[Pages H3208-H3217]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CLARIFYING CONGRESSIONAL INTENT IN PROVIDING FOR DC HOME RULE ACT OF
2016

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 744, I call
up the bill (H.R. 5233) to repeal the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment
Act of 2012, to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to clarify
the respective roles of the District government and Congress in the
local budget process of the District government, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk will report the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 744, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 5233

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Clarifying Congressional
Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LOCAL BUDGET AUTONOMY AMENDMENT ACT OF
2012.

Effective with respect to fiscal year 2013 and each
succeeding fiscal year, the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment
Act of 2012 (D.C. Law 19-321) is hereby repealed, and any
provision of law amended or repealed by such Act shall be
restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted into
law.

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF ROLES OF DISTRICT GOVERNMENT AND
CONGRESS IN LOCAL BUDGET PROCESS.

(a) Clarification of Application of Federal Appropriations
Process to General Fund.--Section 450 of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1-204.50, D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The General Fund''
and inserting ``(a) In General.--The General Fund''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Application of Federal Appropriations Process.--
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as creating a
continuing appropriation of the General Fund described in
subsection (a). All funds provided for the District of
Columbia shall be appropriated on an annual fiscal year basis
through the Federal appropriations process. For each fiscal
year, the District shall be subject to all applicable
requirements of subchapter III of chapter 13 and subchapter
II of chapter 15 of title 31, United States Code (commonly
known as the `Anti-Deficiency Act'), the Budget and
Accounting Act of 1921, and all other requirements and
restrictions applicable to appropriations for such fiscal
year.''.
(b) Clarification of Limitation on Authority of District of
Columbia To Change Existing Budget Process Laws.--Section
603(a) of such Act (sec. 1-206.03(a), D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``existing''; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, or as authorizing the District of Columbia to
make any such change.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.

General Leave

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include any extraneous material on H.R. 5233.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to start, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the Delegate from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). She pours her heart and soul into
her passion for this country and certainly for the District itself. We
happen to disagree probably on this issue. We have

[[Page H3209]]

agreed on some issues, on some topics; and we disagree on others. But I
just want to note, Mr. Speaker, how much I appreciate her passion, her
commitment, and her desire to represent her constituents as vigorously
as she does.
I also thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) for
introducing H.R. 5233, the Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing
for DC Home Rule Act of 2016, and his leadership on this issue. He is
the subcommittee chairman who deals with this issue. He has spent a
considerable amount of time working on this topic, working with city
leaders, getting to know the city, and working with them. I appreciate
his proactive approach and the manner in which he approaches this and
his thoughtfulness on this sensitive but important topic.
We are here today to discuss the bill that would do, just as the
title says: clarify the congressional intent behind the D.C. Home Rule
Act passed in 1974.
First, a little bit of background about the need for this
legislation. In December of 2012, the District of Columbia Council
disregarded clear limitations found in the Home Rule Act of 1973. In
doing so, it passed the Local Budget Autonomy Act, or the LBAA, in an
attempt to remove Congress from the District's budgeting process.
If the bill is implemented, it would allow the District government to
appropriate money without the need for any Federal action. In doing so,
the Council violated clear legislative authority granted to Congress by
the Constitution.
Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution gives Congress
plenary authority over the District of Columbia. As with its other
powers, Congress may delegate some of its authority to the local
District government, which it did when it passed the Home Rule Act back
in 1974. Absent the congressional delegation, the District has no
legislative power.
As enacted more than 40 years ago, the Home Rule Act was designed to
allow the District to self-govern on truly local matters. At the same
time, Home Rule preserved a necessary role of Congress in matters that
could affect the Federal Government, including congressional authority
over the District's overall budget. The LBAA, however, violates the
Home Rule Act and removes Congress from the District's budgeting
process.
Today's legislation clarifies the original intent behind the Home
Rule Act and reinforces the intent of Congress, our Founding Fathers,
and the Constitution.
Importantly, the language of the Home Rule Act makes it clear it is
not authorizing the District authority over its budget.
In fact, Mr. Jacques DePuy, then counsel to the House subcommittee
that drafted the Home Rule Act, testified this month at our committee.
He said: ``Congress did not intend to delegate the D.C. Council or
District voters any authority over local revenues through the charter
amendment or any other process.'' And then it went on.
His recollections are supported by the legislative history,
particularly a dear colleague letter sent by then-Chairman Diggs.
Chairman Diggs' letter indicated the comprise language that became the
Home Rule Act was drafted with the explicit intention of maintaining
the congressional appropriations process for the District funds.
I believe Chairman Diggs' letter leaves no confusion as to whether
Congress intended to give the District budget autonomy in the Home Rule
Act. Therefore, it is clear the District acted beyond its own authority
to grant itself budget authority.
Today's legislation will clarify the original intent of the Home Rule
Act and address any pending legal questions currently working their way
through the courts.
H.R. 5233 will make clear the Local Budget Autonomy Act of 2012 is
not legally valid and will ensure the congressional intent behind the
Home Rule Act is preserved. It will also prevent a potential violation
of the Antideficiency Act protecting District government employees from
administrative and criminal penalties.
Ultimately, the unilateral action, as taken by the District in this
instance, to subsume congressional authority is unacceptable. H.R. 5233
recognizes this need for exclusive congressional authority and
stewardship.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the bill and place budget
authority for the District firmly back in the hands of Congress, the
sole place where it was intended to be located.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am happy to speak of my friendship with the chairman of our full
committee, and I thank him for his kind words. I only hope he will come
to where the two past immediate Republican chairs of the committee--
former-Chairman Davis and former-Chairman Darrell Issa--have come and,
that is, to support budget autonomy for the District of Columbia.
I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This bill, that would
repeal a law approved by 83 percent of the District of Columbia voters,
would nullify a court ruling and would permanently take away the
authority of the 700,000 D.C. citizens and their elected officials to
spend their local funds without congressional approval.
This bill manages to be unprincipled and impractical at the same
time. It is profoundly undemocratic for any Member of Congress in the
21st century to declare that he has authority over any other
jurisdiction except his own. It also would harm the finances and
operations of the District of Columbia.
As a matter of fact, the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act is
already in effect. The District Council has begun the process of
passing its first local budget without the assistance of Federal
overseers. Therefore, this bill would be the most significant reduction
in the District's authority to govern itself since Congress granted the
District limited home rule in 1973.
Now, as a lawyer myself, I am the first to concede that lawyers
differ about the validity of the Budget Autonomy Act, even when the
District was in the process of enacting it.
What is indisputable, though, Mr. Speaker, is that the Budget
Autonomy Act is now law; the Budget Autonomy Act has been litigated;
and there is only one judicial opinion in effect.
In March, the D.C. Superior Court upheld the Budget Autonomy Act. Do
you believe in the rule of law? It upheld the Budget Autonomy Act. No
appeal was filed, and the court ordered D.C. officials to implement it.
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia then evaluated each
and every legal and constitutional argument you will hear brought
forward today about whether the Budget Autonomy Act violates the U.S.
Constitution, the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the Federal
Antideficiency Act, and the Federal Budget and Accounting Act. All of
that, every last one of it, every last provision has been litigated.
The House leadership made the very same arguments in an amicus brief
they filed. There are a whole gang of Members anxious to see that this
one jurisdiction can't handle its own money. The court, nevertheless,
found--indeed, disposed of--all of these arguments.
Specifically, the court upheld the Budget Autonomy Act and held that
the Home Rule Act preserved the then-existing 1973 budget process, but
did not--and this is essential here--did not prohibit the District from
changing the local process in the future. The charter does not. The
charter is like the Constitution. Congress knew how to say: Don't
change budget matters discussed in this document. It did not do so. So
it had to be interpreted, and it was interpreted by the District.
The Senate of the United States, at the time of the Home Rule Act,
passed budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. So you can cite
the Diggs Compromise all you want to. The compromise was that budget
control now is in the hands of the Congress. But you will note they
have left room in the charter for budget control to come from the
District. That was the compromise.
There was no compromise that said that the District can never have
any jurisdiction, any final say, over its local budget.
This is, after all, the country that went to war over taxation
without representation. Imagine saying: you folks, you can raise all
the money you want to; but it doesn't mean anything unless the Congress
of the United States passes your budget.
The District followed the charter procedure that was in the Diggs
budget

