amendment itself.
Initially, the Act provides for an expedited process for
repeal of the Twenty-Third Amendment, a process that should
move forward to ratification swiftly and successfully once
the Commonwealth is admitted as a State. None of the other 50
States has reason to seek to retain three electors for a
largely unoccupied seat of government.
But the Act also addresses the possibility that the Twenty-
Third Amendment is not promptly repealed by mandating the
immediate repeal of the provision of federal law that
provides the current mechanism for District residents to
participate in federal elections.
In 1961, following the adoption of the Twenty-Third
Amendment, Congress exercised its enforcement authority by
enacting legislation (codified at 3 U.S.C. Sec. 21),
providing that the District residents may select presidential
electors; the votes of the electors are currently awarded to
the ticket prevailing in the District's presidential
election.
The existing statutes fall within the broad authority
granted to Congress by the Twenty-Third Amendment to define
the terms of, and effectuate, the District's participation in
presidential elections. The Amendment allows for the
appointment of a number of Electors ``in such manner as the
Congress may direct.'' The Amendment also allows Congress to
select the number of Electors the District may receive,
subject only to a maximum: The District may participate in
the presidential Electoral College through the appointment of
no more electors than those of the smallest State, i.e.,
three. And section 2 of the Amendment grants Congress the
power to ``enforce'' the provision ``by appropriate
legislation,'' as it did in 1961.
But once Congress acts again, pursuant to its express grant
of constitutional authority, and repeals the legislation that
creates the existing procedure for District residents to
select presidential electors, that will remove the
legislative provision providing for the District's
participation in presidential elections. Without such a
provision, there is no mechanism for identifying the Capital
area's electors or allocating their votes.
Some scholars have questioned whether that approach is
satisfactory. They contend that the Twenty-Third Amendment is
self-enforcing, and effectively mandates the appointment of
electors on behalf of the District of Columbia, regardless of
whether such appointment is called for under a federal
statute. Some of us disagree; indeed, the very existence of
Section 2 of the Amendment makes clear that enabling
legislation is required to effectuate the District's
participation in the presidential election process. And
Congress's 1961 enforcement legislation supports this
interpretation.
Even if this self-enforcement argument were to be accepted,
however, Congress could easily address it by replacing the
current law mandating that the Capital area's electors vote
in accordance with the outcome of the popular vote in the
District with a new legislative mandate that the Capital
area's electors vote in other ways. For example, Congress
could require District electors to vote in favor of the
presidential ticket that receives the most Electoral College
votes (of the remaining 538 electors). Or, alternatively,
Congress could require that District electors vote for the
winner of the national popular vote winner.
A recent Supreme Court decision confirms that a legislative
directive to the Capital
[[Page H4805]]
area's electors would be enforceable. The Twenty-Third
Amendment provides that the District ``shall appoint''
electors ``in such manner as Congress may direct''; this
language is a direct parallel to the Constitution's grant of
broad authority to each of the States to appoint and instruct
their respective electors. In its recent decision in Chiafalo
v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that electors do not
have discretion to decide how to cast their Electoral College
votes, but rather are legally bound to follow the
instructions given by their respective states.
As Columbia Law School Professors Jessica Bulman-Pozen and
Olatunde Johnson have observed, it follows from the Court's
holding in Chiafalo that Congress could legally bind any
electors to vote in accordance with the overall vote of the
Electoral College or the national popular vote, just as the
existing enabling statute currently binds them to vote in the
Electoral College in accordance with the outcome of the
popular vote in the District.
In sum, none of the critics' constitutional objections to
the D.C. Admission Act are meritorious; and the contention
that a constitutional amendment is required to admit the
Commonwealth into the Union is incorrect. The D.C. Admission
Act calls for a proper exercise of Congress' express
authority under the Constitution to admit new states, a power
that it has exercised 37 other times since the Constitution
was adopted.
