PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · May 23, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule Act of 2016
(Sec. 2) This bill repeals the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Law 19-321) and restores previous law as though the Act had never been enacted.
(Sec. 3) The District of Columbia Home Rule Act is amended to declare that nothing in it shall be construed as creating a continuing appropriation of the General Fund of the District.
All funds provided for the District of Columbia shall be appropriated on an annual fiscal year basis through the federal appropriations process.
The District of Columbia Code is amended to declare that nothing in it shall be construed as authorizing the District of Columbia to make any change in law, regulation, or basic procedure and practice relating to the respective roles of Congress, the President, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Government Accountability Office in the preparation, review, submission, examination, authorization, and appropriation of the total budget of the District of Columbia government.
People & committees
Rep. Meadows, Mark [R-NC-11] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 240 - 179 (Roll no. 248). (consideration: CR H3208)
House roll call 248 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 240 - 179 (Roll no. 248).(consideration: CR H3208)
House roll call 248 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 179 - 239 (Roll no. 247). (consideration: CR H3216)
House roll call 247 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H3216)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Connolly motion to recommit with instructions, pending reservation of a point of order. The instructions contained in the motion seek to report the same back to the House forthwith with an amendment to allow the District of Columbia government to use local funds to prevent and treat the Zika virus. Subsequently, the reservation of a point of order was withdrawn.
Mr. Connolly moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Oversight and Government. (consideration: CR H3215; text: CR H3215)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 5233.
The resolution provides for consideration of S. 2012 and H.R. 5233.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 744. (consideration: CR H3208-3217)
Rule H. Res. 744 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 744 Reported to House. The resolution provides for consideration of S. 2012 and H.R. 5233.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 456.
Reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 114-586.
Reported by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 114-586.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 22 - 14.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5233 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5233 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5233 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5233 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.