Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic bill, which amends D.C. law. 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 D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council, and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb. September 10, 2025. Hon. James Corner, 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-part 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, under the D.C. Home Rule Act, the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate--a chamber in which D.C. has no representation--appoints judges to the local D.C. courts. The President must make a nomination from a list of candidates recommended by the Judicial Nomination Commission. The establishment of the Judicial Nomination Commission provided D.C. with three, albeit limited, roles in the nomination of its local judges. First, members of the commission must be D.C. residents. Second, D.C. appoints three of the seven members of the commission. Third, the commission holds a public comment period on applicants for a vacancy on the local D.C. courts, allowing D.C. residents to express their views on applicants. Republicans claim the Judicial Nomination Commission is unconstitutional because it limits the President's authority to make nominations. They are wrong. The commission has been in existence for 50 years. Congress, not the President, has plenary authority over D.C. Congress also has plenary authority over the territories, and Congress has given them authority to select their local judges without any role whatsoever for the President or Congress. I refer my Republican colleagues to the Supreme Court's decision in 2020 regarding the appointments to the Puerto Rico financial control board, which Congress established pursuant to its plenary authority over Puerto Rico. The court held the appointments clause of the Constitution does not ``restrict the appointment of local officers that Congress vests with primarily local duties'' pursuant to the territorial or District clauses of the Constitution. Local D.C. judges are local officers that Congress vests with primarily local duties pursuant to the District clause. The longstanding judicial vacancy crisis on the local D.C. courts is not due to any failure of the Judicial Nomination Commission. The commission always meets its 60-day statutory deadline to submit a list of names for a vacancy to the President. The crisis exists because the President and, to a larger extent, the Senate, regardless of the party in power, do not prioritize local D.C. judges. For example, there has been a vacancy on D.C.'s highest local court since 2013. Congress should give authority to the over 700,000 D.C. residents to select their local judges in any manner they choose. D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. Since Republicans do not trust D.C. residents with self-government, they should at least address the longstanding vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts, which is harming public safety and access to justice. A simple solution is to make an appointment to the local D.C. courts effective 30 days after the President makes a nomination, unless Congress enacts a disapproval resolution during that period. That is essentially the same process used for congressional review of legislation enacted by D.C. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the D.C. Judicial Nominations Reform Act and to grant D.C. statehood instead. Free D.C.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I also insert into the Record a letter on this bill from the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission. District of Columbia, Judicial Nomination Commission, Washington, DC, September 9, 2025. Re H.R. 5125, District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act. James Comer, Chair, Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: Members of the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission respectfully submit this letter to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in response to H.R. 5125, District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act. The District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC or Commission) was established by Congress on December 24, 1973 (Public Law 93-198, 87 Stat. 796). The JNC is composed of seven members--two appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, two by the Board of Governors of the District of Columbia Bar Association (Unified), one by the Council of the District of Columbia, one by the President of the United States, and one judicial member appointed by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Each member is appointed for a six-year term, except for the member appointed by the President, who serves a five-year term The JNC solicits, screens, and recommends a panel of three candidates to the President of the United States for each judicial vacancy on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. From the panel of names recommended by the JNC, the President nominates a person for each vacancy and submits the nominee's name to the United States Senate for confirmation. The JNC also designates the Chief Judges for the District of Columbia courts. The JNC, using a merit-based selection process, works to provide the citizens of the District of Columbia with the best possible court system by (a) soliciting a diverse and talented pool of applicants for each judicial vacancy; (b) screening applicants to ensure they have the requisite experience, skill, temperament, and qualifications for judicial office; and (c) recommending the three most qualified applicants to the President of the United States for his or her consideration in selecting a nominee to fill each judicial vacancy on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Since its first list of applicants was sent to President R. Gerald Ford, Jr. on May 8, 1975, the JNC has recommended more than 93 candidates for 31 vacancies on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals) and more than 513 candidates for 171 vacancies on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Superior Court). Working with both Republican and Democratic Presidents for more than 50 years, the Senate has confirmed 29 Presidential