Courts are unlikely to second-guess Congress's exercise of
its constitutional authority to admit the Commonwealth into
the Union. Apart from the fact that the legal objections to
admission of the Commonwealth as a State are without merit,
it is also unlikely that the courts will ever consider those
objections. As Mr. Dinh has observed, the decision whether to
admit a state into the Union is a paradigmatic political
question that the Constitution expressly and exclusively
assigns to Congress. The Supreme Court has long, and
strenuously, avoided adjudicating disputes respecting matters
that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the
coordinate, elected branches.
The remaining objections to Statehood do not concern
applicable constitutional law, but rather matters of policy.
For example, some have argued that the District should not
be admitted to the Union because it is a single city and have
instead proposed that most of the District's territory be
retrocessioned to Maryland. There is, however, no
constitutional barrier to a large, diverse city, with a
population comparable to that of several existing States,
joining the Union. Furthermore, the Maryland retrocession
proposal is subject to many of the same supposed
constitutional objections raised by those who object to
statehood for the District. For example, retroceding the
District to Maryland would decrease the size of the remaining
federal enclave, which objectors to District Statehood have
claimed is constitutionally impermissible. A forced merger of
the District and Maryland would also do nothing to address
the purported constitutional objection to leaving the
residual seat of government with three potential electors,
pursuant to the turns of the Twenty-Third Amendment, prior to
the Amendment's repeal.
Opponents also argue that Congress should not grant the
District statehood because it will lead to a lawsuit. But any
court challenge will be without merit, and indeed likely will
be dismissed as presenting a political question. We
respectfully submit that Congress should not avoid exercising
its express constitutional authority to admit the
Commonwealth into the Union because of meritless threats of
litigation.
Sincerely yours,
Caroline Fredrickson, Georgetown University Law Center;
Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Berkeley School
of Law; Stephen I. Vladeck, University of Texas Law School;
Franita Tolson, University of Southern California, Gould
School of Law; Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Columbia Law School;
Leah Litman, University of Michigan Law School; Laurence H.
Tribe, Harvard Law School; Paul Smith, Georgetown University
Law Center; Geoffrey R. Stone, University of Chicago Law
School; Peter Edelman, Georgetown University Law Center;
Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law
School; Eric Segall, Georgia State College of Law; Trevor
Potter, Campaign Legal Center; Gregory P. Downs, University
of California, Davis; Larry Sabato, University of Virginia;
Aziz Huq, University of Chicago Law School; Jennifer
Hochschild, Harvard University; Neil S. Siegel, Duke
University School of Law; Beau Breslin, Skidmore College.
David C. Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center; Sanford
Levinson, University of Texas at Austin School of Law; Ira C.
Lupu, George Washington University Law School; Peter M.
Shane, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Ira P.
Robbins, American University Washington College of Law;
Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland Francis King
Carey School of Law; David Pozen, Columbia Law School; Mark
Tushnet, Harvard Law School; Michael C. Dorf, Cornell Law
School; Miguel Schor, Drake University School of Law; David
S. Schwartz, University of Wisconsin Law School; Caroline
Mala Corbin, University of Miami School of Law; Jonathan
Askin, Brooklyn Law School; Aziz Rana, Cornell Law School;
John Mikhail, Georgetown University Law Center; Richard Ford,
Stanford Law School; Richard Primus, University of Michigan
Law School; Joseph Fishkin, University of Texas Law School;
Kate Masur, Northwestern University; Chris Edelson, American
University.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R.
5107, an undemocratic and paternalistic bill. Free D.C.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Again, I strongly oppose this bill. As a reminder, it would eliminate
commonsense criminal justice reforms that have been widely implemented
by State and local governments across the country.
Local officials here in D.C. passed these laws. The voters made these
decisions, and D.C. should have a right to govern itself.
This bill undermines trust between police and the community they
serve and makes us all less safe.
It is undemocratic. It could very well make D.C. not just less safe
but also lose trust between its elected government and the people. When
the people come together and pass laws, Congress should not overturn
those.
Mr. Speaker, again, I urge opposition, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional duty to ensure the
District of Columbia is safe and secure. I urge my colleagues to
support this critical police reform bill that has the strong support of
the National Fraternal Order of Police.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________