[[Page H3210]]

to pass the Budget Autonomy Act. And as the court noted, Congress had
the authority to pass a disapproval resolution while the referendum was
in the Congress for 30 days but this Congress did not disapprove it.
The Federal courts also have evaluated the validity of the Budget
Autonomy Act. A Federal district court, indeed, did find the act to be
invalid.
But then look at what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia did. After receiving briefs, reading them hopefully and
hearing oral argument, the higher court, the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia, vacated the district court decision altogether,
meaning that that initial decision against the Budget Autonomy Act had
no force or effect.

{time} 1600

Instead of issuing a decision on the merits or sending the case back
to the lower Federal court, the Federal appeals court, without
explanation, simply remanded the case to the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, which then issued the only existing court ruling
on the validity of the D.C. Budget Autonomy Act.
Is there a rational reason for opposition to budget autonomy?
After all, budget autonomy is not statehood, it is not independence,
it doesn't take away any of your much-vaunted power. The D.C. budget
autonomy act has no effect, indeed, on congressional authority over the
District.
Under the Budget Autonomy Act, the D.C. Council must transmit the
local D.C. budget to Congress for a review period before that budget
would take effect, like all other D.C. legislation under the Home Rule
Act, and that is about to happen, as I speak. During the review period
Congress can use expedited procedures to disapprove the budget.
You see, what the District was doing here was not committing
revolution. It was using the procedures in place in order to gain
greater control over its own local budget. In addition, under the U.S.
Constitution, Congress has total legislative authority over the
District. Congress can legislate on any District matter at any time,
but Congress can also delegate any or all of its legislative authority
over the District, and it can take back any delegated authority at any
time.
In 1973, under the Home Rule Act, Congress did just that. It
delegated most of its authority, its legislative authority over the
District to an elected local government. Congress can delegate more or
it can delegate less authority than provided in the Home Rule Act. It
can repeal the Home Rule Act at any time. It can even abolish the
government of the District of Columbia.
My friends, I ask you: Is that enough authority for you? Over 700,000
American citizens who are not your constituents, is that enough for
you? Is that enough power? Why is that not enough to satisfy any
Congress of the United States?
Until this Congress, Democrats were not alone in supporting budget
autonomy. President George W. Bush supported D.C. budget autonomy. The
Republican-controlled Senate passed a budget autonomy bill by unanimous
consent in 2003. The last two Republican chairmen, of whom I spoke
today as I began to speak myself, who had the jurisdiction that
Chairman Chaffetz now has--Tom Davis and Darrell Issa--actually fought
for, not simply supported, but fought for budget autonomy. I think they
recognized that this is a set of principles we have in common.
I always thought that local control was a cardinal principle of the
Republican Party. Even the Republicans' own witnesses at the hearing on
this bill who took a position on the policy of budget autonomy--and
that was most of them--supported budget action.
Control over the dollars raised by local taxpayers is a much-cited
principle of congressional Republicans, and it happens to be central to
our form of government as held by Democrats and Republicans. The
exalted status of local control for Republicans, though, keeps being
announced as if we need to be retaught.
The Republicans did so again in their recently released budget. I
quote you only one sentence: ``We are humble enough,'' Republicans
said, ``to admit that the Federal Government does not have all the
answers.'' That was their latest abeyance to local control for every
single American jurisdiction, except the American jurisdiction that
happens to be the capital of the United States.
Beyond this core principle, budget autonomy has practical benefits
that I don't see how any Member of Congress can ignore. In a recent
amicus brief filed by former Congressman Davis: ``The benefits of
budget autonomy for the District are numerous, real, and much needed.
There is no drawback.''
One of the other signatories of the brief was Alice Rivlin, a former
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, also a former Director of
the White House Office of Management and Budget.
It is with some irony and real pain that I see come to this floor
even to speak against this bill Members whose budgets are not as large
as the budget of the District of Columbia, even though they come from
entire, big States. The District's budget is bigger than the budgets of
14 States. We raise that money ourselves. The District raises more than
$7 billion in local funds. The District contributes more Federal taxes
to the Treasury of the United States than 22 States. The District of
Columbia is number one in federal taxes per capita paid to the Federal
Government, and the District is in better financial shape than most
cities and States in the United States, with a rainy day fund of $2.17
billion on a total budget of $13.4 billion. Budget autonomy will make
the District--which, after all, has no State to fall back on--even
stronger.
How?
Budget autonomy gives the District what every other local government
in the United States enjoys: lower borrowing costs on Wall Street.
Imagine having to do what the District has to do: pay a penalty because
your budget has to come to a Congress that knows nothing of your city
or your budget, and they get to vote on it even though your own Member
does not. D.C. will also have improved agency operations, and in D.C.'s
case, the removal of the threat of Federal Government shutdowns,
shutting down the entire D.C. government just because Members of
Congress can't figure out what to do about the Federal Government. The
Federal Government has benefits, too. Congress would no longer waste
time on a budget it never amends.
So budget autonomy has no downside. I am trying to figure out why
anybody would want to deal with my budget. Heavens.
Don't Members have enough to do?
Congress maintains total legislative control over the District, with
all the Federal financial controls in place. Congress has nothing to
lose, can step in at anytime they don't like it. We are not asking for
very much. It is for some loosening of Congressional control. So, for
example, we would not have to pay more when we borrow on Wall Street
because we are seen as involved in a two-step budgetary process; one, I
might add, that is far more problematic, the Federal process, than the
other, the local process. It also is ironic to note that Congress
granted D.C. budget autonomy during its early years.
Yesterday the Committee on Rules prevented my amendment to make the
text of the Budget Autonomy Act Federal law from getting a vote. Today
the appropriations subcommittee passed an appropriation rider
containing the text of the very bill that is before us on this floor
right now. That makes 2 days, 2 identical provisions. Just in case--
just in case anybody would think that Republicans don't mean it, they
are doing it twice.
What do they need? An insurance policy of identical language in case,
God forbid, the Senate does not pass this bill?
I predict that the Senate won't pass this bill. So it is on you,
Members of the House of Representatives, the people's House, to take
the lead in denying for the people who live in your Nation's Capital
the same control over their local budget that you, yourselves, hold so
dear. You can stand on what you do today, but you won't stand up
straight because what you do today, if you vote to take away our budget
autonomy bill, will not be standing on principle.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the

[[Page H3211]]

gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), the chief sponsor of this
bill.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Utah, Chairman Chaffetz, for his strong statement in support of H.R.
5233, the Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule
Act of 2016.
As we begin debate on this important bill, I would like to first take
the opportunity to reiterate that I firmly believe that the Local
Budget Autonomy Act is, indeed, unlawful and null and void. The Home
Rule Act clearly provides that the District's budget shall pass through
the Federal appropriations process, preserving Congress' role in the
passage of that budget.
However, because of the precedent that allowing the District to usurp
the congressional authority may set, and the potential negative
consequences that the District government employees may face for
enforcing the Local Budget Autonomy Act, I have introduced H.R. 5233.
I would further say that my good friend, the Delegate from the
District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, indeed is a friend,
and I appreciate her passionate way that she always represents her
constituency. While we disagree on the debate and the merits of that
debate, I can't help but acknowledge my friendship with her and, truly,
her passion for the people who she serves.
H.R. 5233 will repeal the Local Budget Autonomy Act and reinforce
Congress' intended role in the budgetary process. As many of you know,
Congress was granted that exclusive legislative authority over the
District in Article 1, section 8, clause 17. This exclusive authority
was explained further in the Federalist 43 as being a crucial component
in keeping the Federal Government free from potential influence by any
State housing the government's seat.
There was a distinct worry that placing the seat of the Federal
Government in a territory where Congress was not the sole sovereign
would, indeed, impact its integrity. Therefore, the Founding Fathers
saw fit to authorize Congress to create the District and act as the
sole legislative authority for the District.
As seen in Federalist 43, the Founding Fathers believed that Congress
would delegate some of those exclusive authorities to the District,
specifically the power to deal with solely local matters. In 1973,
Congress made a decision to enact such legislation when they passed the
Home Rule Act.

