On the recordMay 25, 2016
I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, indeed, the delegate opposite is my friend. She serves her constituency well. Her impassioned plea on behalf of her constituents is not only recognized this day, but each and every day in this body. This particular debate is not over what is believed to be right or wrong. It is over the rule of law. Indeed, the argument was made by the gentleman from Georgia yesterday that this is a matter of law, not on the merits of what is right or what is wrong from a standpoint of budget autonomy. But I would also refer, Mr. Speaker, to the argument that would suggest that everything is great here in Washington, D.C., in terms of the budget. If that indeed is the case that is being argued here today, you can't have it both ways, because the status quo today has been one that truly has the authority rested and vested here in this esteemed body. So to suggest that things are less than perfect, I am not here to do that. But if indeed everything is turning up roses today, it is the status quo that has indeed preserved that. So I would suggest that, as we start to look at this, it is a fundamental question: Are we going to uphold the rule of law? The rule of law here is very clear. In fact, the debates back in 1973 talked about that all we wanted was some of the local control over our local government. And as that debate went on, there was indeed, as my good friend mentioned, in the Senate the desire to give budget autonomy to the district.…





