Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from California. I can't say enough about how much this Congress will miss him and how indebted we are to his outstanding service. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say some closing words about this Congress. I have spent most of my time in the Congress in the minority, with my good friends on the other side in control. I must say that this is a most unusual 113th Congress. This package of bills is a shameful way to close this Congress. Usually, this is a time--as I have seen it under Republican Congresses--when you make room for must-pass bills, not for never-to- pass bills or sure to be vetoed bills. Today certainly was not the time to make up for running through the 113th Congress with neither an agenda, nor legislation to show for it, perhaps to show that Congress was entitled to be paid for being here for 2 years. Instead of some must-pass bills--and I will suggest a few--what we have heard from my good friends on the other side are some tax and other giveaway bills that add to the deficit or bills that should be stamped ``special interest.'' There was legislation before us that, with small changes in law, could have been passed. Had those bills passed, they never would have been considered bills of one side or the other. For instance, the Paycheck Fairness Act simply updates, in quite small ways, the Equal Pay Act. That is the act that I administered when I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It is already on the books. Nobody wants to repeal it. All the Paycheck Fairness Act would have done was to make small changes to bring it into the 21st century, and those changes have no ideological impact. Or take the Federal Student Loan Refinancing Act. That begged for passage, to give students faced with debt and no jobs--this cohort of students who had the bad luck to come out of school in a bad economy-- some relief. That bill surely deserved bipartisan support. For me, however, the biggest piece of missing legislation is the reauthorized transportation bill, and I say that because that would have been the functional equivalent of the JOBS Act of 2014; instead, we are going to leave here this evening, having given nothing to the American people to assure them that there will be jobs for the 7 weeks that we are gone. That is what they most wanted. That is what we have been given least. We are on track to beat last year's record. We are on track to become the least productive Congress in the history of our country. Closing the Congress with a bunch of never-to-pass bills that nobody envisioned would be taken up will never make up for the shameful record of the 113th Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the care that has gone into the preparation of the amendment before us. I have perhaps more reason to be involved than most Members because my district, the Nation's Capital, is a perpetual high-level target for terrorists like ISIL. Today I am compelled to come to the floor to convey the indignation of the residents of the District of Columbia that the Congress would even approach another period of war where participation of residents of the District of Columbia is virtually inevitable while they have no vote whatsoever on this preeminent matter of war and peace. District residents pay $12,000 annually, per capita, more in Federal taxes than residents of any other State, to support our government in war and peace. Regardless of what is decided on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, District residents will be there for America as they have been during every war our country has fought. The Nation, however, should not ask D.C. residents to fight another war without consent of the governed who participate with taxes and live in the District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today, because on Monday a very important hearing, the first of its kind in two decades, a hearing on statehood for the District of Columbia will take place in the Senate of the United States. The hearing is called by Senator Carper, the Chair of the Jurisdictional Committee. This hearing takes place at a time and in a season when we have seen unusual progress for statehood for the District of Columbia. In the Senate, the majority leader himself became a cosponsor of the bill and indeed announced it with great energy, which is very unusual because the majority leader of the Senate cosponsors very few bills. The top Democratic leaders are sponsors of the bill. The bill has more House and Senate sponsors than is has ever had. Together this is normally seen as momentum, Mr. Speaker. Now, when I say we are having the first Senate hearing in two decades, it is not because we haven't tried to get a Senate hearing or because a Senate or House hearing on statehood was what was on the agenda for each immediate period. The District of Columbia residents have tried many ways to get their equal rights to other American citizens. There has been a House Voting Rights Act. I would have the vote on the House floor as I speak had an amendment not passed that sought to wipe away all the gun laws of the District of Columbia. There have been bills for House and Senate votes. There have been bills for budget autonomy, and we are still seeking budget autonomy. Through all of this, we have always sought statehood for the District of Columbia because, Mr. Speaker, there is no way for the District to get the same rights that every other American has without statehood. I will go into that a little later. The Senate hearing is entitled: ``Equality for the District of Columbia: Discussing the Implications of S. 132, the New Columbia Admissions Act.'' That is the companion bill to my bill here in the House, H.R. 292. I want to take a moment to thank Senator Tom Carper, who is the new chair of the committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. As you might expect, that committee has a lot on its plate, and, yet, in only his first term as chair, Senator Carper has made many strides forward and always has been very helpful to the District of Columbia, and now culminates the work that he and I have done in the Senate with a hearing. It is a hearing that we, of course, requested, but it is a hearing that he had to be willing to do and find time for on a very busy agenda. I cannot thank Senator Carper enough in the name of the people of the District of Columbia for affording us the opportunity to be heard. We do not pretend that statehood is around the corner. We do know this: that if we do not continue to use vehicles like hearings to put the matter before the House and the Senate, and before the people of the United States, we cannot build to the point where we can achieve what we will achieve, statehood for the 650,000 people who live in the Nation's Capital. When I say this is the first hearing, I do want to say that Senator Joe Lieberman, who was the prior chairman of the Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee, was also a great champion for statehood. And while he didn't have a hearing, he introduced a bill for statehood that achieved the majority of committee votes. And indeed there was a hearing for statehood when my first bill, the bill when I first came to Congress in the early 1990s, came to the floor and we got the first and only vote for statehood for the District of Columbia. There was a Senate hearing. It was not a jurisdictional hearing. And that is what this hearing is, and therefore it is a landmark hearing. It is a historic hearing. And that is why I felt it merited my coming to the House floor today. On top of the momentum that we have now seen in the Senate, I shouldn't leave the subject without mentioning the momentum that has been here in the House. We have Republican and Democratic support for budget autonomy for the District of Columbia, for example. That is a very essential element of statehood, that is, your own budget, your own local funds, and nobody gets to look at it but you, your own jurisdiction. That is not what the District has now. That is what some Republicans and most Democrats believe we should, indeed have. There is not yet the kind of support for statehood that I expect to see in the House of Representatives, but we will be glad to work with the Senate and the House when it lives up to its own principles that every American is entitled to be treated equally in the Congress and in our country. Quite aside from the progress we have seen in the House and the Senate on statehood and on the particular elements of statehood, we now have the formal endorsement of the President of the United States for statehood. I would like to quote what he said when he endorsed the bill: I have long believed that folks in D.C. pay taxes like everybody else, they contribute to the overall well-being of the country like everybody else, they should be represented like everybody else. It is not as if Washington is not big enough compared with other States. It is absolutely the right thing to do. I will have something to say about the population of the District of Columbia as compared with other States in a few minutes. Now, of course, I wasn't surprised that the President of the United States supported statehood. The reason I wasn't surprised is because he has long supported and been on record as supporting all of the elements of statehood: budget autonomy, the right of the people of the District of Columbia, who raise $7 billion, to spend their own money without coming to this Chamber, which has raised not one penny of it. He has long supported that and has put budget autonomy in his own budget. Legislative autonomy so that the Congress doesn't have some say over the District of Columbia's laws, the President has put that in his own budget. And the President, going back to the time that he was in the Senate of the United States, supported voting rights for the District of Columbia. So there you have it, voting rights, legislative autonomy, and budget autonomy, the elements of statehood. We have Members of this House and of the Senate who have long supported all of them. We want to bring it all together with support of statehood for the District of Columbia. So there will be then a historic hearing at, I believe it is 3 o'clock on Monday afternoon with witnesses who are particularly able to speak to the issues. Professor Viet Dinh of Georgetown Law School, a professor of constitutional law, a former U.S. assistant attorney for legal policy in the Bush administration. That made him the highest legal policy official in the Bush Justice Department. He has previously testified here in the House about the constitutionality of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act. He will testify as to the constitutionality of our statehood bill. Alice Rivlin, who, of course, was the Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Board and Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and, finally, as a D.C. resident, was called upon by the President to chair the Financial Control Board of the District of Columbia, will testify at that hearing. Now, of course, Dr. Rivlin is an expert on the Nation's economy and on the finances of the District of Columbia. We are very pleased that Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights will also testify, a longtime champion of statehood and equal rights for the District of Columbia. The elected officials of the District of Columbia will testify, of course, the mayor, the chair of the City Council and I, and also the statehood delegation. At the same time that we have been pressing on what amounts to two tracks for statehood, we have been making the progress I have indicated on the elements of statehood, such as budget and legislative autonomy. In this House, we have got to work on what we need to work on all at the same time. There is no sequential matter when it comes to the many rights that the residents of the District of Columbia are denied. However, with the many issues on which we have struggled for equality one at a time, sometimes two or three at a time, statehood has always been what the residents--the American citizens who live in the District of Columbia--have needed and wanted. And it is during this Congress that statehood has gotten great footing. I do want to thank the growing statehood movement and coalition, the many residents who struggle for statehood and have helped us in so many ways, including many in the statehood coalition who went around asking for cosponsors. I think among the reasons that statehood has gotten so much momentum this year is that the residents of the District of Columbia are fed up with paying such high Federal taxes without equal representation in the Congress of the United States. They have simply had it on second-class citizenship. As if to dramatize what it means to be a second-class citizen, there were several violations of the rights of the people who live in the District of Columbia as American citizens this year which highlighted the need for statehood. The House actually passed two provisions that would overturn laws passed by the Council of the District of Columbia, laws that were entirely local in