On the recordOctober 24, 2017
I would just respond to my learned colleague by quoting a renowned liberal legal scholar, the late Abner Mikva, who explained in a law review article back in 1986, that even if it were less efficient to go through Congress, that would be no reason to cede the point of principle. This is what he wrote: ``To ensure that Congress would act as the first branch of government, the constitutional Framers gave the legislature virtually exclusive power to control the Nation's purse strings. . . . They knew that the power of the purse was the most far-reaching and effectual of all governmental powers. . . . Doubtless they understood that a collection of diverse individuals representing diverse interests . . . would less efficiently and less coherently devise fiscal policy than would a single `treasurer' or `fiscal czar.' Yet they chose, for good reason, to suffer this cost and bear its risks.'' That is from a liberal legal scholar, and, of course, conservatives agree. The system that the Founders set up, the reason and purpose for Article I, is to allow these major decisions to be made by the elected Representatives of Congress, and, for that reason, we oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Donovan). The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.