{time} 1615

In that act, Congress provided the District with the authority to
have the jurisdiction over legislative matters on a limited basis.
But--and this is a critically important point--Congress reserved for
itself, and prohibited the District from altering, the role of Congress
in the budgetary process.
There can be little doubt that Congress intended to reserve that
power for itself. The language of the Home Rule Act itself is clear.
Both the former and the current attorney general for the District, as
well as the former Mayor, believe the Local Budget Autonomy Act to be
unlawful and contrary to the Home Rule Act.
Mr. Irvin Nathan, the former attorney general, testified before the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that numerous
sections of the Home Rule Act prohibit the District's action.
Mr. Nathan, who supports the policy, as my good friend acknowledged,
who actually supports the policy of budget autonomy, even stated that
he believed the Federal District Court's opinion invalidating the Local
Budget Autonomy Act was, indeed, a correct opinion.
Beyond the clear language, the legislative history makes it clear,
Mr. Speaker, that Congress had no intent to delegate to the District
the authority for the budgetary process. In fact, Mr. Jacques DePuy,
who participated in the drafting of the Home Rule Act itself, made it
clear in testimony before Congress that, indeed, Congress did not
intend to delegate the appropriations powers to the District. The
legislative record of the Home Rule Act supports Mr. DePuy.
One such piece of the record is, indeed, the Diggs letter, which the
chairman referenced earlier, that was issued by Chairman Charles Diggs.
The letter describes how it was clarifying the intent of Congress by
making several changes, including reserving Congress' role in the
budgetary process.
The Diggs letter highlighted a pivotal aspect of the congressional
intent in the Home Rule Act. It represents a compromise in response to
the Senate's Home Rule Act, which actually included a form of budget
autonomy.
The compromise does not indicate that Congress intended to grant the
District budget autonomy. To the contrary, what the Diggs compromise
represents is that there could be no Home Rule Act, absent an express
reservation of the role of Congress in the District's budget process.
I believe there can be no stronger statement that Congress intended
to reserve its appropriation role than the fact that the Home Rule Act
would have failed, absent that reservation.
Importantly, both of these men, Mr. Irvin and Mr. DePuy, who support
budget autonomy further believe that the District's action is illegal
and, therefore, null and void.
I want to be clear on this. We are not here today to make a power
grab against the District, as some would suggest. We are here, Mr.
Speaker, to uphold the rule of law.
At the committee's hearing, even the chairman of the Council of the
District of Columbia was forced to acknowledge that it was clear that
the majority of the Members of Congress who passed the Home Rule Act
intended to reserve the complete appropriations for Congress. Again,
another individual who supports budget autonomy recognizes the intent
of Congress.
So, in moving ahead with the Local Budget Autonomy Act, the District
government is usurping congressional authority, and inaction would
undermine not only this institution, but all organs of government
across this Nation.
To suggest that any city council's action, whether it be here in the
District or in any other city in the country, could unilaterally
overturn the intent of Congress would set a bad precedent. Regardless
of the precedent, however, such action by local government is a blatant
violation of the Supremacy Clause and, therefore, unconstitutional.
Moreover, as a result of the unlawful way in which the budget
autonomy is purported to have been achieved, District government
employees are now at risk of the Antideficiency Act and the sanctions
therein.
Under the Antideficiency Act, absent a congressional appropriation,
the District may not expend or obligate funds. Doing so will result in
potential criminal or administrative penalties for not only the
District's elected officials, but the line level employees charged with
purchasing items for the District.
The GAO testified that they maintain that the Local Budget Autonomy
Act violates the Home Rule Act and the Antideficiency Act, despite the
superior court's decision. H.R. 5233 would repeal the Local Budget
Autonomy Act and prevent the District government employees from having
to worry that the purchases they make on behalf of the District may
indeed violate the law.
H.R. 5233 will also augment the already clear prohibitions on the
District in altering the role of Congress in the budget process,
ensuring that Congress' intent and constitutional authority, Mr.
Speaker, remains in place.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) the Democratic Whip and my good friend from a
neighboring jurisdiction.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
thank the gentleman from North Carolina for outlining his position.
We are a nation of laws. The gentleman has indicated a court has
ruled on this issue--an opinion with which he disagrees--and we have a
mechanism for overturning or clarifying or changing such a ruling, and
that is the court system. That case may well reach the Supreme Court.
I rise in opposition to this piece of legislation, which, in my
opinion, is an exercise in hypocrisy. Why do I say that? That can be a
harsh word. We are witnessing the party that proclaims itself to be the
champion of local autonomy and less Federal Government

[[Page H3212]]

