Jason Chaffetz

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I raise a point of order against the following provision of H.R. 5485 for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI: Beginning with ``: Provided further'' on page 122, line 19, through ``2012'' on page 122, line 22. This provision proposes to change existing law by imparting direction to the United States Postal Service and, therefore, constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the motion because the instruction contains matter in the jurisdiction of a committee to which the resolution was not referred, thus violating clause 7 of rule XVI which requires an amendment to be germane to the measure being amended. The committee of jurisdiction is a central test of germaneness; therefore, I must insist on the point of order.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4875) to establish the United States Semiquincentennial Commission, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 the bill under consideration.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4875, as introduced by Congressman Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan) to talk about this bill.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the passage of H.R. 4875. I appreciate the good work of Mr. Meehan, who helped champion this through in a bipartisan way. I appreciate Mr. Boyle and his passion on this issue as well. All Americans are grateful for this Nation. And certainly celebrating its history is appropriate. I urge the passage of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4539) to establish the 400 Years of African-American History Commission, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4539, introduced by Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia. In 1619, the first people from Africa arrived at the English colonies in Point Comfort, Virginia. To highlight the significant history and cultural impact of the 400th anniversary of the first Africans to arrive at Point Comfort, this bill creates a commission to plan and carry out commemorative activities. The Commission's membership will be comprised of members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior after considering recommendations of civil rights and historical organizations: the secretary of the Smithsonian, Members of Congress, and Governors from across the country. Under the bill, the commission will plan, develop, and carry out programs and activities to recognize and highlight the resilience and contributions of African Americans since 1619 and to acknowledge the impact that slavery and laws that enforced racial discrimination had on the United States. The bill will also coordinate and facilitate for the public scholarly research on the arrival of Africans in the United States and the contributions of African Americans throughout our Nation's history. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 4539. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, again, let me echo the wide bipartisan support in favor of this bill. I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Cummings. I want to thank Mr. Boyle for his support in championing this through with our committee. And I particularly want to thank Bobby Scott of Virginia, his representation of that area and is a pivotal voice in bringing this bill forward. I am glad to be supportive of this bill, and I would urge my colleagues to also support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

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.

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.

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 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.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), the chief sponsor of this bill.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I stand in whole support of what Chairman Thornberry is proposing. Section 101 of the National Security Act of 1947 says: ``The function of the Council shall be to advise the President . . . '' Obviously, we want the President to get the best advice possible, but, historically, the National Security Act designated--they had between 50 and 60 people between the 1960s and the mid 1990s. But now it has grown to hundreds of people. We are talking about literally 400 people, by some counts, and we have got an NSC that is now not necessarily accountable. I would like to see the Senate confirmation if it moves about 100. What we see is the NSC is not only engaging in direction on the field, but also engaging in public relations battles and doing things well outside, I think, the scope that was originally put forward. Mr. Chairman, today we had a hearing. We had called Ben Rhodes to come testify to this hearing. But then, claiming executive privilege, Neil Eggleston, the General Counsel, said this person could not come. Ben Rhodes goes and talks to the media, he talks to his echo chamber. Ben Rhodes will go out and do public speaking. He will do everything except come testify in front of Congress, and then hides behind this shield that does not allow for openness and transparency. We want an NSC that helps make policy and direct operations and should be publicly accountable, if that is what they are going to be doing. The President has a choice. Keep the NSC small and advisory to maintain the status quo. That is what it was originally intended to do, but it has gone far more than that. It has become a public relations machine. It has become something that is problematic at every level. I think Chairman Thornberry is exactly right. I think all of our colleagues should support this amendment. It is the right thing to do, and I stand in whole support of it.