their nature. Imagine what would happen if the Congress tried to pass a law to overturn some law in Maryland, Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, California, or New Hampshire. People would think the Congress had lost its mind. Because of the anomaly of the status of the District of Columbia as a district and not a State, the Congress can meddle in--if you will forgive me--the local business of the District of Columbia. Two Members decided to and, in fact, got passed in this House bills that overturned our local laws. I am pleased to say that as of now those bills have and will not be passed in the continuing resolution that is pending in the House or the Senate. Thus far, we have been successful despite the passage of these two bills. One of them was passed by Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican who lives in Kentucky. He lives in a county of 11,000 people, but has sought and absolutely got passed in the House--a bill that would keep the District of Columbia--which has 650,000 people-- from having any local gun laws. None. All the local gun laws would be gone. This is a big city, people. The reason big cities have gun laws of the kind that you will not find in Kentucky is because of the difference--the differences we all respect in our country. Moreover, public safety--think about it--is the quintessential local concern. You depend upon your own local officials who know you best, and whom you have elected to deal first and foremost with public safety. Nobody would try to tell somebody what to do about public safety in her own district. Yet that is what Representative Massie tried to do. This is in spite of the fact that in 1973, though not yet for statehood, the Congress of the United States, recognizing how un-American it was to try to pass laws or to interfere with the laws of a local jurisdiction, devolved local lawmaking authority to the residents of the District of Columbia. Until this year, most Members on both sides of the aisle had respected that. To be sure, we have had to fight them off in prior years, but we had a long run where nobody tried to interfere with the local laws of the District of Columbia. Thus, it was surprising to us that Representative Massie, who is a Tea Party Republican, who stands first and foremost for localism, would leave those principles when it came to the District of Columbia and try to interfere with local matters in this city. We had the same thing happen to another colleague, a Republican from Maryland, who should have known better, who has a particular distaste for the decriminalization of marijuana laws that is happening all over the United States--18 States so far, plus legalization in two States-- so he tried to get a law and passed a bill, that we now have kept from getting through the Senate, that would block the District's recently passed marijuana decriminalization law. Our law would require that it be a fine rather than a conviction for possessing marijuana. The District didn't do this for the reason that some States, the 18 States, perhaps some of them did--although some of them may have done it for the same reason we did it. Blacks and Whites use marijuana at the same rate in the United States and in D.C. Yet in the District, 90 percent of those who had criminal convictions for possessing small amounts of marijuana were Black. Half the population is Black; half is White. These laws have had an obvious racial effect. I am not for smoking anything, but I must tell you I also don't believe that people ought to have a criminal conviction because they possessed marijuana any more than they ought to have a criminal conviction for possessing alcohol. In any case, whatever you think, that is not your business, it is a local matter, and the District ought to have the same right when it comes to local matters as they have. This was Representative Andy Harris. What was ironic about his trying to block the District's marijuana decriminalization laws is that he couldn't block it in his own State of Maryland, which has decriminalized marijuana. Perhaps what pointed most to the need for statehood this year was what the District went through this past appropriation period when it almost got shut down, not because of anything the city had done, but because this House and this Senate shut down. The District was an innocent bystander, but because the Congress still requires that the District's local budget pass through this House and Senate--the budget was here a budget of $7 billion, raised by the people and the businesses I represent, not one dime of it Federal money, a balanced budget, the likes of which the Federal Government has not seen since the Clinton administration, $1.5 billion in reserves, and there is virtually no State in the Union that has that kind of reserves--and yet when the Federal Government shut down, the District of Columbia was in jeopardy of shutting down--this despite the fact that I have a shutdown avoidance bill, that shutdown avoidance was in the President's budget, but not passed. The mayor did the right thing, for the first time in American history. He refused to shut down. What are you going to do to him? What he did instead was to keep the District open, but pay for our employees and our services out of contingency funds. Those funds were almost exhausted before the Federal Government finally opened up, and the District finally didn't have to worry about spending its contingency funds and got its local budget. If you face our citizens with that kind of challenge over time, obviously, they begin to feel that they have to find a remedy. Yes, residents have been trying to find a remedy for more than 200 years, and there are interesting historical reasons why it hasn't happened, but whatever those reasons are, the time is at hand when it is impossible to call yourself the United States of America, which stands for equality for citizens throughout the world, and not begin to apply that same principle to the people who live in your own Nation's Capital. We have been preparing for this hearing for some time. We took particular pains on what is called D.C. Emancipation Day. D.C. celebrates this day, April 16, every year because it is the day that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in the District of Columbia before the slaves were freed in other parts of the country. DC Emancipation Day, the District's way of saying there is an absence of freedom that still exists in your own Nation's Capital. As Emancipation Day came--by chance, the U.N. Human Rights Committee issued a report indicating that the denial of voting rights in the House and Senate to the residents of the District of Columbia was a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty which the United States signed in 1992. So let's be clear: by not granting equal citizenship rights to the people who live in the Nation's Capital, the United States, this Congress, is in violation of international law. On Emancipation Day, I did not come to the floor to speak about the slaves. That was then; this is now. It has always been interesting to me because my great-grandfather was a runaway slave from Virginia and was in the District of Columbia on Emancipation Day, but Emancipation Day cannot be about nostalgia. The residents of the District of Columbia put it to good use. I thought what I ought to do was, in preparation for what I knew Senator Carper wanted to do, to come to the floor to speak about why we should have statehood--what is it about the residents of the District of Columbia that merited statehood? Well, first, let's start with the most elementary of qualifications, and that is the population. Yes, this is a city. Yes, it is called a district. It is the District of Columbia. Yes, we have a population equal to, but in this case, larger than the population of two States that have two Senators and, by the way, a Member, one Member, to represent the entire State, just like I represent the residents of the District of Columbia--the states are Vermont and Wyoming, one in the West and one in the East. What does that say to you? It says the Framers believed in equality. They wanted everybody to have representation in the House and the Senate. When there was a dispute between the large and the small States, they made a compromise and gave the small States equal representation in the Senate and what amounts to per capita representation here. There is no question that there are enough people here for statehood. I mention Vermont and Wyoming because we are larger than those States, but there are half a dozen States which have a population about equal to that of the District of Columbia. That is the first qualification. Let's take a look at the one that will probably get the attention of more Americans than any others, and that is taxes paid. On our license plate, you will see the words ``taxation without representation.'' Let's put that in dollars and cents. We are not just talking about paying taxes without representation. I am talking about paying more taxes per capita than any other jurisdiction without representation, almost $12,000 per resident of the District of Columbia in taxes paid to support the Federal Government, which does not reciprocate with voting representation in the House and the Senate. I have the vote in committee. As the representative of the District of Columbia, I have the same rights to come to this floor and to do everything else that other Members do, except that which is emblematic of my citizenship and the citizenship of the people I represent, and that, of course, is the final vote on the House floor. This poster is simply a graph to show you the vast differences in taxes per capita paid throughout the United States. It goes from $12,000 down to Mississippi, which pays--Mississippi citizens pay $4,000 per capita to the Federal Government, with the same rights that those who pay more, as should be the case, and it should also be the case that those of us who live in the Nation's Capital, who pay more and more than all others, should have the same rights as all others. Just to dig down further into what this means, Vermont, which I indicated is a State somewhat smaller than the District, pays about half the taxes, $6,000 per resident. Wyoming pays $8,000 per resident. These are both compared to our $12,000. California, if you look at the large States of the Union, pays $8,000 per person compared to the District of Columbia's $12,000 per person. Perhaps of all of the qualifications for statehood, none is more worthy of mention than the sacrifices District of Columbia residents have made throughout the more than 200 years of our existence as the Nation's Capital for our country in the wars of the United States, often suffering casualties above and beyond those of States that are considerably larger in population than the District of Columbia. So let's look at some of the major wars of the 20th century. In World War I, there were more D.C. casualties than in three States of the Union. In World War II, there were more D.C. casualties than in four States of the Union. In the Korean war, there were more D.C. casualties than eight States of the Union. In the Vietnam war, there were more casualties than 10 States of the Union. There is a memorial for the 635 D.C. residents who died in World War I on The Mall. It is in that sacrifice that we feel most dishonored as a jurisdiction. How could our country continue to send our residents to war without granting those who go to war, often to get rights for others, the same rights that we afford every citizen of our own country? All of the essential elements, even the one that is hardest to endure without full equality, all of the elements of citizenship have long been made by the residents of the District of Columbia, as well as all of the elements of statehood. So why not statehood? That is a fair question. What was wrong with the Framers? Why didn't they make the District of Columbia a State in the first place? Well, nothing was wrong with the Framers. The District of Columbia is a historic anomaly. It is a figment of history and an incident in history that could not happen today. The reason the District of Columbia is not a State is an accident that must be corrected. The accident came out of the meeting of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1783. There were some angry Revolutionary War soldiers. They did what citizens do. I must say, though, that they went not only to petition the Continental Congress, but they took their guns with them. And while it is not said that a shot was fired, they did point their guns at the windows where the Continental Congress was meeting. Well, the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia authorities didn't know what to do. They didn't want to go out after the Revolutionary War heroes, so the Continental Congress said: We better get out of here. So they fled Philadelphia. Well, that stuck in the Framers' minds. They said: My goodness, States are not going to protect us, so I guess we must have a District that is controlled entirely by the Federal Government. Well, when I say that it is an accident of history, do understand