nominations to the Court of Appeals and 159 to the Superior Court. To date, the Senate has confirmed more Republican Presidential nominees to both courts--17 of 29 on the Court of Appeals and 83 of 159 on the Superior Court. All the Presidential nominees were selected from lists the JNC sent to the President pursuant to D.C. Code Sec. Sec. 1-204.31, 1-204.33. Arguably, the judicial nomination process in the District of Columbia is one of the best nonpartisan processes in the country, a process that President Trump engaged in during his first term (with 10 confirmations to the local courts) and on September 2, 2025, when he nominated candidates for three vacancies on the Superior Court. In conclusion, the Commission members are united in expressing our pride in the JNC's lengthy history of proficient service. The Commission process has been effective for over 50 years, working with both Republican and Democratic administrations. Our process is carefully designed to ensure that the over 700,000 residents of our city have a voice in judicial appointments, while also respecting the President's authority in nominating individuals for the critical role of judicial service in the District of Columbia. We stand in support of the JNC's current role and configuration, and we look forward to continuing to serve our city in discharging our critically important responsibilities. Respectfully Submitted, For the Commission: Hon. Marie C. Johns, PPC-Leftwich, Washington, DC. Benjamin F. Wilson, Esq., Washington, DC. Addy R. Schmitt, Esq., Kropf Moseley Schmitt, Washington,

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which eliminates the District of Columbia's already small role in the selection of its local judges. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council, D.C. Attorney Brian Schwalb, and the D.C. Bar. 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-part eduction 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. The D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, grants D.C. residents full local self-government and voting representation in Congress. H.R. 51 reduces the size of the Federal District from 68 square miles to 2 square miles, consisting of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the National Mall and remaining under the control of Congress. The new State consists of the residential and commercial areas of D.C. The new State has a larger population than two States, pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State, and pays more total Federal taxes than 21 States. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5140, keep their hands off D.C. and free D.C.

Ms. NORTON. While Congress has authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, it does not have a duty to do so. It is a choice. In Federalist 43, James Madison said of D.C. residents: `` . . . as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will, of course, be allowed them.'' Since 1802, Congress has established various types of local government for D.C. In 1953, the Supreme Court held: `` . . . there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power.'' The local D.C. Legislature, the Council, has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is called democracy. Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how Members vote on local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is the antithesis of democracy. The substance of this bill is irrelevant, since there is never justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. Nevertheless, I will discuss it. I strongly oppose charging 14-year-olds as adults. However, whether to amend D.C. law to reduce or increase the minimum age a minor can be charged as an adult should be a decision for D.C. alone. In a series of cases since 2005, the Supreme Court has recognized that children are ``constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing.'' In these cases, the court noted that childhood is marked by ``rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to assess consequences.'' The court said its decisions ``rested not only on common sense--on what any parent knows--but on science and social science as well.'' This bill is not only cruel, but counterproductive too. Most incarcerated people return home. The evidence shows that a minor charged as an adult is more likely to reoffend and be violent after release than a minor charged as a juvenile. 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. The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. statehood. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record a letter explaining why the D.C. statehood bill is constitutional from leading constitutional scholars, including Larry Tribe. 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 of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Majority 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 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, ie., 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 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 terms 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 thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic bill which amends D.C. law. 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 D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council, and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb. 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-part 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, grants D.C. residents full local self- government and voting representation in Congress. H.R. 51 reduces the size of the Federal district from 68 square miles to 2 square miles, consisting of the White House, Capitol, the Supreme Court, and The National Mall and remaining under the control of Congress. The new State consists of the residential and commercial areas of D.C. The new State has a larger population than two States, pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State, and pays more total Federal taxes than 21 States. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the D.C. CRIMES Act, keep their hands off D.C. and free D.C.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the local legislature, the Council, has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is called democracy. Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how Members vote on local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is the antithesis of democracy. The substance of this bill should be irrelevant since there is never justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. Nevertheless, I will discuss it. Republicans claim D.C.'s Youth Rehabilitation Act treats adults as juveniles. They are wrong. They either do not understand the act or are misleading the public about it intentionally. The act's sentencing and set aside provisions apply only in adult court, not juvenile court. Let me repeat: The provisions apply in adult court, not juvenile court. A judge may, but is not required to, sentence a person under the act, and certain crimes are ineligible under the act. D.C. is not the only jurisdiction with a so-called young adult offender law. Alabama, Florida, Michigan, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont have such laws. The sponsor of this bill is from one of those States. 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. The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. statehood. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter explaining why D.C. statehood is constitutional from leading constitutional scholars, including Larry Tribe. 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 of the House, 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 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, ie., 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 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 terms 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 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 thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic bill, which amends D.C. law. 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 D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council, and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb. 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-part 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, during Roll Call Vote number 260 on Rose Amendment No. 253, I mistakenly recorded my vote as NO when I should have voted AYE.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Police Home Rule Act, which would repeal section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (HRA). Section 740 allows the president, in the case of an emergency, to direct the D.C. mayor to provide the president the services of D.C.'s police department, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), for federal purposes. Senator Chris Van Hollen is the sponsor of this bill in the Senate. Under the HRA, ``whenever the President . . . determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the MPD for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the MPD as the President may deem necessary and appropriate'' for 30 days, unless Congress terminates or extends the emergency declaration. On August 11, 2025, President Trump declared a crime emergency in D.C. pursuant to section 740, even though violent crime reached a more than 30-year low in D.C. in 2024 and is down 27 percent this year compared to the same period last year. President Trump is the first president to invoke section 740, but his invocation is unlawful. While one crime is too many, there is no emergency or federal purpose that allowed President Trump to invoke section 740. Section 740 is inconsistent with the main purpose of the HRA, which is to ``grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self-government.'' Giving the president the power to direct the services of MPD is a violation of D.C. home rule. MPD's first responsibility is to protect D.C. residents and visitors, and it must always remain under the authority of the D.C. mayor, who knows D.C. better than the president, to accomplish its mission. Section 740 is also unnecessary. In the case of a true federal emergency in D.C., the president can deploy federal law enforcement officers and the Armed Forces, and can request the support of MPD, as the Capitol Police did during the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and as the Federal government does on a regular basis. At my request, the House's fiscal year 2022 and 2023 D.C. appropriations bills blocked the president from carrying out section 740. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act, which would give the mayor of the District of Columbia control over the D.C. National Guard. Representative Jamie Raskin is the co-lead of this bill in the House, and Senator Chris Van Hollen is the sponsor of this bill in the Senate. The governors of the states and territories control their National Guards while the president controls the D.C. National Guard. This bill would give the D.C. mayor, who knows D.C. better than the president, the same control over the D.C. National Guard that the governors of the states and territories have over their National Guards. The president would have the same authority to federalize the D.C. National Guard that the president has to federalize the National Guards of the states and territories. The attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, the events at Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, and the current deployment of the D.C. National Guard in D.C. are prime examples of why the D.C. mayor should control the D.C. National Guard. During January 6th, the D.C. National Guard was not deployed to the Capitol for several hours, likely costing lives and prolonging the attack. At Lafayette Square, the D.C. National Guard forcibly removed peaceful protestors. Currently, the D.C. National Guard is deployed in D.C. in response to a crime emergency declared by President Trump. Not only does presidential control over the D.C. National Guard violate D.C. home rule, it also may create a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the military's involvement in civilian law enforcement. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel has opined that when the D.C. National Guard is operating for non-federal purposes, even though it is an exclusively federal entity, it may be used for civilian law enforcement without violating the Posse Comitatus Act. In the 117th Congress, the House passed this bill as part of the fiscal year (FY) 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the FY 2023 NDAA. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I, along with Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr., introduce the Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act of 2025. This bill would require federal law enforcement officers to wear body cameras and marked federal law enforcement vehicles to have dashboard cameras. It would also require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on federal law enforcement officers' training, vehicle pursuits, use of force and interaction with the public. In the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House passed this bill as part of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Cameras can increase transparency, strengthen public trust and even deter criminal behavior. With the surge of federal law enforcement officers in the District of Columbia this month, this bill has become even more important. We first introduced this bill after Bijan Ghaisar was fatally shot on November 17, 2017, in his car by U.S. Park Police officers in Fairfax County, Virginia, after a vehicle pursuit on the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Video of this shooting only became available through a camera in a Fairfax County Police Department patrol car that was providing backup. Had it not been for that footage, which was recorded and released by that local police department, the public would not have had access to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Ghaisar's death. Moreover, the footage revealed concerns about the Park Police's pursuit and engagement policies. Body and dashboard cameras for federal law enforcement officers are particularly important for the officers stationed in D.C., where the Park Police and the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division have full local police powers. Many other federal law enforcement agencies also have local police powers near their respective agency buildings in D.C. In 2022, President Biden issued an executive order (E.O.) requiring federal law enforcement agencies to use body cameras. President Trump rescinded this E.O. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would require members of the Armed Forces, including the National Guard, deployed in the District of Columbia in response to an order of the President relating to crime or civil disturbance in D.C. to participate in a program substantially similar to the body-worn camera program of D.C.'s police department, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). This bill would apply to the current deployment of troops and any future deployment. The use of body cameras by troops during deployments related to crime or civil disturbance in D.C. would promote transparency in the troops' interactions with the public and protect the public and the troops. MPD has a well-established program for the use of body cameras, as well as for the preservation and disclosure of body camera footage. The Trump administration has deployed more than 2,000 National Guard troops in D.C. This deployment is a raw assertion of power over the more than 700,000 disenfranchised D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown; a politicization of the military; a disservice to the members of the National Guard and their families, unwarranted, and possibly unlawful with respect to both the D.C. National Guard and the state National Guards. I have urged the administration to remove these troops immediately. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Equal Treatment of the District of Columbia Under the Rural Health Transformation Program Act of 2025, which would make the District of Columbia eligible for funding under the Rural Health Transformation Program (Program). The $50 billion Program was established by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1). While the Program's title refers to rural health, H.R. 1 permits the Program's funds to be used for health care services, providers and technology outside rural areas. Senate Republicans, who created the Program, made only the 50 states eligible for funding, likely depriving D.C. of hundreds of millions of dollars. D.C. is treated as a state for most federal programs because D.C. residents pay the same federal taxes as residents of states, and there is no reason D.C. should not be eligible for the Program's funds. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Commission of Fine Arts District of Columbia Residency Act. This bill would require that a majority of the members of the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) be District of Columbia residents. Under federal law and presidential executive orders (EOs), the CFA has review authority for federal property in D.C., certain military property, certain coins and medals, D.C.-owned parks and buildings and certain private land in D.C. Under the EOs, CFA has review authority for the design of D.C.-owned parks and buildings. Under the Shipstead- Luce Act, CFA has review authority for the design of private buildings in D.C. ``adjacent to public buildings and grounds of major importance,'' such as Rock Creek Park and the Potomac riverfront. Under the Old Georgetown Act, the CFA has review authority for the design of private buildings in the part of Georgetown referred to as ``Old Georgetown'' in the act. Residency requirements for government positions are found in federal, state and D.C. law, including for members of the National Capital Planning Commission. The primary reason such laws exist is so that government officials have a connection to the residents they serve and knowledge of the unique issues and challenges faced by residents. I have also introduced the Commission of Fine Arts District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which would remove the authority of the CFA over non-federal property in D.C. However, until that bill is enacted, a majority of the members should be D.C. residents. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Villareal Johnson, Sr. Villareal was a District of Columbia native, military veteran and dedicated civil servant. He passed on July 7, 2025, in the District of Columbia. From a young age, Villareal had an interest in military service and saw himself fighting for what was right. Villareal followed his interests and joined the military, where he served in Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm. In 2013, Villareal retired from military service with the Sergeant First Class rank, after serving in the Army, Army Reserves, and D.C. National Guard, as Military Police. After his retirement from military service, Villareal, like his father, began a career in the civil service, working as an investigator for the Child Support Division of Office of the D.C. Attorney General. Villareal's dedication to service extended beyond his work. In his spare time, he tirelessly served his community as Boy Scout troop leader for Minnesota Ave. Troop No. 1202, where he shared his passions for the outdoors with his scouts and taught boys wilderness survivals skills. In addition to his passion for the outdoors, Villareal was also passionate about do-it-yourself projects and the arts, as he was an artist, poet and writer. Villareal's selflessness and dedication to both D.C. and our Nation should be recognized. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the incredible life and legacy of Villareal Johnson, Sr.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Blue Envelope Act of 2025. This bill would make blue envelope programs, which improve interactions between police officers and drivers with difficulty communicating through speech during a traffic stop, eligible for federal transportation safety funding. The American Association of People with Disabilities has endorsed this bill. Blue envelope programs allow drivers, upon request, to receive a blue envelope that explains on the front that the driver has difficulty communicating through speech and that holds the documents a police officer might request during a traffic stop. These programs exist in many jurisdictions across the country, including statewide in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Arizona and Vermont. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Commanding General Residency Act, which would require the Commanding General of the District of Columbia National Guard to reside in D.C. Two Congresses ago, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill. The president controls the D.C. National Guard. In contrast, governors of the states and the three territories that have National Guards each control their National Guards. The Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is the top official in the D.C. National Guard, is appointed by the president and is a federal employee. There are residency requirements for government officials in federal law, D.C. law and the laws of jurisdictions throughout the country. In fact, several states have laws that require the top official in their National Guard to reside in the state, and it is highly likely that every state and territory only appoints residents as the top official in their National Guard. The primary reason residency requirements exist is so that government officials have a connection to the residents they serve and knowledge of the unique issues and challenges faced by residents. Congress has justifiably required certain federal officials to reside in the jurisdiction to which they are appointed, including U.S. district court judges, U.S. Marshals and U.S. Attorneys. Similarly, Congress, which controls the local D.C. court system, has justifiably required local D.C. judges and members of the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure to reside in D.C. There is no reason that the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard, a federal entity that serves D.C. residents and that has both a military and law enforcement role, should not be required to reside in D.C. A D.C. residency requirement for the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard will lead to a better relationship between the D.C. National Guard and D.C. residents and is a matter of fairness for D.C. residents. The D.C. mayor should control the D.C. National Guard. Until then, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Francis G. Newlands Memorial Removal Act, which would remove the plaque and inscriptions on a fountain bearing Francis G. Newlands' name from Chevy Chase Circle, a federal park located in both the District of Columbia and Maryland. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland joins me in introducing this bill. and Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland is the sponsor of the companion bill. Newlands was a U.S. senator from Nevada, a conservationist and the founder of the Chevy Chase Land Company, which developed the Chevy Chase neighborhood that touches D.C. and Maryland. Newlands was also a segregationist. He built Connecticut Avenue and ran a streetcar up the road to the newly built Chevy Chase Lake. However, homes on Connecticut Avenue were purposely priced to keep working families out, and covenants were later added to many of the property deeds in Chevy Chase explicitly prohibiting the land from ever being owned by African Americans or Jews. These covenants have since been declared void. Newlands went further to keep Black and White Americans separate. In the late 1800s, he and Senator William Stewart secured 2,000 acres of land for Rock Creek Park. Establishing this park not only increased property values for landowners like Newlands and Stewart, but also kept White communities separate from emerging Black communities on what they called the ``wrong side of the park.'' Newlands' racist views went even further. In 1912, he called for the repeal of the 15th amendment, which gave African-American men the right to vote. The fountain in Chevy Chase Circle was established in 1932 by Congress. In 1990, the Chevy Chase Land Company added a plaque with Newlands' name next to the fountain. A resolution to remove Newlands' name from the fountain was first introduced by the D.C. Chevy Chase Advisory Neighborhood Commission in 2014. On July 27, 2020, the commission voted unanimously to ask the National Park Service (NPS) to remove the plaque bearing Newlands' name and to begin discussion on a new name for the fountain. On September 14, 2020, the Maryland Chevy Chase Village Board of Managers adopted a resolution calling on NPS and Congress to remove any mention of Newlands from the fountain. On April 19, 2022, the Montgomery County Council introduced a resolution affirming the county's support for this bill. Newlands should not be honored on federal land. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Home Rule Act. This bill would give the Council of the District of Columbia authority over the jurisdiction and organization of the local D.C. courts. The D.C. Home Rule Act (HRA) prohibits the Council from enacting any law with respect to title 11 of the D.C. Code, which relates to the jurisdiction and organization of the local D.C. courts. More than 50 years after passage of the HRA and notwithstanding the importance of the local D.C. courts to D.C., the Council, which is the legislative body accountable to D.C. residents, is left on the sidelines while Congress, which could not care less about the local D.C. courts, remains the only legislative body that can amend title 11 of the D.C. Code. Under the HRA, the Council has no authority to ``enact any act, resolution, or rule with respect to any provision of title 11 of the District of Columbia Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts).'' Title 11 of the D.C. Code primarily relates to the rules of criminal and civil procedure, court administration, the branches of the courts, jury service and admission to the bar. D.C. has never had authority over its local courts, even when it was responsible for paying for them. Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, the federal government assumed from D.C. the costs for several state-level functions, including the courts. This bill would not change the federal government's responsibility for funding the local D.C. courts or the authority of the President to nominate, and the Senate to confirm, local D.C. judges. This bill is an important step to increase self-government for D.C. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Nation's community supervision professionals, who are dedicated public servants and perform many vital roles in their work with justice-involved adults and juveniles. They identify opportunities and services to help justice- involved individuals contribute to society, while holding them accountable for their actions. They remain mindful of their role in protecting public safety. In honor of Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2025, whose theme is ``Heroes Behind the Mission: Transforming Lives, Enhancing Public Safety,'' we salute all those who have chosen this important career. In the District of Columbia, we especially thank the employees of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) and the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (PSA) for their service. CSOSA and PSA are models of excellence in community supervision. Community supervision agencies are valuable partners of other government agencies, nonprofits, neighborhood-based groups and all who strive to make our Nation safer and stronger. We extend our gratitude to community supervision professionals and recognize their many achievements as we proclaim July 20 through July 26, 2025, as Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2025.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment Home Rule Act. This bill would give the District of Columbia the authority to appoint the members of the D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment (Board), except when the Board is performing functions regarding an application by a foreign mission with respect to a chancery. The Board issues special exceptions, or variances, to the regulations issued by the D.C. Zoning Commission (Commission). The Board has no authority over federal property. This bill would not alter the authority of the Board. Under current law, in general, the Board consists of a representative each from the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), which is a federal agency, and the Commission, each of whom may be a federal official, and three appointees of the D.C. Mayor, subject to D.C. Council approval. Under current law, when the Board is performing functions regarding an application by a foreign mission with respect to the location, expansion or replacement of a chancery, the Board consists of the Executive Director of NCPC, the Director of the National Park Service (or, if the President so designates, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of General Services) and the three mayoral appointees. This bill would not change this composition. D.C., like every other jurisdiction in the United States, should be free to set its own local land-use policies. This bill is an important step to increase home rule for D.C. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Commission of Fine Arts District of Columbia Home Rule Act. This bill would remove the authority of the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) over non-federal real property in the District of Columbia. Under presidential executive orders (EOs) and federal law, the CFA has review authority for D.C.-owned parks and buildings, as well as for certain private land in D.C. Under EOs, the CFA has review authority for the design of D.C.-owned parks and buildings. Under the Shipstead- Luce Act, the CFA has review authority for the design of private buildings in D.C. ``adjacent to public buildings and grounds of major importance,'' such as Rock Creek Park and the Potomac riverfront. Under the Old Georgetown Act, the CFA has review authority for the design of private buildings in the part of Georgetown referred to as ``Old Georgetown'' in the act. The federal government, including the CFA, whose members are appointed by the President, should not have any authority over D.C. land-use policies and decisions unrelated to the federal presence. Not only is the federal government's authority over D.C. buildings and private property a violation of home rule, it also delays and increases the cost of public and private development in D.C. This bill is an important step to increase home rule for D.C. I urge my colleagues to support it.