involvement in local affairs--we hear that all the time--bring to this
floor legislation that would do exactly the opposite.
The District of Columbia's over 700,000 American citizens deserve a
form of home rule not characterized by constant and intrusive
micromanaging by congressional Republicans or Democrats.
Now, if I were to ask unanimous consent that we substitute the
District of Columbia and perhaps include Milwaukee, Wisconsin--now, I
am not going to ask for that--I am sure I would get objection. Or, if I
might ask that Salt Lake City be substituted or perhaps even Baltimore,
Maryland, my own city in my State, or maybe even Charlotte, North
Carolina, those of us who represent those four cities would stand and
say: This is not your role, Congress of the United States.
Speaker Ryan just released a statement in which he said: ``The
current D.C. government needs to be reined in.''
From where? From balanced budgets? From surpluses in their budgets?
Reined in? They are a model, I would suggest, of fiscal responsibility.
Not always, but today. But then again, none of our jurisdictions have
always been such a model.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I would say to the Speaker, in response, quite the
opposite. The government and the people of the District of Columbia
need to be allowed to chart their own course, which is what I think
most of you say on a regular basis.
It is a mystery to me--and ought to be a mystery to every American
who believes in the premise that people ought to govern themselves--why
House Republicans are determined to strip that ability from the 700,000
Americans who live in our Nation's Capital. They pay taxes. They pay
taxes to their local government. And we want to make that decision.
I understand what the court has said and that courts may rule that
way, but shouldn't we have the patience to let the court system decide
whether or not this referendum of the people of the District of
Columbia is adjudged to be appropriate? The locally raised revenues
from taxes and fees do not originate from the Federal Government, but
from the hardworking residents of Washington.
The District of Columbia has proven Congress' wisdom in enacting the
1973 D.C. Home Rule Act time and again by managing its affairs in a
fiscally responsible, democratic way.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is very generous, and I appreciate it.
I would say to my friends, the District of Columbia deserves the same
respect that any of our governments deserve and that, in fact, we
demand for them. And I always lament how the District is demeaned.
When I was the majority leader, I made sure that Ms. Norton had a
vote on the floor of this House and that the Virgin Islands'
Representative had a vote on the floor of this House. One of the first
things you did when you took the majority was take that away.
It was not a vote that made a difference. It was a vote that was
symbolic. But it gave them the opportunity to have their name as our
equals, as Americans, on that board and express their opinion.
Let us not take this degree of autonomy away from them. Let us
respect these local citizens as you would want your local citizens
respected.
I urge the defeat of this legislation. If the courts tell us that
they could not do this, so be it, but let us let the system work its
will.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which is an exercise
in Republican hypocrisy.
We are witnessing the party that proclaims itself to be a champion of
local autonomy and less Federal Government involvement in local affairs
bring to this floor legislation that would do exactly the opposite.
The District of Columbia deserves a form of home rule not
characterized by constant and intrusive micromanaging by congressional
Republicans.
Speaker Ryan just released a statement in which he said--and I quote:
``The current D.C. Government needs to be reined in.''
I would say to the Speaker in response: Quite the opposite; the
government and people of the District of Columbia need to be allowed to
chart their own course.
It is a mystery to me--and ought to be a mystery to every American
who believes in the premise that people ought to govern themselves--Why
House Republicans are determined to strip that ability away from the
670,000 Americans who live in our Nation's Capital.
The locally raised revenues from taxes and fees do not originate from
the Federal Government but from hardworking residents of Washington.
The District of Columbia has proven Congress's wisdom in enacting the
1973 D.C. Home Rule Act time and again by managing its affairs in a
fiscally responsible, democratic way.
That is what this bill is, Mr. Speaker--a reminder to the people of
this city that they remain unrepresented in this House and a Federal
colony within a nation dedicated to democracy and fair representation.
When Democrats were in the majority, we worked to give District of
Columbia residents a greater voice in the Committee of the Whole.
And when Republicans took the majority, one of the first acts was
taking this small but important democratic tool and indication of
respect away from the District's representative and the other
representatives of our U.S. territories.
Now Republicans want to erode the District of Columbia's hard-earned
right to govern itself.
I thank my friend the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms.
Holmes Norton, for her impassioned defense of Washingtonians'
unalienable right to have a say.
And I will continue to stand with her to demand that right be
recognized--and in seeking for the District of Columbia the real budget
autonomy, home rule, and representation in Congress that its people
deserve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 1 minute
remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), my very good friend.
Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia, and I thank all of the speakers here today for expressing
their opinions.
Today, I rise in support of retaining local budget autonomy for the
District of Columbia and to express my strong opposition to H.R. 5233,
Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule Act of
2016.
Now, this partisan bill would repeal a District of Columbia
referendum that allowed the District to implement its own local budget
without affirmative congressional approval.
While this bill passed the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
on a party-line vote of 22-14, I would remind this body that the
committee's last four chairmen--including Republican Chairmen,
Representatives Tom Davis and Darrell Issa, who have studied and had
substantial oversight over the D.C. government--each worked to give the
District of Columbia budget autonomy.