that that history is long gone. The way in which we protect the Nation's Capital today is the same way it would be protected in the event of statehood. The Federal Government, and the District of Columbia government--after all, it is the same area of land--get together to protect the District, whether it is from 9/11 or from any other threat. You can't rest, then, on any notion that the Framers intended to have any residents who did not have equal rights. The existence of a jurisdiction that did not have full and equal rights was not in the capacity of the Framers to envision. Those who fought the Revolutionary War lived in the Nation's Capital, those parts of Maryland and Virginia which became the Nation's Capital. The brilliant Framers realized that they did not have all the answers. They had every reason to think that this would be fixed. And one reason we know that they understood that things could get fixed--shame on us that for over 200 years we haven't fixed this moral outrage--one reason we know that they understood it could be fixed is what they did to make the residents of the Nation's Capital equal in the first place. During the 10-year transition from the territory in Maryland and Virginia to form the Nation's Capital, the Framers did not want those residents to be left without their equal rights for even one second. So while they had jurisdiction, they saw to it that during that transition period when they weren't really a part of Maryland and Virginia and weren't really a part of the new Capital, they would retain their rights. Those people who lived in Maryland and Virginia who were on their way to becoming the Nation's Capital still voted in those two States and had every single right preserved until jurisdiction passed to the United States Congress. And that is when tyranny set in--the tyranny of not having that representation carried over under the jurisdiction of the Congress. In 1801, when we became the Nation's Capital, the people of the District of Columbia went into the streets to demand their rights. They have been in the streets demanding their full rights ever since, as any red-blooded Americans would be. Mr. Speaker, we have tried every route, some of it more gradual than others, to pursue and to obtain our full rights as American citizens. We have tried voting rights for the House, voting rights for the House and Senate, all other ways--budget autonomy, legislative autonomy. Even if we had gotten those, they would have been insufficient, but it says everything about the shortcomings of the Congress that even those insufficient routes to statehood are not yet a part of our law. On September 15, there will be a full jurisdictional Senate hearing. That hearing will take place next Monday. That hearing will set an important guidepost. It will educate many in the Senate and House and many in our country about what the people of the District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital, do not now have and what they are entitled to. There can be no doubt that no American would believe that those who pay taxes as they do should not have the same representation in the House and Senate that they do. There isn't any American who would say that the funds that are locally raised in your local jurisdiction should come to the Congress of the United States for any reason. I do not believe that our problem lies with the people of our country. I do believe that many of them are not fully aware that their own Capital is less free than any part of our country. So what we will hear on next Monday is not all about the moral reasons; some of them, of course, but also the reasons that go to our creed as Americans and go to practical matters such as whether the Federal government should be able to close down the District of Columbia when they have a disagreement among themselves at the Federal level. We will hear not only the moral reasons, but the practical reasons for statehood. So, Mr. Speaker, we seek statehood in the name of the people I represent, perhaps even more so in the name of the thousands of American citizens who happened to live in the District of Columbia and went to war for their country in Germany, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq but never came home, and in the name of those who will once again protect our country now that the President has indicated that we ourselves must take on the fight against ISIS. On this 9/11, as we remember those innocent people who died simply because they happened to be in New York and Pennsylvania, I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Congress remember the 650,000 people who live in the Nation's Capital, who are proud of their residency in the District of Columbia, many of whom, like me, a third-generation Washingtonian, are proud of their lineage in the Nation's Capital. In the name of all those I represent, I ask for statehood for the District of Columbia so that our residents may have equal citizenship, those same rights which led the Founders of our country to create the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, for his work to try to get us a fully funded bill, that I am sure the chairman desired as well. But I must say, Madam Speaker, we have shored up the highway trust fund four times since 2008--four patches, this would be the fifth-- until May. Everyone knows what we are doing. We are setting ourselves up for another series of short-term extensions. We don't dare leave the trust fund insolvent--not us. But we don't have the guts to help our own States get on with urgently needed projects. Short-term funding is like no funding. Where is the dissent on this traditionally bipartisan bill, the highway bill. It is certainly not in the States. It is in the Republican Conference, where they have a crisis among some of their members who believe that spending money on anything is an original sin, even at the demand of their own constituents. Madam Speaker, I don't have the figures from my own district, so I give you some figures from the State of Arkansas, which I chose at random, to indicate what this bill means for the States. Arkansas relies for about 70 percent of its transportation funding on this bill. However, it has put off 15 projects, even with this bill coming. I am quoting from its Highway and Transportation Department: We don't feel comfortable going forward with these projects because we are not sure if the highway trust fund will be resolved in time to fully see these projects to completion. That is the position you are leaving the States in.

Ms. NORTON. An official from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association spoke about what this funding does. He said: If you have your money coming in on an almost annual or every other year basis, subject to being shut down by Congress, you cannot make long-term investments and hire people. The tragedy of these patches is they have a human face: millions of construction workers now working on a piecework basis. The differences between the House and the Senate are easily reconcilable. The Senate passed their bill 79-18. What is wrong with this House? In the past, we would have gotten these differences resolved. There has been plenty of time since MAP-21. If 2 years has not been enough, what in the world do we think the next 8 or 9 months will mean? Time is not the problem; will is. Let's spend this time in the recess getting a long-term bill, as our States are demanding.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the Hillcrest Community Civic Association (HCCA) on its 25th anniversary, which will be celebrated in September. Ward 7's Belva T. Simmons, was the founder and 1st president of the HCCA. The idea for the HCCA was conceived on the front lawn of Dennis and Gloria Logan, on August 8, 1989, National Night Out Against Crime. The HCCA past and current Presidents are: Belva Simmons, Paul Savage, Pastor Franklin G. Singer, HI, Vincent Spaulding, and Karen Lee Williams. Located just east of the Anacostia River in Ward 7, Hillcrest is a beautiful and increasingly diverse neighborhood. Among its residents are D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray, former Metropolitan Police Chief Isaac Fulwood, former U.S. Marshal James Palmer, and other notable public figures, as well as teachers, doctors, lawyers, government workers, civic leaders, professionals, retirees, and blue collar workers. In the early 1900s, Hillcrest was referred to as part of East Washington Heights. The initial developer, Andrew Randle and his United States Realty Company, is responsible for establishing the Pennsylvania Avenue southeast gateway that paved the way for development of Hillcrest under the Alger Company. Both early developers had inserted into some of the residential property deeds racial covenants to preclude African Americans from renting or purchasing homes in East Washington Heights. In fact, these deplorable covenants continue to remain as burdens on the land, but cannot be enforced due to a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case known as Hurd vs. Hodge. HCCA is a proud force joining members together in a community that stands for equality, diversity, civic pride and fellowship, while opposing crime and threats to its beloved community. HCCA has adopted Beers, Randle Highlands, and Winston Elementary schools. HCCA has partnered with the Palisades Community Civic Association. The community continues to grow and acquire new members and diversify. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the Hillcrest Community Civic Association of Ward 7 on 25 years in the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Restore Opportunity, Strengthen, and Improve the Economy (ROSIE) Act. Millions of workers are part of the ``federally dependent workforce'' and hold low-wage jobs with federal contractors. Seventy percent of these workers are women and 45 percent are people of color. With so many workers dependent on federal contracts, the federal government has the ability to use its purchasing power to incentivize private-sector firms to create good jobs for American workers, rebuild the middle class, address income inequality, and invigorate the economy by increasing the purchasing power of working Americans. Under the bill, Congress finds that the disappearance of good jobs, the shrinking of the middle class, and growing income inequality are the greatest domestic challenges confronting our nation. The federal government is the largest purchaser of goods and services in the nation's private-sector economy, spending over $1.5 trillion annually at firms that employ a quarter of American workers. Federal purchasing power is currently creating millions of poverty-level jobs, subsidizing labor-law-breakers, and funding ballooning executive compensation. The bill also notes that the federal government is our nation's leading creator of low-wage jobs in the private sector, funding more than two-million jobs paying under 12 dollars per hour. The federal government awards taxpayer dollars to a substantial number of firms that violate federal labor, employment and occupational safety laws, and its purchasing subsidizes the excessive salaries of private-sector executives who do business with the American people. When federal purchasing power is used in such a manner, workers have less to spend on the necessities of life and are forced to rely on public assistance. Lack of purchasing power hurts job creation and undermines economic growth, ultimately imposing significant costs on American taxpayers. Federal purchasing power can and should be used to create good jobs, rebuild the middle class, and curb rising income inequality. These good jobs would allow workers and their families to live in dignity without relying on public assistance or private charity, and would pay enough to provide for subsistence, healthcare, education, housing and savings, as well as enough disposable income to allow workers to enjoy quality time off with their loved ones. Federal purchasing power can and should be used to rebuild the middle class. A strong middle class stimulates the economy by increasing consumer spending and job growth. Federal purchasing power can and should be used to narrow the growing gulf between the richest one percent of the population and ordinary working families, which is threatening the survival of our participatory democracy. The bill directs the Secretary of Labor to promulgate regulations implementing Good Jobs Model Employer Standards. Under these standards, whenever an executive agency awards a contract for the acquisition of supplies or services, it shall not award the contract to a source that is not a Good Jobs Model Employer, unless there is no offer from a source that is a model employer. An executive agency could not provide other forms of financial or nonfinancial assistance to entities that are not model employers when there is a similarly situated Good Jobs Model Employer that could receive the assistance, unless doing so would substantially undermine the value of the assistance to the public. These provisions do not apply to direct federal statutory requirements, mandatory awards, direct awards to foreign governments or public international organizations, benefits to an individual as a personal entitlement, or federal employment. The bill defines a Good Jobs Model Employer as an employer that meets the following standards: (1) respects employees' rights to bargain collectively with their employers without being forced to take strike action to win better wages and working conditions; (2) offers to each employee living wages, decent benefits including, health care, paid leave for sickness and caregiving, and fair work schedules that are predictable and stable; (3) affirmatively demonstrates an exemplary standard of compliance with workplace protection laws, including laws governing labor relations, wages and hours and health and safety, as well as other applicable labor laws; (4) limits executive compensation to fifty times the median salary paid to the company's workers; (5) employs a workforce not less than 35 percent of which reside within one or more Historically Underutilized Business Zones; and (6) subcontracts only with other Good Jobs Model Employers. This bill is just one step in lifting millions of Americans out of poverty and into the middle class. These contracting requirements will incentivize, rather than penalize, employers to raise their workplace standards to retain much sought-after federal contracts. They will also provide savings to the federal government by lowering the cost of the federal safety net because fewer workers will be reliant on federal benefits. With these standards, Demos has estimated an annual benefit savings of approximately $3.3 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, $3.1 billion for Medicaid, and $2.5 billion for the Earned Income Tax Credit. Ultimately, the ROSIE Act will uplift our workers and benefit our entire country. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I introduce the Department of Energy Forrestal Complex Redevelopment Act to direct the General Services Administrator (GSA) to redevelop this site using its authorities to enter into public-private partnerships in accordance with the National Capital Planning Commission's (NCPC) Southwest (SW) Ecodistrict Plan. The Department of Energy (DOE) Forrestal Complex is located at 1000 Independence Avenue SW., and has the potential to serve as a gateway to renewed development in this section of the National Mall area in downtown Washington. For many years, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management have expressed concern about excess federal property, wasteful spending, energy efficiency, and space utilization practices. This bill, which would maximize use of valuable, centrally located land for public and private uses, responds to this concern. GSA and DOE have been assessing the needs of the DOE and any costs and benefits associated with disposing of the assets at the complex. In the last few months, GSA released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for two of its properties in close proximity to the DOE Forrestal Complex, the Cotton Annex and the GSA Regional Office Building, which are part of the SW Ecodistrict Plan. Portions of the Forrestal Complex lie between these two parcels, and their redevelopment will aid the in the realization of the SW Ecodistrict Plan, which has been embraced by the NCPC and the District of Columbia. Redevelopment of the Forrestal Complex will enable mixed-use development, and it would accommodate the uses agreed to in the SW Ecodistrict Plan. The plan includes a modern headquarters for DOE that combines reduced but more efficient utilization of federal government office space, more sustainable practices to preserve energy and water, and the possible location of a nationally significant museum or memorial. In addition, it would bring the SW Ecodistrict closer to fruition. I urge my colleagues to support this timely, important legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it is virtually mandatory that I come to the floor this afternoon because the two most serious, antidemocratic, and anti-home rule amendments are pending in this House. I am very hopeful that they will not be sustained when the full Congress gets a look at them, but they certainly have passed this House: an amendment from Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky that attempts to wipe out, eliminate, all the gun laws of the Nation's Capital--the Nation's Capital, a prime terrorist target; the Nation's Capital, where Cabinet members lunch in our public places, go to our theaters, and walk in our streets; the Nation's Capital, where there are 650,000 residents; the Nation's Capital, one of the big cities of America, and it is those big cities where gun violence is most likely to occur. That is the amendment from Representative Massie. Then there is another amendment from Representative Andy Harris, an amendment that flies in the face of what is occurring across the country, of course, as 18 States long before the District of Columbia decriminalized their marijuana laws. So, too, has the District of Columbia. But this Member is seeking to meddle in the affairs of the District of Columbia--the local affairs, local matters--and to somehow keep the local legislature from passing a local law just like the laws of those 18 States. Now, I hasten to add that the Senate, the comparable subcommittee in the Senate, has considered this matter, and the Senate has passed what we call a clean bill, a clean appropriations bill for the District of Columbia. Of course, there is a kind of anomaly here. Why am I talking about the District of Columbia at all? Well, that is an anomaly that allows the District's budget--every cent of it raised in the District of Columbia--to somehow come here to be approved by Members that are unaccountable for having raised a cent of that budget. So, yes, the Senate had to consider the District's budget. By the way, our D.C. budget is balanced. The D.C. budget has a large amount of revenue in excess of its annual taxes, a rainy day fund that would be the envy of most Members of this House, and yet it has to come to a House that has hardly been able to pass bills much less balance its budget. So the Senate says we recognize you can handle your own affairs, like any other American jurisdiction, and they have quickly passed or approved the District's local budget. In addition, the Senate has also given the District both autonomy over its own budget so it wouldn't have to come the Congress in the first place, and what we call legislative autonomy. In addition to having to bring its local budget here, the residents of the District of Columbia, when they pass their local laws, those local laws have to rest here for a certain period of time to see if there is any Member who wants to jump up and ask to overturn them. However, usually the process of overturning a local law of the District of Columbia does not come through regular order, through the House and Senate, although there is such a process that is allowed. It usually comes in the way in which Representative Massie and Representative Harris have interfered with the District. They simply try to use an amendment to an appropriation bill in order to overturn a District law, a kind of shortcut method. Of course, if one looks at why the District budget is over here, the American people would be, I think, pleased to know that no one, not one Member looks at the budget. They recognize that they are incompetent to do so, not because they are inherently incompetent, but because nobody would want to look at somebody else's budget if they have not had the opportunity to go through what they have gone through, and that is all of the hearings and the rest of it. So Congress doesn't care about the budget. They have the budget here in order to use it as a vehicle to overturn local laws, and that is what has happened with the gun amendment and with the marijuana decriminalization amendment. Now, I want to speak about both responses from residents and about what these Members have done. The gun amendment is the most serious because what Representative Thomas Massie from Kentucky has tried to do affects the lives and the public safety of the residents of this city. This is something you don't fool with. The reason that the Framers left such local matters, public safety, to local people, is because of what is at stake. Nobody in Washington, that is to say official Washington, can tell anyone in someone's hometown anything that they should want to hear about their own local public safety. As it turns out, the District of Columbia is very proud of its low crime rate, its low gun violence rate, because like other big cities, earlier on, within the last 15 or 20 years, it was like other big cities. It had high gun violence rates, but those have been brought down. And you can imagine that in a big city, keeping the city safe from gun violence is a very big deal, particularly when that city turns out not to be just any city, when it turns out to be the Capital of the United States. And yet what Representative Massie has done would make the District of Columbia the most permissive gun jurisdiction in the United States. What is almost laughable, if it weren't so tragic, is that, were his amendment to become law, the District of Columbia would have a more permissive set of gun laws than Representative Massie's own district in Kentucky. This gentleman lives in a county of 17,000 people. He is a cattle farmer. That is a different culture that I respect in his county, and yes, in his State. All the people of the District of Columbia are demanding is the same kind of respect, reciprocal respect, and that is what you don't get when a Member decides not to attend to the business of his own State, but knowing nothing about your State, saying not one mumbling word to you, who represent the District, the only Member who represents this district, or to any local official, when you then decide in the most tyrannical way to use authority that essentially even this Congress never intended you to have because 40 years ago the Congress passed the Home Rule Act. It recognized when the country was, frankly, being criticized for not using the same standard with its own Capital that it demands of the rest of the world. Its own Capital didn't even have a local government, a home rule government. It was ruled by three commissioners. The people of the District couldn't elect their government. It had no Member of Congress. What kind of democracy is that in your Nation's Capital? Well, Congress said that is not democracy. So Members can cite all they want about the Constitution, which indeed said that because it is the Nation's Capital, there is jurisdiction in the Congress. But nothing in the Constitution said that Congress had to keep that jurisdiction and could never give the District democracy, and so it did. The Home Rule Act of 1973, with that act, from this Congress, this Congress said we shall no longer be the tyrannical lawmakers for people unaccountable to us, making laws for people who can't vote for us or against us. We give that up because it is inconsistent with our values of democracy, and we say it to the world: we give it up now. And so they did. So any Member who tries to say we have the authority, it is like any tyrant in the world who says because I can do it, I am going to do it. Yes, you can do it if you want to betray your own principles. Now, I note for the Record that these Members profess to be Tea Party Republicans. Their major standard in this Congress is that power, even power that the Federal Government legitimately has, shall be devolved, sent back to local jurisdictions and to States. How can you call yourself a small government, local government, states' rights Republican and then be instrumental in putting the big foot of the Federal Government on a local jurisdiction--as it turns out, your own Nation's Capital--and just to make this more absurdly antidemocratic, in a Congress where that Member cannot even vote up or down on the Harris amendment or on the Massie amendment. If, my friends, that is not tyranny, then the word has no meaning. Unaccountable, and you stand in the way of making the only Member who represents the District, where you are interfering, making her unaccountable too with no vote on this floor--is this America? No, it is the Tea Party Republican Congress. The gun amendment that has been introduced by Representative Massie as a bald attempt to score political points, and he says so--I will quote from his own statement shortly--to make political points at the expense of states' rights, the rights of my own constituents, and most seriously, at the expense of their public safety. What is Representative Thomas Massie trying to do here in Washington, instead of finding things to do for the people of Kentucky? Well, this is what he is trying to do in the Nation's Capital: to allow carrying on the streets a gun, open or concealed, of any kind; assault weapon, any kind, no holds; allowing assault weapons, including .50-caliber sniper weapons, to be possessed; allowing magazines holding an unlimited number of bullets to be possessed. Do you know how many motorcades of cars go through the streets of the Nation's Capital every single day carrying dignitaries at every level of government from across the world? They stop the traffic because the safety of these officials is so important to the Nation and to the world. So we are not only talking about our own Cabinet officials, we are talking about 20 million people who visit this city, prime ministers, heads of states. Let me go on about what kind of gun atmosphere Mr. Massie wants here in the Nation's Capital. Private sale of guns without any background checks. