Providing for Consideration of H.R. Washington, D.C. Admission Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Access to Counsel Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act; and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the combined rule and to the underlying measures, including H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act.

Once again, our friends across the aisle are making an attempt to gain more control in Congress, this time in the Senate, by trying to hide behind the guise that residents of the District of Columbia do not have the means for adequate representation in Congress.

While Americans deserve full voting representation from their national government, our forefathers never intended for the Federal seat of government to serve as a State. The Founders intended the Capitol to be a neutral ground for equal sovereign States to work together to conduct the Nation's business.

This bill does not at all follow what our forefathers envisioned. H.R. 51 overlooks the U.S. Constitution in which Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 designated Washington as a Federal district, not a State. That alone should make this legislation unconstitutional.

Because the District of Columbia's status is spelled out, it would take a constitutional amendment to grant permission for this Democratic power play. There have been several alternative proposals and amendments put forward by Republicans, none of which have been heard.

My colleague, Representative Dusty Johnson from South Dakota, has proposed the District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act, which I have cosponsored, that would revert the majority of D.C. residential areas back to the State of Maryland. The National Mall and other Federal buildings would remain as the District of Columbia. Before we create a new State, we should return D.C.'s residential areas back to the original State they were served.

With H.R. 51, Democrats have yet again failed to examine the consequences of their rushed actions to gain more control in Congress. The District of Columbia has received billions of dollars from the Federal Government to fund its entire judicial branch of government, among other things, which would end under statehood.

But Democrats weren't thinking about how to make D.C. a State before proposing H.R. 51. The only thought in their minds was two more Senate seats, more control of the government, more control of the American taxpayer dollars, more out-of-control spending, more Federal overreach into the lives of everyday Americans.

We have been down this path many times in Congress, voting yet again on a bill that has had no input from Republicans, nor has had much chance of receiving any Republican support on the floor.

President Biden was elected on the premise of working together with Republicans, extending a hand across the aisle to do what is best for the American people. I have struggled to find many examples of that bipartisanship to share with my constituents in Oklahoma. But what I do have are plenty of examples of Democratic power plays, an unwillingness to let the voices of Republicans be heard, and H.R. 51 stands as a prime example of both.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the combined rule and to oppose H.R. 51.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source