Now, some of my colleagues here may argue that the District of
Columbia will loose its financial discipline under budget autonomy;
however, this could not be further from the truth. Budget autonomy
actually improves the operations and finances for the District of
Columbia government because the District would employ financial budget
experts who are focused solely on the economic growth, fiscal
soundness, and stability of the District, not Members of Congress
intent on ideological posturing or voting on budgets of constituencies
that are not their own, with Members of those districts or those
jurisdictions prohibited from voting on those measures.

[[Page H3213]]

{time} 1630

Autonomy would, in fact, lower borrowing costs, allow more accurate
revenue and expenditure forecasts, improve agency operations and the
removal of the threat that the Federal Government shutdowns would also
shut down the District of Columbia's government.
Congress also loses no authority under budget autonomy because this
body can use expedited procedures during the 30-day review period or
other measures that are in there.
The U.S. Constitution also provides for Congress to retain authority
to legislate any D.C. matter, including its local budget, at any time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. NORTON. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. PLASKETT. Now, I fear, when we leave the well-being of the
District of Columbia to this body, this body seems to lack the will or
fortitude to make equitable decisions for everyday people of this
country or, more particularly, the historically disenfranchised people.
This Congress seems intent on stripping away what little power those
who don't have a vote on this floor have been able to wring from the
hands of the majority.
It is my belief that Congress should stop wasting its time debating
legislation that continues to subjugate the District of Columbia to its
authority and work on passing a Federal budget that would boost the
economy of the entire American people.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I recognize the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, I cannot help but note, when I listen to my
friend, Ms. Plaskett, speak up for the District of Columbia, she, who
comes from what is known as a territory, the Virgin Islands--isn't it
interesting--and I know she must understand it--that the Virgin Islands
does not have to submit a budget to the Congress of the United States.
I never have had to debate the gentlewoman's budget here. I have never
had to debate the gentlewoman's legislation here.
There is a unique denial here in the District of Columbia. That is
one reason it is so roundly resented.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings), my good friend, the ranking member of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which would repeal the
District of Columbia's Local Budget Autonomy Act and prohibit D.C. from
passing such laws in the future.
I do not believe there is a Member of Congress who would stand for
the Federal Government dictating the local budget of a city in his or
her district, and D.C. should be treated no differently.
Granting D.C. local budget autonomy is not only the right thing to
do, it would also have significant financial benefits for the District,
such as lowering borrowing costs.
It would also mean an end to the threat of a cutoff of D.C. municipal
services in the event of a Federal Government shutdown.
I also want to express my disappointment that some Members have
threatened jail for D.C. employees who implement the Autonomy Act. The
threat is backwards. The only court ruling in effect on this law upheld
it and ordered all District employees to implement it.
House Republicans have taken a regrettable turn in their approach to
D.C. home rule. The last four chairmen of the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee, including Republicans Tom Davis and Darrell Issa,
sought to give the District more home rule and more budget autonomy,
not less.
Yet, in this Congress, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
has passed legislation to overturn a District law that prohibits
employment discriminating based on reproductive health decisions and
launched an investigation into the District's marijuana legalization
initiative. This bill is not only unprincipled. It is simply bad
policy.
The former counsel for the District of Columbia Committee and the
majority's own hearing witness said this: ``It is the duly elected
representatives for the citizens of the District of Columbia who should
determine how taxpayer money is spent.''
We hear a lot of rhetoric about devolving authority to local
governments. Yet, this bill tramples on local government and the will
of their local citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to reject this bill.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to be clear about my motives and intentions. I find it curious
when other Members try to prescribe my feelings and my approach to this
issue.
It is my belief, and support of this legislation is based on the
Constitution. It is that simple to me. Article I, section 8, clause 17,
says: ``To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over
such District,'' and it continues on.
The District of Columbia is more than just a local jurisdiction. It
is more than just a local city. It is our Nation's Capital.
I think what the founders were intending to do was to understand and
allow participation for Members all over this country in the affairs of
the city. That was the intention, and that is what is in the
Constitution.
Don't be confused or misled or allow anybody else to prescribe my
motives and my motivation, my belief, in the District of Columbia
because it is rooted, first and foremost, in the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 13
minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just as lawyers have disagreed about whether or not the District
could proceed with budget autonomy, lawyers have disagreed from the
beginning of our Nation on what the Constitution says.
I would take at his word what James Madison said in speaking of the
District of Columbia: ``A municipal legislature for local purposes,
derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed to them.''
That is what, according to Madison, the Constitution said.
Now, my friends have cited all manner of lawyers and their own views
on whether this matter is legal or constitutional. They have even cited
the interpretation of staff who helped draft the Home Rule Act.
Well, we stand this afternoon on the only authoritative opinion, the
opinion of the Superior Court and its court order. And I leave with you
that order.

