By: Miriam Edelman
During this new Congress, the two main full Congressional committees that have jurisdiction over Washington, D.C., are led by a mix of new and returning leaders of those committees. The two committees are the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Senate committee is led by Chair Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-MI), and the House committee is led by Chair James Comer (R-KY) and Ranking Member Gerry Connolly (D-VA).
At the start of the new Congress, the House rules package changed the name of the relevant House committee from the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. As Axios reported, “The name was initially changed in the 118th Congress to reflect the flurry of probes Republicans launched into the Biden administration. The incoming Trump administration is expected to face far less scrutiny.”
Senate
After the Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 2024 elections, Paul was elevated from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s Ranking Member to its Chair. Paul was elected the committee’s Ranking Member in 2023.
Paul has historically opposed D.C. autonomy. As Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton’s (D-DC) office pointed out in a post from July 17, 2012:
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who I know has been a student of history and of the Constitution, filed amendments in a committee last month that would have overturned D.C. laws. As a result, a bipartisan group of Senators withdrew their budget autonomy bill for the District of Columbia on the advice of city officials, including me. Senator Paul, without so much as a word with any representative of the city, sought to nullify D.C. laws affecting public safety, reproductive health, and workers' rights that local elected officials had enacted. His actions contradict his stated beliefs in small and local government and what I am certain is his belief in basic democracy as well.
When replying to a question about D.C. statehood in a YouTube video from 2017, Paul publicly opposed statehood:
The problem with sort of the idea of statehood for the very beginning they set DC aside, they decided wasn't gonna be a state…That was the original intent of the Founding Fathers. On one hand, does sound kind of unfair sometimes, and it's also very partisan because DC votes like 90% Democrat, and so, people would see it as an automatic…two new Democrat senators. I wouldn't vote in favor of it, and I frankly tell you that some of it is political reasons as well, but I also would be if you told me that it's not fair and you're being taxed somehow without representation, I'd probably vote to get rid of your tax because if your vote doesn't count, I'd get rid of your tax.
Once again, Peters is the Committee’s Ranking Member. Peters had chaired the Committee during the last two Congresses. In 2019, Peters became the Committee’s new Ranking Member.
Peters supports D.C. statehood. As Chair of the Committee, he convened a hearing, entitled “Examining D.C. Statehood,” on June 22, 2021. In a press release announcing that meeting, Peters said, “All Americans deserve equal voices and rights in our democratic republic. Unfortunately, more than 700,000 residents of Washington, D.C. – who pay taxes, serve in the military and work for the American people – do not have an equal say in the laws and decisions that govern them.” He continued, “I’m looking forward to hearing from experts on why D.C. statehood is essential and how lawmakers can work to finally give D.C. residents the same representation in Congress as their fellow Americans.” His written opening statement includes:
D.C.’s more than 700,000 residents, many of whom have fought in our wars, paid federal taxes, and served the American people in public service, have been denied an equal voice in the formation of the very laws and decisions that govern them. That is unconscionable.
It’s time to follow the lead of our colleagues in the House, pass the Washington D.C. Admission Act, which will finally ensure that D.C. residents have the full Congressional representation and self-governance they deserve, and that our democracy is built on.
House
Comer continues his tenure as Chairman of the relevant House committee. Serving in Congress since November 14, 2016, Comer was Ranking Member of the Committee from June 2000 to December 2022 and then became Chair.
Comer opposes D.C. statehood. In 2021, his office released a piece, entitled “Democrats' Two Reasons for D.C. Statehood: Power & Money,” just before the House was set to vote on H.R. 51, which would have granted statehood to D.C. That release decried the bill as “flatly unconstitutional.” That statement also included:
Several options exist to expand voting representation for D.C. residents today, but Democrats are only interested in pursuing an unconstitutional bill to grant statehood for two reasons: power and money. Statehood provides D.C. with two progressive senators to enable Democrats to end the filibuster and resuscitate unwanted radical policies such as enacting the Green New Deal, packing the Supreme Court, and defunding the police.
The piece ended with:
D.C. statehood is a perfect issue for national progressives and local leaders to rally around, but they are not being honest about what they actually want. H.R. 51 is all about consolidating Democrats’ power in Washington to ensure more government intrusion in Americans’ daily lives. H.R. 51 is unconstitutional and the wrong approach, and Congress must reject this bill.
During Comer’s Chairmanship of this House committee, the committee has held multiple hearings on local D.C. issues. DCNOW’s blog has been posting pieces about this unnecessary meddling.
Connolly is the new Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, serving on the Committee since he became a Member of Congress in 2009. He replaced Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who is the new Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Connolly has been a strong supporter of D.C. statehood. In his 2019 piece, entitled “Statehood for D.C.: Are we truly a democratic republic?,” he wrote:
Do we as a nation want to continue the disenfranchisement of the approximately 702,000 Americans who currently reside in Washington, D.C.? Are we okay with denying our neighbors the same rights as other U.S. citizens because they live on land suitable to a dinner table compromise between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton regarding the location of our nation's capital? Our Founding Fathers denied many Americans the right to vote, but through centuries of effort this nation has worked to reverse its narrow view of the franchise — except in the nation's capital. I, for one, believe it is past time for us to act on this moral imperative. Others, unfortunately, do not.
He ended his piece with “It is inexcusable that we would deny its [D.C.’s] residents their constitutional right to representation for a second longer.”
Final Thoughts
With the incoming Republican trifecta and their leaders opposing D.C. autonomy, the federal government is likely to interfere even more with local D.C. affairs. Democrats should continue their general strong support of D.C. while Republicans should implement their strong desire for local control in general by letting D.C. govern itself.
Comments