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry, rogue or criminal, could get a gun and bring it into the Nation's Capital. The purchase of guns with no waiting period. The purchase of an unlimited number of guns in one day. That is what he wants here in one of the big cities, the Nation's Capital. Well, all he has done is bring unintended confusion. He certainly has gotten a response from the city. The mayor of the city, the police chief was out of town but her assistant chief came to this House and held a press conference about the outrage of interfering with the chief and most important duty of the mayor and the police chief: keeping the streets of the District safe. But this amendment isn't quite doing what Mr. Massie intended. In fact, both of these amendments, the Harris marijuana decriminalization amendment and the Massie amendment, show why amendments to appropriations bills really aren't the way to proceed. It is true that you can try to introduce a bill to accomplish the same thing, but amendments to appropriations contain a few words and they end up doing things you never expected. This was a 69-word appropriation rider that tries to overturn four complicated laws; you just can't do it with an amendment and get done what you are trying to do. This is what we found. We are still looking at the implications of the Massie amendment. It appears that Thomas Massie has made some of our laws less restrictive and some more restrictive. Then there is another interpretation that says that the city may be left with only laws that have been declared unconstitutional, and of course, those are unenforceable. Then looking at the language, another reading says that the amendment has not only blocked the four complicated gun laws intended, but has also blocked enforcement of laws that these laws amended, and these laws amended laws that have been found unconstitutional. That is just how complicated this is. Now, what I think I have shown is that it is technically impossible to do what Thomas Massie tried to do in 69 words. Never mind, though, if all you are bent on is undemocratically poking, inserting yourself into a district not your own, you are bound to make mistakes. In order to do what Thomas Massie wanted to do, he would have had to write a law as complicated as the District of Columbia's own carefully- wrought laws--gun laws are. Remember, their laws had to be redeveloped because of the Supreme Court decision that said that D.C.'s original laws were not constitutional, so they went back and revised their laws, and they came up with, yes, strict gun laws. There have been challenges to those gun laws. The Federal courts have upheld the District's gun registration requirement, the Federal courts have upheld the District's assault weapons ban, and the Federal courts have upheld the District's ban on large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. Why in the world would anyone have gone to court against those in the first place, I am not sure, but anybody who reads the Supreme Court decision as saying you can carry any gun, anywhere you want to, ought to read it again. All the Supreme Court said was that you are allowed to have and own a gun in your own home, period. That is all the Supreme Court has said-- not to carry those guns into the streets of big cities where gun tragedies occur on a frequent basis. I make no challenge to where my colleagues stand on guns. I believe in a country full of diversity of all kinds. If you look at the great United States from East to West, with its extraordinary diverse geography, you can understand why there would be vast differences among residents on issues like guns. Why in the world would we not want to respect those differences? This is the United States of America. It means, in the States & D.C., we have the freedom to entertain differences and to carry them out there. That is all the residents of the District of Columbia are asking-- indeed, demanding. Wherever you stand on guns is no business of mine, and I will never try to convince you in your own State how to behave with those guns. All that the people I represent are asking is that we be accorded the same respect. Representative Massie came on this floor initially with a version of his gun amendment. The Speaker sitting there before him found his amendment to be out of order. It was unartfully written. Normally, if your own party--the Speaker in the chair is from his party, the majority controls the floor--if your own Speaker says that your amendment is out of order, that is the end of it. To understand the kind of Member we are dealing with--his own Speaker had ruled his amendment out of order--the sensible thing to do is what he was finally forced to do, go back, go to the staff who knows how to write these amendments, and say: write me an amendment that won't be out of order. Instead, he stood his ground and said he wanted a vote to overrule his own Speaker, that his amendment was out of order. That so embarrassed his colleagues on the other side that people gathered around him trying to convince him he really didn't want to do that, there was another way, go back and rewrite your amendment. What began as stubbornness was becoming a matter of embarrassment for the Republican majority because a vote to overrule the Speaker demands an immediate vote of the House. It was now 7 or 8 at night. Members had been told there would be no more votes, so they were scattered throughout the region, in Maryland, in Virginia, and the far reaches of the District of Columbia. Had, indeed, they been called back, the most angry Member would not have been me, it would have been his own colleagues. Finally, unable to convince him to accept the ruling of the Chair-- and the people of Kentucky ought to know what kind of Member they sent here and perhaps do something about it--instead of accepting the technical problem and going back forthrightly and dealing with it, he demanded a vote anyway. The vote could only be called a humiliation of the Member because the votes were by voice and both sides voted against the Member's amendment, including his own side over there, and the only one to vote for his amendment was him. So what he did finally is what he had to do. He went back, and he rewrote his amendment, and, of course, he has come back, and it passed, but with the unintended and confused consequences I just indicated. This is a Member, I say to the people of Kentucky, who has introduced all of six bills--just by way of comparison only, because you can't be judged by the number of bills you introduce--but he has introduced six, I have introduced 64. The difference is I have spent my time asking: What do my constituents need? I bet the people of Mr. Massie's district in Kentucky need more than an amendment likely not to prevail at the end of the Congress that overturns all the gun laws in the Nation's Capital. Indeed, I want to know what that does for one single resident of Thomas Massie's district. He was asked by the press: Why would you do this? He said: Because I want to try to restore gun rights anywhere I can. He thinks he can here, despite the Home Rule Act, where Congress gave up the authority to pass laws for the District of Columbia. Well, he had an opportunity twice since the D.C. amendment passed to try to restore gun rights any way he could. A congressional staff member was arrested here in the House just a few days ago for bringing a gun into the Capitol complex. This person has been arrested. I can't believe, since he is a staffer, he intended to bring it here, but the law is the law, whether you are a staffer or a visitor. Why hasn't Thomas Massie introduced a bill here where nobody could say he lacks jurisdiction, a bill to allow guns to be brought into the House of Representatives? I challenge him, if he means what he says, that he wants to at least try to restore gun rights ``anywhere I can,'' then he must begin where he lives, right here on the House floor, so that no staff member will be embarrassed again. Here, at least, those who would be affected are accountable to him, as the residents I represent are not. It looks like--if you were to judge by these incidents all within a week's time--there are people who believe that Representative Massie meant what he said because just a couple of days ago, a man--yet again, from South Carolina--brought a loaded Ruger LC9 semiautomatic pistol with a round in the chamber, into the Capitol complex, and he too was arrested, because it is a Federal law, 40 U.S.C. 5104, which makes it an offense to carry a gun in the Capitol complex with a penalty up to 5 years of imprisonment. Do you want to do something for the people of Kentucky who may visit here or the people of America? Here is a law that Thomas Massie has full jurisdiction to overturn, so I challenge him--if Thomas Massie is looking for a way to restore gun rights ``anywhere I can,'' I challenge you to at least introduce such a bill here, if for no other reason, for consistency's sake. Don't think that what Mr. Massie has done has not been noted in Kentucky. I am quoting from a Kentucky TV station--and maybe this is partly inexperience because we don't see more experienced Members who may agree with Mr. Massie coming forward so recklessly--but this Kentucky staffer says: First-term Republican Representative Thomas Massie said it is his business to try to overturn Washington, D.C.'s gun control laws. Then it says--and this is a straight-out news report: Massie's congressional district stretches from eastern Jefferson County, Oldham, Shelby, and Spencer Counties, all the way to the West Virginia border. If the libertarian Republican has his way, his influence will stretch to the District of Columbia's gun laws. That is how it was reported in Kentucky. There is an irony here that is not lost in his home State. Take the Courier-Journal in Kentucky, which ran an editorial that was headlined, ``Big foot government.'' It says, ``A couple of Members of Kentucky's congressional delegation who claim to want government out of our lives want to force more of it on the District of Columbia. Tea Party favorites''--they also name Rand Paul because he has introduced a bill (not an appropriation amendment) that has been set back in the Senate, but his is an entire bill to overturn the gun laws of the Nation's Capital. Rand Paul wants to be President of the United States, and he is putting in bills, by the way, that are far softer than the gun bill-- bills that you might expect from the Democratic side--in order to try to make Independents and Democrats think that he is more acceptable than his words have indicated he is in the past. Continuing, The Courier-Journal, the biggest newspaper in Kentucky, says that the two of them, ``libertarian-leaning Republicans, are pushing measures in Congress to roll back Washington, D.C.'s strict gun laws adopted by its officials to try to reduce gun violence in the nation's capital.'' It goes on, but let me quote from another part of that editorial. ``Too bad their concern doesn't extend to the right of residents of Washington to have a vote in Congress. The delegate from Washington has no floor vote, which means Ms. Norton could only complain about the gun measure, but not vote against it. That sounds like taxation without representation, something anyone who purports to love liberty ought to oppose.'' Mr. Speaker, not only taxation without representation, but the people I represent pay the highest taxes per capita to the Federal Government, $12,000 per resident, which is the highest in the United States. One ought to understand our outrage when people from Kentucky or Maryland or anywhere else in the country who pay less taxes try to tell us how to conduct our local affairs. The gun amendment certainly riled D.C. residents, but that amendment is one of only two such amendments. The other, of course, is the marijuana decriminalization law that I mentioned when I began. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that when the marijuana decriminalization law passed, along with the gun law, The Associated Press had an apt headline: ``Guns Okay, Pot Dangerous.'' That tells you something about the Republican House of Representatives. The residents of this region--where we have lived as one region--have built the same Metro and use the same Metro with taxes coming from the entire region, and even though we have differing views on many issues, we try to live as one region and not meddle into the affairs of our neighbors, so this marijuana amendment was a particular outrage because it came from a Maryland Representative. The first thing that the largest D.C. rights organization in D.C. did was to call for a boycott of the Eastern Shore, which Mr. Harris represents. The Eastern Shore lives off of Maryland, Virginia, and D.C., in the summertime. They have got to make it then, or the Eastern Shore isn't going to make it for the rest of the year. When D.C. Vote called for a boycott, it suggested that residents choose Rehoboth Beach, Delaware; or Chincoteague Island, Virginia; but not the Eastern Shore because it said: They don't support us; why should we support them? Of course, there will be allies across the region who will hear that call and who will not go to the Eastern Shore this summer. Residents continue to try in other ways to say to Representative Harris: stay out of our affairs, attend to your own. Two dozen residents came here this week to file complaints with Representative Harris. They say he is acting like he is a member of the city council, so we are going to treat him like he is a member of the city council. So they brought their complaints one by one, and Representative Harris' chief of staff had to stand there to receive these complaints from the residents of the District of Columbia. Nathan Harrington, who is a teacher in the District of Columbia, said, now that he sees who has the power, he is coming to Rep. Harris because there are some vacant houses in his neighborhood and he demands that Representative Andy Harris take care of those vacant houses, right away. Andy Harris has got the power. He has shown us he has got the power. Mr. Harrington said: either he represents us or doesn't. If he doesn't, then stay out of our business. If he does, take care of those vacant houses. Representative Harris did not come forward to receive these complaints, but his chief of staff did stand there, with civility, and receive these office-hours complaints from D.C. Vote residents. There were a number of other complaints that came to Mr. Harris' office. A resident said they wanted more visible street signs. One resident said they want more bike lanes. If you have got somebody who can put the big foot of the Federal Government on your back, then surely he can do little things like get you some bike lanes. This may be tongue-in-cheek, but it does show you the residents of the District of Columbia are going to come at you in more ways than one, and yes, there is a sense of humor here, and then there is something very serious, like that boycott. To its credit, when the boycott of the Eastern Shore was initiated by D.C. Vote, it sent word to its local chamber of commerce and to its local commercial section that it had absolutely nothing against them, that many of us had enjoyed the Eastern Shore, but essentially, we were powerless here. I could note vote against the Harris amendment. I don't expect the residents of the District of Columbia to sit around and take it. You want to mess with us, we are going to mess with you. We are going to mess with you in your district, we are going to mess with you here. We are first-class American citizens. We are not going to take it. We are going to do everything we can to blanket your State about how you are meddling in our affairs, instead of taking care of your state's business. I didn't organize any of this. I am expressing the outrage of the people I represent, and let me tell you, while they made light with this constituent services day in Representative Harris' office, this is dead serious for us because our marijuana amendment wasn't passed because of some college students--and this is a big college town-- lobbied the council about pot. It was passed in the wake of two studies by very reputable organizations, The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the American Civil Liberties Union. They found that in this progressive town, 90 percent of those arrested for smoking marijuana were Black. I can't tell you exactly why, but it probably has a lot to do with where the police presence is most likely to be, but these figures fly in the face of figures that show that Blacks and Whites use marijuana at the same rate. I don't know whether Members appreciate what a ``drug'' offense--and that is what a marijuana offense is--means to a Black kid. It is the end of his working life. He is likely to carry around a stereotype based on his color and often his gender, if he is a Black boy or Black man. He won't be able to explain away this drug offense--marijuana offense. That is what got the city council to pass this law. So anyone who interferes with us on this issue is meddling with a serious racial issue in the District of Columbia, and we are demanding that you stay out of this very serious affair. The amendment was passed to combat racial injustice. Twenty-three States have legalized medical marijuana, 18 have decriminalized marijuana, and two States have legalized marijuana. We will not be treated differently from any other State in the Union. The one thing we demand is equal treatment. I must note that there is a growing sense among my Republican colleagues in this Congress that marijuana should no longer be criminally treated. We don't treat alcohol, which does far more harm, in a criminal fashion. While I am the last one to say smoke weed or cigarettes, I don't think people should get a criminal record for having done so. We do not see any consistency among my Republican colleagues. When the Harris amendment came in committee, Republicans voted for it, and I want to say something about those Republicans. Ken Calvert of California, Jeff Fortenberry, Jaime Herrera Beutler, David Joyce, David Valadao, Andy Harris--of course--and Mark Amodei, these members, along with Mr. Harris, violated their own limited, small government, local control, states' rights principles by voting in committee for the Harris amendment. I want to say a special word about Mark Amodei of Nevada because he exceeded other Members in hypocrisy. He joined a majority last month on the floor in favor of an amendment blocking the Federal Government from interfering with medical marijuana in those States which allow it-- because Nevada allows it. He didn't want the Federal Government interfering with what had been sanctioned by his own state, but he was quick to interfere with the local affairs on a related substance right afterwards. I call on my Republican colleagues to at least abide by their own principles and to show some consistency of principle. Also passed recently was an amendment that prevents the Federal Government from penalizing financial institutions that provide services to legal marijuana businesses. If you have got a marijuana business in your State and the State says it is okay, then the Federal Government cannot keep financial institutions from dealing in bank transactions with these local marijuana businesses. Forty-five Republicans voted for that amendment that passed. That is a large number of Republicans to cross the aisle in this House. The House has also voted to block the Drug Enforcement Administration from using funds to target medical marijuana operations in States where those operations are legal. Forty-nine Republicans voted for that. Be consistent. If you are going to vote to keep the Federal Government out of matters involving marijuana where your State has sanctioned its use, then apply that same principle to the District of Columbia. That is why the Associated Press said: ``House GOP to D.C.: Guns OK, pot dangerous.'' Like the Massie gun amendment, the Harris amendment had unintended consequences, too. The District of Columbia marijuana decriminalization is legal because the law has passed its layover period of 60 legislative days. At the end of that 60 days, the law became legal. Now, the Harris amendment--seeks to overturn it. What happens when you use a pre-loaded Federal political bomb against a local jurisdiction is clear from what has happened with Representative Harris' amendment. That amendment now would not only block the District from enforcing its laws, it would block the District from issuing the fines that, with a sense of responsibility, were put in the law for those who, for example, smoke marijuana on the streets. There are unintended consequences because you don't know what you are doing when you meddle in the business, the local business, of another jurisdiction. It is remarkable that Mr. Harris is a Club for Growth, Tea Party acolyte, who was known before he came here and is known now for his support of states' rights more than he is known for anything else; and it is remarkable to note that his own State, Maryland, has decriminalized marijuana. He is a Member who has the power in Maryland. Yet, he could not keep his own State from decriminalizing marijuana. So he tries to do in the District what he could not do in the State where he is accountable to the voters. A recent article on Mr. Harris and the District of Columbia when these residents Constituent Services Day in Representative Harris' office: I thought this media stunt was going to be a colossally goofball effort that had little to no effect on Harris or his views, and we still don't know if it will, but on that day, his employees were clearly rattled, so mission accomplished. Moreover, Harris--who also has said that, to District residents, Congress is their local legislature--missed an opportunity to come across as something beyond another guy stuffed in a suit, overreaching his boundaries. By leaving the completely manageable demonstration to his marginally prepared aides, his stance on what the city's drug policies should be came across as even more aloof and more nonsensical than ever. Look at how you are viewed. Think before you decide to insert yourself against your own professed--and often announced--principles into the affairs of a local jurisdiction not your own. I am here this afternoon to serve notice on these two Members--and we are not through with them yet--or on any other Members who come forward that, yes, you can vote when I can't, but you cannot keep the residents of the District of Columbia from doing what they can to show you and to show America that we will not be treated as second-class citizens in our own country, not by Thomas Massie, not by Andy Harris, not by any Member of the House or Senate. Don't expect us to just lie down and take it. No red-blooded American would take what these Members have tried to do to this city with the gun amendment and with the marijuana decriminalization amendment. In the name of your own principles--principles on which I agree that matters in the States and localities are for them, and my friends, maybe even some of the things we do here can better be done in the States--there is a democratic way to accomplish that mission, but it is not by an act of profound congressional bullying where you exert power to which even the local Member cannot respond except on this floor, with her voice--not even with a vote. When Thomas Massie decided that he wanted to overrule his chair, they didn't pull him off the floor. They let him have a vote. I will not have a vote on any matter affecting the District of Columbia. In the name of decency, if you are not going to give me a vote, stay out of the affairs of the District of Columbia. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Duke Ellington School of the Arts in the District of Columbia. The 40th Anniversary Celebration launched with a tribute concert at the Kennedy Center honoring co-founders Peggy Cooper Carfritz and the late Mike Malone. The Duke Ellington School, named in honor of the late great Duke Ellington, a Washington native, is one of the premier performing arts schools in the nation, and ranked the third Best School in the District of Columbia by U.S. News and World Report. Established in 1974, the Duke Ellington School of the Arts was designed to reflect the ``creative soul'' of the District as well as the cultural diversity of the United States. Its mission is to both nurture and inspire passion for arts and learning in talented students who might not otherwise have an opportunity to develop their artistic skills. The Duke Ellington School of the Arts is the only high school in the District that combines a full college-preparatory curriculum with professional arts training. Students are provided with training in areas such as dance, theater, literary media, museum studies, and instrumental or vocal music. The Duke Ellington School of the Arts strives to maintain a unique curriculum in which students are well equipped in both the arts and academia. The Duke Ellington School of the Arts has also produced distinguished alumni, among them mezzo-soprano opera singer Denyce Graves, screenwriter and comedian Dave Chappelle, CNN contributor Michaela Angela Davis, and a host of others who have contributed greatly to the nation's arts. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the Duke Ellington School of the Arts, and in wishing the school success in continuing its proud legacy in the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, The Federal Agency Snow Removal in the District of Columbia Act of 2014, which I introduce today, is a bill that I have worked on with the National Park Service (NPS), at its request, to create greater efficiency and to remove snow from federal agency property in the District of Columbia in the most efficient way. The bill amends a 1922 law by making federal agencies in the District responsible for the removal of snow and ice in public areas associated with their buildings instead of NPS. For years, agencies have taken this common-sense action in the District and assumed this responsibility, but the law has never been updated to reflect this practice, leaving NPS with legal liability. This bill simply brings the law in line with current practice. I ask that my colleagues support this no-cost bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Massie of Kentucky is not accountable to the residents of the District of Columbia, but he is offering an amendment to effectively wipe out all of the District's gun safety laws now and in the future. Even if one were to agree with him, his is an entirely inappropriate amendment on an appropriation bill. A pending bill right now in this House would accomplish this end. He is a Member of the majority. If he wants to end gun laws, he has the authority to bring that bill to the floor. This amendment is being offered by a Member who claims, at every turn, to support the principle of local control or local affairs, yet he is using the big foot of the Federal Government to overturn local laws. Turning to the amendment itself, if this amendment passes, every gun law in this big city--which shares the same gun violence issues with other big cities and is also the Nation's capital--would be gone. While we are still reviewing the full effects of this amendment, it appears to prohibit the District government, including the Metropolitan Police Department, from enforcing almost all of the gun laws of the District of Columbia, making the District perhaps the most permissive gun jurisdiction in the country. The D.C. government would not be able to stop a person from carrying, openly or concealed, an assault weapon, including a .50-caliber sniper rifle with a magazine holding an unlimited number of bullets on any street and in any building except, of course, Federal buildings, like the one where we now stand. You want to buy a gun in a private transaction without undergoing a background check? The D.C. government couldn't stop you if this bill passed. Angry, want to buy a gun right now with no waiting period? The D.C. government couldn't stop you. Want to buy 100 handguns today? The D.C. government couldn't stop you. Want to carry a gun in a D.C. government building, including a polling place or the DMV? The D.C. government couldn't stop you. Convicted of a violent misdemeanor this week and want to buy and carry a gun? The D.C. government couldn't stop you. Every single Federal court that has ruled on the constitutionality of the District's post-Heller gun laws has upheld them. They have upheld our assault weapons ban, upheld our ban on large capacity ammunition- feeding devices, and upheld our registration requirements. The Supreme Court only struck down D.C.'s effective gun ban law, holding only that a resident is entitled to have a gun in his home only. This bill goes well beyond the Supreme Court. It is a flagrant abuse of democracy by a Member who comes here with Tea Party principles that says power should be devolved to the local level. He is playing with the lives of American citizens who are not accountable to him, who live in my city, and he is playing with the lives of the Federal officials and visitors from across the country who we are charged to defend and protect while they are in our city.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our nation's community corrections professionals for the invaluable contribution they make to public safety and restorative justice throughout our country. In the District of Columbia and nearly every community across America, thousands of women and men serve as pretrial, probation and parole officers or officials. As public servants, these Americans commit themselves to helping improve the lives of those involved in the criminal justice system, which ultimately results in stronger and safer communities for all. In light of the value and contributions of pretrial and post- conviction supervision officers and entities, I am proud to stand in support and honor of Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision week, which commenced on Sunday, July 13, 2014, and will be celebrated through Saturday, July 19, 2014. I am sure that my congressional colleagues would agree with me that community corrections is an essential part of the American justice system. Our constituents who serve as community corrections professionals work tirelessly to uphold the law with dignity, while recognizing the right of the public to be protected from criminal activity. These individuals are responsible for supervising adult and juvenile offenders in the community. In many cases these trained professionals go above and beyond the call of duty by providing their clients supportive services or referrals to critical community-based resources, employment opportunities and housing programs Additionally, community corrections professionals provide services, support, and protection for victims, while continuously promoting the importance of crime prevention. Mr. Speaker, in the District of Columbia, community corrections and supervision services for D.C. Code offenders are carried out by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) and the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (PSA). CSOSA and PSA and their hundreds of pretrial and community supervision officers stand out as model community supervision agencies due to both their professionalism and their novel approach to enhancing public safety in the District of Columbia. CSOSA provides innovative criminal justice and community leadership through active strategic planning, trend awareness, and partnership building. On any given day, CSOSA is responsible for supervising approximately 13,000 individuals on probation, parole or supervised release, whereas PSA supervises roughly 20,000 defendants. The work that these agencies perform is vital and complex. Nevertheless, the community corrections professionals that comprise both CSOSA and PSA carry out their duties with skill, compassion and diligence, thereby serving as a true force for positive change for communities throughout the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, in recognition and honor of Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2014 and the contributions made by community corrections professionals, I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking these public employees for the important services they perform in helping to safeguard and improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in remembering Dr. Veronica Maz, a founder of So Others Might Eat (S.O.M.E.) in the District of Columbia, who passed away on June 24, 2014. Dr. Maz's signature achievement was the co-founding of Martha's Table in 1980, upon realizing the need for children, particularly in the 14th Street corridor Northwest neighborhood, to have a refuge from violence and drugs. Originally, Martha's Table served as a place for children to get a free meal after school. After 35 years of service, Martha's Table has developed into a multifaceted social services organization, providing services that not only address the problem of hunger in DC communities, but also the lack of quality education and affordable clothing. Dr. Maz was born in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania on October 15, 1924. She attended the University of Pittsburgh in 1947, where she received her undergraduate and a doctorate degree in sociology. Dr. Maz began her career as an educator, teaching at Lake Erie College for Women, Skidmore College, and Georgetown University. While teaching at Georgetown University, Dr. Maz decided to change careers and become a social entrepreneur. With the help of Father Horace B. McKenna, Dr. Maz founded S.O.M.E. and House of Ruth, a home for battered women. Today, both organizations continue to be bulwarks to the residents of the District, and have expanded their reach throughout the community. Today, Martha's Table has almost 90 employees, and has expanded its operation to include McKenna's Wagon, a daily mobile feeding program for the hungry, Martha's Markets, a free and health-conscious market in 10 locations, and Martha's Outfitters, a thrift store for families in need and the community at large. Ultimately, Martha's Table, S.O.M.E. and House of Ruth maintain Dr. Maz's legacy of community service through holistic and solution-based support for the people of the District. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Veronica Maz for a life of committed service to the District of Columbia. Her legacy continues to offer a powerful example for how we should conduct our lives and strive to serve our communities.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from West Virginia for yielding, and I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this bill. I know that they both wanted a long-term bill and that they have worked for a long-term bill. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we have a bipartisan, bicameral bill, but I think that for all concerned, it expresses bipartisan disappointment. We had 2 years to do a bill since MAP-21, and all we have been able to produce is an 8-month stopgap fix. At the same time, the States and the localities we represent are probably grateful for small favors today. The administration had already announced rationing because of the insolvency of the trust fund as of August 1, with only what little money would come in to replenish the trust fund for each State. We were staring at both an insolvent trust fund and a loss of the construction season at the same time. That would have been an economic catastrophe, with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. We must use this moment to face that we cannot rebuild our bridges, roads, and transit systems on pension-smoothing stopgap extensions. The State backlog of projects will be left untouched by this bill. Because we have produced a climate of uncertainty, States won't dare start up the real work that needs to be done on their roads, bridges, and transit because they are getting a patchwork bill. Patchwork bills yield patched-up roads and bridges and deteriorating transit. At the very least, we owe it to the country to revisit this bill as soon as possible and as early as October. The delay in MAP-21 got us today's stopgap measure. Congress needs a spur under its saddle to avoid another delay.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the District of Columbia Courts, Public Defender Service, and Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency Act of 2014, or H.R. 4185. First, I want to thank my good friends--the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Issa, and our ranking member, Mr. Cummings--for their work together with me on this bill, especially Chairman Issa for seeing to it that this bill got to the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes, really, quite minor changes, but they are important to the District of Columbia and to the Federal agencies involved. They happen to be Federal agencies that uniquely serve the District of Columbia. I will not bore the House with all of the elements of this bill because they will seem quite minor to the House, though, as I indicate, they are of some considerable importance to the agencies that are involved. For example--and I will use examples only--for the courts, it allows the courts to collect debts owed to the courts by employees, such as debts for loss or damage to property and improper credit card payments. This is the kind of authority the court would now have. Where there were erroneous payments to employees, those employees would get a hearing before any such collection was charged to them. The courts would have the authority to purchase uniforms, as an example. As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, in our courts, it would be important that everyone who has the authority to enter the courts have the same kind of uniform, given the kinds of secure hearings that take place here in the District of Columbia, even more so than in most other courts--Federal courts of the United States. As an example, for the Public Defender Service, the board of trustees should be treated as Federal employees or Public Defender Service employees. They were formerly treated as District of Columbia employees because this used to be a District of Columbia agency. As an example, from the Court Services administration, which serves our offenders who are under court supervision, there is an important section, as an example, to allow CSOSA--as we call it--to use incentives-based programming and not alone sanctions because all of the documentation shows that incentives, along with sanctions--not sanctions alone--are best to get compliance with supervision. There are a number of others. I thank the committee for bringing this bill, important to the District of Columbia, to the floor before the end of