Ordered that all members of the Council of the District of
Columbia, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, Chief Financial Officer,
Jeffrey S. DeWitt, their successors in office, and all
officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in
active concert or participation with the Government of the
District of Columbia shall forthwith enforce all provisions
of the Local Budget Autonomy Act of 2012.

That is the law. Respect the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 5233. I am proud of the fact
that, in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we had a
hearing, we had a proper markup, and we are bringing it here to the
floor today for all Members to vote on.
I would urge my colleagues to adhere to the Constitution. Do what the
Constitution says and support the bill, H.R. 5233.
I want to thank again Mr. Meadows for his work and leadership on this
and getting us to this point. I urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
5233, the Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule
Act of 2016.
The legislation seeks to overturn a local statute in Washington,
D.C., the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012, a measure that
was passed by the Washington, D.C.

[[Page H3214]]

City Council, approved by the Mayor, and subsequently ratified by D.C.
voters by ballot initiative with an overwhelming 83 percent of the
vote.
The Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012, the BAA, gave the
District of Columbia authority to determine its own budget without
getting approval from Congress. H.R. 5233 removes this authority and
prohibits D.C. from passing any budget autonomy legislation in the
future.
Washington, D.C. voters want budget autonomy. Washington D.C. voters
deserve budget autonomy. They have already voted for it, passed it, and
ratified it. When it was challenged by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit and the D.C. Superior Court upheld its validity. This should be
a done deal.
But instead of focusing on the critical issues facing this body--
passing a budget for instance, which we were required by law to do last
month--the House of Representatives has decided to focus on this.
I remind those here today and watching at home that Washington D.C.
is a Federal District. Congress maintains the power to overturn laws
approved by the D.C. Council and can vote to impose laws on the
district, as it is trying to do right with this particular measure.
Washington D.C.'s Delegate to the House of Representatives, my good
friend Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has served in this body for 24 years,
is not permitted to vote on final passage of any legislation, let alone
legislation directly intended to govern the jurisdiction which she was
elected to serve.
Congresswoman Norton described the measure in question as ``the most
significant abuse of congressional authority over the District of
Columbia since passage of the Home Rule Act in 1973.''
One might hope that Congress would consider the wishes of the sole
Representative of Washington, D.C. and the nearly 700,000 residents of
the District. But, as we see today, that simply isn't the case.
Congress is currently undergoing its own appropriations process, and
I need not remind everyone here that Republicans haven't even passed a
budget. We have missed deadline after deadline and are now moving ahead
without setting a budget at all. How can anyone tell me that the
District of Columbia should yield to the budgetary wisdom of the House
Majority when they can't even get their own act together to pass a
budget?
The issue of Home Rule has come up before in this body. In recent
years, House Republicans have challenged the District of Columbia on
issues ranging from the legalization of marijuana, access to
reproductive health care, and charter schools, in all three instances
forcing their will over the desires of the residents of D.C. This needs
to stop.
Given the numerous pressing and time-sensitive matters facing this
body, I can't help but feel bewildered as to why we are spending our
time on this measure. What is more confusing is our current efforts to
undo a measure that was passed by an overwhelming majority of D.C.
residents and subsequently upheld in the courts.
Meanwhile, Republicans continue to ignore our nation's crumbling
infrastructure, income inequality, the need for jobs, immigration
reform, and sensible gun control, not to mention the Federal budget,
yet we are debating a measure that would further roll-back the clock on
the rights of D.C. residents. Where are our priorities?
Let me put it another way--why should Congressional dysfunction keep
the District government from using tax revenues paid by District
residents to pick up trash? Why should Congressional dysfunction keep
the District from spending its own money on its own priorities?
I will note that Representatives Tom Davis and Darrell Issa, both
members of the Majority and former Chairmen of the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform each supported the idea of budget
autonomy for Washington, D.C.
Budget autonomy means lower borrowing costs and more accurate revenue
and expenditure forecasts. It means improved government operations and
removing the threat of government shutdown for Washington, D.C.'s local
government. It means streamlining Congressional operations. Most
importantly, it means giving residents of Washington, D.C., the right
to make decisions for themselves.
These are all things we should all be overwhelmingly support of. We
should move on and focus on the real issues before us. It is past time
for Congress to get out of the way of the will of the residents of D.C.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following:

