[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6263-6265]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  CLARIFICATION OF RULES APPLYING TO HUMAN OCCUPANCY OF PENTHOUSES IN 
                     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUILDINGS

  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4192) to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to regulate the 
height of buildings in the District of Columbia'' to clarify the rules 
of the District of Columbia regarding human occupancy of penthouses 
above the top story of the building upon which the penthouse is placed, 
as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4192

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

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF RULES APPLYING TO HUMAN OCCUPANCY 
                   OF PENTHOUSES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                   BUILDINGS.

       (a) Permitting Human Occupancy of Penthouses Within Certain 
     Height Limit.--The eighth paragraph of section 5 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to regulate the height of buildings in the 
     District of Columbia'', approved June 1, 1910 (sec. 6-
     601.05(h), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``penthouses over elevator shafts,'' and 
     inserting ``penthouses,''; and
       (2) by striking ``and no floor or compartment thereof shall 
     be constructed or used for human occupancy above the top 
     story of the building upon which such structures are placed'' 
     and inserting ``and, except in the case of a penthouse which 
     is erected to a height of one story of 20 feet or less above 
     the level of the roof, no floor or compartment thereof shall 
     be constructed or used for human occupancy above the top 
     story of the building upon which such structures are 
     placed''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on the bill hereto under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, in 1910, the Height of Buildings Act was signed into 
Federal law. That bill, in fact, envisioned a prevention of New York-
style skyscrapers from being erected here in the Nation's Capital. That 
bill is every bit as important today as it was in 1910.
  The District of Columbia has a unique visual requirement. We should 
not, cannot, and will not obstruct the Mall and the major parts of this 
historic city.
  It is important that we maintain the skyline and the access, and we 
do so in every single consideration in this city. The memorials and 
monuments and public safety must be considered.
  However, over the last two Congresses, the committee has been working 
on several small modifications that, really, time has said its time has 
come. After 100 years, the current legislation makes a small but 
meaningful change. Let me put it in words the American people can 
easily understand.
  One hundred years ago, they put a limit on the height of these 
buildings, and then they put 20 feet beyond that limit of occupancy for 
water towers, coal stacks for the chimneys, and, of course, the tops of 
elevators. Those water towers, elevator shafts, chimneys, they were 
certainly pretty hideous, but they were necessary.
  It is now 100 years later, and, in fact, the absence of other uses 
for these buildings often means that these tops of these buildings are 
not considered to be an aesthetically important part, and there is no 
funding and no source of revenue to make them better.
  Under this modification to the Height Act, we allow for what have 
been called penthouses but, in fact, are simply industrial rooftop air 
conditioners and the like to be covered, wrapped, if you will, by 
architecturally pleasing structures.
  These structures may be occupied. They may be offices, cafeterias, 
or, in the case of a residential apartment complex, it could be a top 
apartment.
  Under the legislation, they have to have a setback. The setback is 
roughly 1 foot per foot of height, or 20 feet of setback if they go to 
the full 20 feet. So these are not a monolithic increase and, in fact, 
a setback consistent with that 100-year-old law.
  Last Congress, the committee held numerous hearings on the Height Act 
and listened to countless witnesses. I subsequently wrote to the 
National Capital Planning Commission, often called the NCPC, and the 
mayor's office, asking them to jointly study modifications to the 
Height Act and recommend any changes they saw appropriate. For those 
who are unaware, NCPC is the regional planning commission that includes 
representatives of both the Federal interests and local interests.
  The Height Act study is impressive. Aside from the research work, a 
series of meetings were held featuring considerable input from experts 
and the general public alike. Afterward, the mayor's office and NCPC 
provided separate recommendations.
  The mayor's specific recommendation: increase the height limits in 
downtown. The mayor also recommended that the city and NCPC work 
together to be able to use the city comprehensive plan as a tool to 
adjust height limits outside the L'Enfant city region.
  This is not in today's proposal. Ultimately, only after considering 
these broader changes, NCPC's only recommendation from the overall plan 
submitted by the mayor is, in fact, the modest proposal before you 
today.
  Let's understand: the height of buildings in this city will not 
change by 1 foot under this act, but the beauty of the tops of 
buildings and the usability will.
  The revenue to the city can increase because of the value of these 
top floors, and, yet, we will cover up mechanical penthouses that, 
today, are simply elevator shafts, rooftop air conditioners, water 
towers and the like.
  So long as that ratio of setback and the other provisions of the 100-
year-old act are maintained, the city will have the ability to approve 
structures.
  But let's understand: those structures will still go through a 
rigorous program before they can be approved, and they will continue to 
be consistent with the 1910 Height Act.
  NCPC itself recommended that human occupancy be allowed in such 
rooftop penthouses, so long as the setback ratio was maintained and 
that

