Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule Act of 2016

Floor Speech

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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides, please?

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source