May 25, 2016.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Democratic Leader Reid,
Speaker Ryan, and Democratic Leader Pelosi: This week, the
House of Representatives is voting on H.R. 5233, the
Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule
Act of 2016. I strongly oppose this legislation as well as
any effort to overturn the District of Columbia's budget
autonomy law with a rider to any appropriations bill.
Budget autonomy was approved by the voters and upheld in
the courts. I have proposed our 21st consecutive balanced
budget in accordance with the prevailing law and I expect the
Council of the District of Columbia to do the same. As is the
case with all DC laws, the approved 2017 DC budget will be
submitted to Congress for passive review. The American people
expect their congressional representatives to focus on the
issues affecting our nation--safety and security, fair wages,
and growing the middle class--not on the local budget of DC.
The District has a strong track record of administering our
government finances responsibly. We have passed and
implemented a balanced budget every year for the last 21
years and our General Fund balance--which currently stands at
$2.17 billion--is the envy of other jurisdictions. Our bond
rating is AA by S&P and Fitch and Aa1 by Moody's as a result
of the District's strong, institutionalized and disciplined
financial management and long track record of balanced
budgets and clean audits. Our debt obligations remain within
the 12 percent limit of total General Fund expenditures and
the District's pension and Other Post-Employment Benefit Plan
(OPEB) remain well-funded.
The vast majority of the District of Columbia's budget is
locally-generated revenue (such as property and sales taxes)
or federal grant funds received in the same manner as any
other state. In fact, the vast majority of our $13.4 billion
budget is raised locally. In recent years, only about one
percent, or about $130 million, has been a direct federal
payment to the District, and that amount remains subject to
active appropriation by Congress. About 25 percent of our
budget, or $3.3 billion, is federal grants and Medicaid
payments that are made to every other state.
The District of Columbia operates as a state, county, and
city, administering federal block grant programs, health and
human services programs, transportation infrastructure,
homeland security services, and other governmental duties
typically overseen by governors. It is time that Congress
recognizes the District's financial maturity and
responsibility and allows us to approve our own budget
without first seeking a congressional appropriation.
Budget autonomy also supports good government by helping
the District of Columbia plan its finances more efficiently.
For instance, tying our budgeting process to the
congressional appropriations process requires us to rely on
outdated revenue and uncertain expenditure projections, which
in turn results in more uncertainty and budget reprogramming.
Also, Congress has not completed its appropriations process
on time since 1996. Without budget autonomy, each time
congressional appropriations are delayed, the finalization of
the District's budget is also delayed. If the District cannot
spend its own locally-raised revenue (as occurred in 2013) by
the start of the fiscal year, the operations of the District
and the well-being of its residents are put at risk. Budget
autonomy relieves us of this inefficiency and uncertainty.
Budget autonomy will also improve our already excellent
bond ratings. The rating agencies are keenly interested in
predictability. Tying the District's budget to the
congressional appropriations process hurts our credit rating
which unjustly punishes District taxpayers who have no voting
representation in either the U.S. House of Representatives or
the U.S. Senate.
Further, it is important to note that budget autonomy does
not exclude Congress from the District's budget approval
process. Each annual budget for the District of Columbia will
be submitted to Congress for a 30-day period of review under
the Home Rule Act. During that time period (and, for that
matter, even after that time period), Congress is able to
reject the District's budget or modify it as Congress sees
fit. Budget autonomy does not mean that Congress no longer
has a say in the District's budget. It just means that we
have a more efficient and productive way of passing our
budget and thus a more efficient and productive way to serve
the residents, visitors, and businesses in the District.
With the move to pass H.R. 5233, Congress is unnecessarily
restricting local government control and further denying
democracy to the residents of the District of Columbia. I ask
for your support in putting aside any attempts to overturn
local control of our budget and our ability to operate our
government more efficiently.
Sincerely,
Muriel Bowser,
Mayor.
____

Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division

Council of the District of Columbia, Plaintiff, and Muriel
E. Bowser, in her official capacity as Mayor of the District
of Columbia, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey S. DeWitt, in

[[Page H3215]]

his official capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia, Defendant.
Case No. 2014 CA 2371 B, Calendar 12, Judge Brian F.
Holeman.