[[Page 6264]]

the penthouse does not exceed one story and that no more than 20 feet 
of height be maintained.
  Our bill does everything in the NCPC recommendation. So this bill 
simply gives the city a little more latitude in allowing human 
occupancy in penthouses where ugly mechanical penthouses already exist 
and are allowed.
  I would like to have gone a little further on this bill, and I am 
very candid. There are areas well outside the city, as most people 
interpret it, far up in Northeast, where there are railroad tracks and 
industrial buildings, and down in Southeast, an area that Eleanor 
Holmes Norton has worked tirelessly to improve, that could have been 
given additional options for higher buildings because they are outside 
of the area of concern for the Mall and monuments.
  The city is not prepared to take that authority yet, and Congress is 
not prepared to give authority that, in fact, its city council is not 
prepared to handle. That is the consensus that came from the city 
council in their own resolution, and we respect that if the city does 
not want an authority, we are not going to thrust an authority on them.
  So, with respect to the Height Act, let me close by saying there will 
always be somebody who doesn't want a law changed, who, in fact, wants 
the buildings shorter. There are people who want their private home to 
be able to see all the way to the Mall. I would love to own one of 
those homes, quite frankly.
  A few feet away from here I would like to be able to walk out onto 
the Speaker's deck, his balcony. I would like to be able to see the 
White House, but I can't because the Treasury building was built in 
front of it and others.
  This legislation will not cause any of those shortcomings that have 
occurred in the past; just the opposite. It will beautify the tops of 
buildings if the city approves those specific projects, while 
maintaining the absolute limit that has been on these buildings since 
1910.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4192, and I appreciate the initiative of 
the chairman, Chairman Issa, who has just spoken, who has always 
observed the self-government rights of the District of Columbia, and 
puts forward this bill in the same spirit of home rule.
  This legislation will amend the Height Act of 1910, which limits the 
height of all building in the District of Columbia. The District is 
prohibited, under the Home Rule Act, from permitting any structure 
anywhere in the city in excess of the height limitations contained in 
the Height Act.
  The current law permits structures above the top story of buildings, 
including so-called penthouses, to exceed the height limitations, but 
no human occupancy is permitted in mechanical penthouses, and it gives 
the District the authority to set the maximum height for such 
structures.
  Currently, the structures have a height limit of 18.6 feet. The 
legislation will allow human occupancy of these penthouses. In 
addition, the legislation will mandate a 20-foot maximum height, one 
story, and a 1 to 1 setback for penthouses. The absolute height of any 
penthouse used for human occupancy will be 20 feet.
  I thank Chairman Issa for examining the Height Act when he saw that 
it had received little congressional oversight in the century of its 
existence.
  I supported Chairman Issa's request that the District of Columbia and 
the National Capital Planning Commission conduct a joint study of the 
Height Act because more than 100 years had passed since the heights of 
D.C. buildings were systematically discussed in the Halls of Congress.
  The District and the NCPC came to different conclusions as to whether 
or how the Height Act should be amended, but agreed with respect to 
removing the prohibition on human occupancy of penthouses, and setting 
a maximum height of 20 feet, or one story, for penthouses.
  The mayor and D.C. Council expressed divergent views, but I 
encouraged them to work together to find common ground. I am pleased 
that the mayor and council chairman reached an agreement with regard to 
penthouses, and that agreement, in essence, is before the Congress 
today.
  Under today's bill, the city, through its local zoning process, will 
have the home rule ability to permit human occupancy of penthouses if 
it would desire. However, this bill is not a mandate directing the city 
to make any changes to penthouses or to its existing comprehensive 
plan, or local zoning laws, more generally.
  Again, I would like to thank Chairman Issa for working to give the 
District of Columbia more authority. I also deeply appreciate the 
chairman's work in so many other ways, for budget autonomy, and his 
strong support on many occasions for home rule, which he has raised as 
a factor in connection with the Height Act as well.
  I support the passage of this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank both of my colleagues. I am 
extremely pleased with the sensitivity that is expressed for the people 
of Washington, D.C., because that is what we should have here.
  This is an amendment to the bill regarding the height of Washington, 
D.C., buildings that passed in 1910, as changing the height 
restrictions that were put in place in 1899; and as my colleague from 
the District of Columbia had pointed out, this really hasn't been 
discussed in detail in over 100 years.
  I recently had someone here in Washington tell me that: Gee, as 
property gets so valuable here in Washington, you are going to see, at 
first, exceptions made to the height restrictions, then soon followed 
by a lifting of those restrictions because the money will be just too 
much for either party to turn down.
  I am so grateful that the height is not being changed, as the 
chairman said, by one inch; but I am very concerned about beginning to 
make these exceptions for residence levels, even though ``residence'' 
is the change, basically, in essence, and I have looked at the change. 
I have reviewed the prior law.
  But, Madam Speaker, I am concerned that this is the camel's nose 
going under the tent. You are beginning to put residences above the 
height that was previously allowed. It may dress some up, it may change 
some in ways that we are not crazy about, but I am just concerned about 
changing the height restrictions, even with these exceptions, after 114 
years of being in existence.
  So as a result, I thank the chairman and my friend from the District 
of Columbia, like I say, for their sensitivity, but I like the height 
restriction because of the emphasis that continues to be pushed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Madam Speaker, I am concerned about beginning the exceptions that may 
move in a direction that we don't wish to have. The chairman mentioned 
that no one is granting that kind of authority, and nobody is seeking 
it, yet; and I want us to stop it before we have to get to that 
``yet.''
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman for 
speaking in favor of the bill.
  I understand his concern. I do want to indicate that no exception is 
really being made in this bill. The height can go no higher than it can 
go right now, and somebody in the District of Columbia can't make an 
exception because the Congress of the United States controls heights 
still under this bill.
  Of course, we have our local zoning laws in the District, so there 
are many, many parts of the District where you can't begin to go as 
high as the Height Act.
  I am a third-generation Washingtonian, and I must say that I adore 
the

