Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the D.c. Statehood topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House committee hears D.C. statehood resolution; shadow senators testify

House Energy, Technology, and Federal Relations · March 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House Energy, Technology, and Federal Relations Committee heard HJ 18, a resolution backing D.C. statehood. Sponsor Rep. Bob Carter and online witnesses, including shadow senators Ankit Jain and Paul Strauss, argued D.C. residents lack full representation; members asked about retrocession and constitutional implications.

The House Energy, Technology, and Federal Relations Committee heard testimony on HJ 18, a resolution urging recognition and support for Washington, D.C., statehood. Representative Bob Carter, sponsor of the resolution, told the committee the measure seeks to extend “full constitutional rights” to more than 700,000 D.C. residents who he said are denied representation in Congress.

Online witnesses identified themselves as shadow or non‑voting senators for the District of Columbia and described statehood as a matter of democratic fairness. “DC is home to over 700,000 residents who contribute to the well‑being of this country just as much as residents of any other jurisdiction,” said Ankit Jain, an online witness who described himself as a non‑voting U.S. senator for the District. Paul Strauss, a longtime shadow senator, said his constituents pay full federal taxes and seek “the same rights, no more, no less” that states enjoy.

Reverend Wendy Hamilton, speaking for herself, said statehood would give D.C. residents a voice in Congress and stressed the local community’s civic contributions. “We just wanna have our voices, our thoughts, and our concerns fully represented in the House and Senate like every other state in this union,” she said.

Committee members questioned witnesses about alternatives and legal hurdles. Representative Mitchell asked whether proponents would accept retrocession to Maryland as a remedy; witnesses opposed retrocession. Representative Sharp asked whether statehood would require a constitutional amendment; sponsor Carter said short answer: no, though he noted some downstream electoral changes could raise separate constitutional questions.

The hearing concluded after proponents and opponents had their allotted time. No formal action or vote was taken during the meeting.