ORDER OF JUDGMENT

Upon consideration of the Omnibus Order of March 18, 2016,
it is on this 18th day of March 2016, hereby
ORDERED, that Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff
Council of the District of Columbia and Intervenor-Plaintiff
Muriel E. Bowser, in her official capacity as Mayor of the
District of Columbia and against Defendant Jeffrey S. DeWitt,
in his official capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia; and it is further
ORDERED, that all members of the Council of the District of
Columbia, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, Chief Financial Officer
Jeffrey S. DeWitt, their successors in office, and all
officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in
active concert or participation with the Government of the
District of Columbia SHALL FORTHWITH enforce all provisions
of the Local Budget Autonomy Act of 2012.
Brian F. Holeman,
Judge.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 744, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CONNOLLY. I am in its current form.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Connolly moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5233 to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
In section 2 of the bill--
(1) strike ``Effective with respect to fiscal year 2013''
and insert ``(a) Repeal.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), effective with respect to fiscal year 2013''; and
(2) add at the end the following new subsection:
(b) Exception for Use of Local Funds to Prevent and Treat
Zika.--The Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012,
together with any applicable provision of law amended or
repealed by such Act, shall remain in effect with respect to
the use of local funds by the District of Columbia government
to prevent and treat the Zika virus.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great, rapt attention
this afternoon to my friends, Mr. Chaffetz and Mr. Meadows, who have
gone on eloquently about protecting the Constitution of the United
States at, of course, the collateral expense of the people of the
District of Columbia.
They cite the Constitution as if the Constitution and the Founders
who wrote it were fully cognizant of the evolution that was going to
take place in the District of Columbia when we know, as a historical
fact, the Constitution was actually written before there was a District
of Columbia, let alone almost 700,000 American citizens still denied
voting representation in this body today.
In fact, that very Constitution my friends cite protected slavery,
decided that certain people of color were only worth three-fifths of
the normal mortal, but allowed the South to count them for the purposes
of representation in this body.
The same Constitution. We changed it. We took cognizance of changes
in reality. The fact that you exercise your will over an entire city
just because you can does not make it right or noble.
In fact, if we follow the logic of my friends on the other side of
the aisle, why not just take over the day-to-day mechanics of running
the government of the city?
So let's do rezoning. Let's do emergency preparedness. Let's run the
police department. Let's run the EMT and the fire department. Let's
take over mental health facilities and human services.
Why go only halfway? Why go only halfway? I am curious. What is it
about the budget that is so sacred? All the rest you are going to let
go.
This final amendment, Mr. Speaker, will preserve a small modicum of
the District's control over local taxpayer dollars to prevent and treat
the emerging threat of Zika. If adopted, we can move to immediate final
passage of the bill.
Although we may disagree--and do--on the underlying purpose of the
bill, surely we can agree on the seriousness of the Zika threat. There
have already been 4 reported cases of travel-associated Zika here in
the District, 15 in the Commonwealth of Virginia, my home State, and 17
in Maryland.
It may seem foreign to some of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, but in the National Capital Region, the two States, D.C., and
the region's local governments actually have a rich tradition of
working together, including in public health.
Working through the Council of Governments, which I used to chair,
our local and State partners regularly come together. The District of
Columbia needs to be a full partner in those regional efforts so that
it cannot be placed in a position of having to come to Congress to
actually ask for permission before spending its own local dollars on
Zika prevention and education.

{time} 1645

I might add, it is not just the people of the District of Columbia
who will be at risk if we are not addressing Zika in an efficacious
way; it is the 12 million constituents, the people my friend from North
Carolina (Mr. Meadows) represents and that I represent who come to this
city every year to visit the Nation's Capital. Will we protect them? Or
will we dither here in Congress?
There is irony in that, isn't there? Because we can't get our own
budget together. We can't pass our own appropriations bills, but we are
going to second-guess the local government here in the District of
Columbia because somehow we do it better? I don't think there is a
neutral observer who would conclude that.
But we are going to do it cloaked in the respectability of a
constitutional argument that is, I believe, false and antiquated--not
because the Constitution is antiquated, but because what was known in
the late 18th century at the time of the writing of the Constitution is
different today.
Are we going to return to the plantation mentality Congress used to
have with respect to the District of Columbia? Or are we actually going
to act on principle here, not ideology? We are not going to fire up our
base or the right-wing radio talk show hosts. We are actually going to
do the right thing--the right thing for 700,000 fellow citizens--and
let them have an ounce of decency with respect to their own self-
determination.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is
withdrawn.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite--and I say that in the
most authentic and complete terms because, indeed, the gentleman is my
friend--raises a point of debate about the Constitution and the fact
that explicitly in the Constitution, our Founding Fathers reserved this
particular authority in Article I, section 8, clause 17, which shows
the wisdom of our Founding Fathers to anticipate what, indeed, we are
debating here today.
For many of the other arguments that my good friend has made in terms
of what we need to change, there is the appropriate place for those
changes to be made, and that is exactly what this debate has been
about. It is about the rule of law; it is about the Constitution; and
it is about this institution being the proper place to make those
determinations on behalf of the will of We the People.
Now, the motion to recommit talks about Zika funding. And I might
remind the gentleman that, indeed, in this very body within the last
few days,

[[Page H3216]]

we have already passed funding to address the Zika virus' potential
healthcare concern; and, indeed, this is the correct body for us to do
that. It is not the District of Columbia or any other municipality
across the country. It is, indeed, this body, the role for this
particular body that has been reserved constitutionally; and it has
been that way since the very founding of this great country we all call
home.
I would also add that, as we start to look at this, the debate has
been over local control. And when we start to see the debate that
continues to play out, this particular issue was reserved in the
Constitution, and it was solely that of Congress to have all
legislative power over the District.
Now, is that somehow inconsistent with the fact that we want to make
sure that all control is local? It is not. Because as we look at that,
we must, indeed, make sure that we stand up.
And I would ask all of my colleagues to look at the very foundation
of who we are as an institution, as Members of Congress. To allow the
Budget Autonomy Act to stand in place would not only usurp the
authority--the congressional authority--that has been given to us in
our Constitution but, indeed, it would undermine it for future
Congresses to come.
So it is with great humility, but also with great passion, that I
would urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to recommit, knowing that
we have already addressed the particular funding requirement that the
gentleman from Virginia brings up--defeat the motion to recommit, and
support the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX
and the order of the House of today, this 15-minute vote on adoption of
the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of
the bill, if ordered; adoption of the motion to commit on S. 2012; and
passage of S. 2012, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 179,
nays 239, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 247]

YEAS--179

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)

NAYS--239

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOT VOTING--15

Bustos
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Mooney (WV)
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Speier
Takai
Yarmuth

{time} 1711

Messrs. NEUGEBAUER and FITZPATRICK changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. VARGAS, COHEN, PRICE of North Carolina, and POCAN changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, on the Legislative Day of May 25, 2016, a
series of votes was held. Had I been present for these rollcall votes,
I would have cast the following vote:
Rollcall 247--I vote ``yes.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240,
noes 179, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 248]

AYES--240

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman

[[Page H3217]]

Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--179

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Grothman
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Jenkins (KS)
Mooney (WV)
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Takai
Yarmuth

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1717

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 248, I was in a very
important meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

____________________