[[Page 6265]]

residential quality of this city, which is essentially built on the 
notion of private homes and not large-scale apartments. The city really 
did not want to dislodge that, and that has not occurred here.
  There may still be some disagreement among residents, but I do know 
that when the council, which expressed some real disquiet at any 
change, has finally been able to come to an agreement, that there is 
not enough of a change here to warrant dissent within the city and had 
come to an agreement that--and when, in addition, those who have been 
most adamant about maintaining the Height Act, including the 
organization which has been the real guardian of the Height Act, the 
Committee of 100, says it has no objection to this compromise, I think 
we have finally reached a compromise of the kind that we would like to 
see more often occur right here in the House of Representatives.
  And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, I want to urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 
4192, and I want to close by reminding people that this is, in fact, 
the best vetted piece of legislation for Congress to pass in 
cooperation with the city in my tenure.
  Thirteen D.C. city councilmen signed on to a sense of council-
introduced resolution in November that stated: The Height Act should 
not be amended at this time.
  All 13 now support this modest recommendation, and I understand the 
additional member also would. I am glad that the city council is seeing 
this modest reform as in their favor--their benefit to enhancing the 
beauty of those buildings, those few buildings that reach the maximum 
of the Height Act.
  In closing, I think it is important that we echo what Delegate Norton 
just said. The vast majority of homes and buildings in the District of 
Columbia are far lower than the Height Act. In fact, it is a relatively 
small part of what some people sometimes call K Street and some other 
corridors, where the infrastructure of the city has pressed to occupy 
more densely.
  My hope is, by maintaining the height, the total occupancy, these 
penthouses will enhance that property, in many cases, with cafeteria or 
public access areas while still continuing to induce people to make 
reasonable changes in outlying areas if, in fact, additional capacity 
is needed either for residents of this city or, in fact, the thriving 
businesses of this city.
  Madam Speaker, we seldom come to you with a 100-year-old bill that 
hasn't been dusted off. We come to you today with a 104-year-old bill, 
which has not been dusted off and not for a lack of a reason.
  The water towers of 1910 are gone. It is time for us to use this 
space to maintain a view that is unmarred by highrises, but is, in 
fact, enhanced by the architectural creation, invention, and ingenuity 
of the architects who work and strive to make the buildings of 
Washington, D.C., pleasant and functional.
  With that, I urge passage and yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 4192, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________