[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 83 (Wednesday, May 25, 2016)]
[House]
[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     Act of 2012 (D.C. Law 19-321) is hereby repealed, and any 
     provision of law amended or repealed by such Act shall be 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.''

                          ____________________