Mark Meadows: “I thank the gentleman from Texas for his eloquent words. As we look at this particular bill, there is a lot that has…”

“I thank the gentleman from Texas for his eloquent words. As we look at this particular bill, there is a lot that has been said about what home rule is and what it is not. There is a lot that has been said about what the law is and what it is not, and yet it is undeniable that the Constitution actually reserved for this esteemed body the power to legislate over all affairs within the District, going back to Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. And yet in 1973, Mr. Speaker, this body took on a law, debated it in both the House and the Senate, to actually take some of those authorities granted by the Constitution and allow the District to actually put forth laws with regard to local issues. Now, specifically reserved in that 1973 law was the whole issue of the budget and appropriations. As we started to look at this particular function--my good friend, the Delegate from the District, obviously has talked very seriously about the law. Well, the law was very clear in 1973 on what we passed. Actually, Charles Diggs--Chairman Diggs--had what they called the Diggs Compromise that specifically was spelled out in a dear colleague letter on the fact that budgetary control would remain with this body and, indeed, with the appropriators. Yet somehow we see a decision by a superior court as having the effect of law? Well, we know from our civics class that it is this body that is putting forth Federal law.…”