the August recess. I thank my good friend from Arizona for yielding, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the District of Columbia Courts, Public Defender Service, and Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency Act of 2014 (H.R. 4185). I would like to thank Chairman Issa and Ranking Members Cummings for their work together to assist me with this bill, and Chairman Issa for seeing to it that the bill would be on the floor today. This bill makes minor changes, but they are important, to the authorities of the District of Columbia Courts (Courts), the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS) and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA), placing these entities in the same position as their federal counterparts for more effective management and operation. This bill would allow the Courts to collect debts owed to the Courts by its employees, such as debts from loss or damage to property, improper credit card payments, erroneous payments to employees and the like. The Courts would have to provide employees with at least 30 days's written notice regarding the debt collection, and employees would have the right to a hearing conducted by an independent officer. The bill would also give the Courts the authority to purchase uniforms to ensure the safety of its building engineers, maintenance workers and main personnel. These service employees must regularly access buildings run by the Courts at all hours. The increase in the number of security incidents in courthouses throughout the country as well as the location of the Courts here in the nation's capital require visual security and uniformity of staff to help ensure that unauthorized persons do not enter secure areas. The bill also would allow PDS to accept and use public grants and both voluntary and uncompensated services, such as unpaid law clerks and interns, as well as private contributions made to advance PDS's work. It would allow the members of the PDS board of trustees to be treated as PDS employees instead of District of Columbia employees for purposes of liability. Under current law, due to an apparent drafting error, the members of the board are treated as District of Columbia employees for purposes of any action brought against board members. PDS employees are not District of Columbia employees. PDS has the authority to indemnify its board. This bill would rectify this oversight. Finally, this bill would allow CSOSA to develop and implement incentive-based programming to accompany its current sanction policies. Combining both sanctions and incentives has proven to be more effective than only compliance with supervision. The bill also would authorize CSOSA to solicit, receive and use gifts for the purpose of advancing its work, and would require the CSOSA to keep detailed records on its use of this gift authority. It would also permit the Director to enter into cost-reimbursement agreements with the D.C. government for space or services provided. The D.C. government is a frequent partner of CSOSA's due to its location in D.C. and CSOSA's mandate to assist in the reintegration of D.C. Code offenders into society. Giving CSOSA the authority to enter into reimbursable agreements with the District is necessary to assist CSOSA in its daily work.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank my friend for yielding and for his work, and I thank my friends from Florida and from New York for their work on the D.C. portion and regret that two riders mar that portion of the bill. Mr. Chairman, Congress disallows Federal money for abortions, but 17 States assert their local prerogative to do so in our Federal Republic, which treasures local autonomy above all. Congress maintains that marijuana must be criminally penalized, but 18 States have taken State leadership to decriminalize marijuana. The administration's Statement of Administration Policy respects D.C.'s equal right to do what 18 States have already done, and so should this House. The abortion ban deprives D.C.'s low-income women of the reproductive rights exercised by other American women. And the marijuana decriminalization law deprives African Americans in the District of equal rights under the law. Yet Blacks and Whites use marijuana at the same rate, but 90 percent of those arrested for possession in D.C. are Black. A Black kid in America with a ``drug conviction'' has his life ruined. Abusing pot is a bad idea, but penalizing it is worse. D.C. puts fines collected from civil violations of its new law in a substance abuse prevention and treatment fund. A D.C. bill authorizes public education on marijuana use and abuse. That beats what most decriminalization jurisdictions have done. The gentleman from Maryland, Andy Harris, the sponsor of this bill, has suspended his own professed State devolution principles. This House should not follow him.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of the session, and I know Republicans--my good colleagues on the other side--recognize that they are on track to beat last year's session, where we had the distinction of being the Congress with the lowest productivity in recorded United States history. There seems to be some Members who are looking around to make up for lost time as to what to do. There is always the District of Columbia. If you want to fatten your agenda, why not introduce a bill having to do with the District of Columbia? That ought to be a free enough ride. After all, the District of Columbia has a Member of Congress who can't even vote against your bill; so why not try that? I find, as I look at the record of Members who do that, that there is a pattern there. These are often Members who have introduced very few bills that would benefit their own districts. Next week, the financial services appropriation bill will be on the floor. It happens to contain the District of Columbia appropriation. Now, of course, unless you are familiar with this bizarre situation, you will wonder, what in the world is the District of Columbia appropriation doing here in the first place? Well, it shouldn't be here because it doesn't have a dime of Federal money in it. It is an undemocratic anachronism that requires this House to somehow approve the District of Columbia, budget although not a Member of this House except me is accountable to the voters of the District of Columbia. How is that for democracy? Yet, nevertheless, it will be before this House. And until we get the same budget autonomy that every Member's district enjoys for its own local money, we will find that your time is encumbered by a District of Columbia appropriation bill. The real difference between the District of Columbia, of course, and the other appropriations bills that you will have before you is that our budget is balanced. We have a surplus. The Federal budget is unbalanced and has a deficit. There are a number of amendments. We had driven these amendments down to just one, what I will call the annual abortion amendment. It has become a kind of annual ritual. Of course, there is lots of hypocrisy in the House, but it really shows up on the annual abortion bill. Seventeen States with Members who sit right in this body allow their own localities to spend their own local money on abortions for low-income women, recognizing that the Congress does not allow Federal money to be spent for abortions--that is even when a woman will be in distress. If she is low-income, she is out of luck unless the local jurisdiction, of course, allows for such funds to be spent. And, of course, that is regularly done, except for the District of Columbia where, again, unaccountable Members have stepped in to keep the District of Columbia from doing what 17 other States already do. When the Democrats were in charge of this House, I was able to get all of the so-called attachments to the District appropriation eliminated even the abortion attachment. It has been the only one to return. I want to thank the House that one of these attachments has not returned; that, of course, was the needle exchange attachment that had deadly effects. And I choose my words appropriately, because that rider, which was attached to the D.C. appropriation for 10 years, literally spread the HIV virus throughout the District of Columbia and is singly responsible for the fact that the District of Columbia has the highest HIV/AIDS rate in the country. Once I was able to get that attachment removed, we have seen injection needle-related HIV drop precipitously. That will give the House some sense of the great damage that was done by that attachment, and I am grateful--and I will say to this House how grateful I am--that that rider has not returned. I believe that one of the reasons it has not returned is that at least some Members are aware of its effects, and those effects have acted as something of a deterrent to adding that rider again. This year, here comes the marijuana decriminalization rider. The District of Columbia was pretty late in looking at marijuana decriminalization, and I will get to the reason it looked at decriminalization in a moment. But there are 18 States that have gotten there long before D.C., the first in 1975. I knew that there was going to be a problem because Rep. John Mica, in his subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, actually had a hearing on this matter. Now, he hasn't called a hearing on Colorado, for example, which has legalized marijuana, although he has looked at Colorado. He could have simply looked at the District of Columbia. He had a whole hearing on the District of Columbia. That is what the District of Columbia has to abide in this House. Of course, I should not be surprised, and I was not, that there came a Member who decided that he would try to keep the District of Columbia from doing what 18 States have already done before it and block our marijuana decriminalization law. I had hoped we were in good company because of a very recent vote on this floor. A healthy 49 Republican Members voted with many Democrats to block the government from prosecuting users and sellers of medical marijuana in States that permit its use. That happened within the last month or so. And I said, oh, my goodness, we are in increasingly good company. Republicans and Democrats alike see that, without condoning any form of marijuana, the tide has changed certainly on medical marijuana. Well, I do not have any illusion that, because the House comes together even to consensus on any matter, that that means that it will apply that consensus to the District of Columbia. I must say that it took me more than a decade to get another rider, a rider that blocked the District from implementing its medical marijuana law. Well, that law has now been implemented, and so now we have Members looking at D.C.'s marijuana decriminalization law. At this point, 23 States have legalized medical marijuana. We are getting close to half the States. As I indicated, 18 States have decriminalized marijuana. Now, that just means you are not going to give someone a record for smoking weed. It doesn't mean you think it is a good thing to do, but it does mean it is not worth a jail record. Not so much jail, because people don't usually go to jail; they just get a record that keeps them from getting a job. Two States have legalized marijuana, and the House should take note of this fact: A 2014 Pew Research Center poll has now found that 54 percent of Americans support marijuana legalization. The District hasn't legalized, most States haven't legalized. The American people are ahead of where we are. But the same double standard that I encountered on medical marijuana I am seeing on marijuana decriminalization. By the way, marijuana decriminalization isn't new. The first was in 1975, and that State was Alaska. If you look at the map of States that have decriminalized in one form or fashion, you will not see any difference between so-called red and blue States. From California and New York to Mississippi and Nebraska--and of course the two States that have legalized marijuana, Colorado and Washington--we see that this approach to marijuana is spreading. I think most young people don't see enough of a difference between marijuana and a substance that has done far greater harm, alcohol, to understand why there should be criminal penalties associated with marijuana, even if, like me, you don't think that it is a good thing to go around smoking anything, cigarettes, pot, you name it. Now, nothing distinguishes the District's democratically enacted local laws, including this law, from the laws of those 18 States. We are all American citizens. But you will occasionally hear Members say something that only a tyrant would say. The Member will allude to the fact that the District of Columbia, before it had home rule, was subject in every respect to the Congress of the United States. In fact, all the laws were passed, essentially, by the Congress. What those Members will not tell you is that Congress repudiated that power 40 years ago when it gave the District of Columbia what we call home rule, self-government. Essentially, the Home Rule Act says the Congress of the United States will no longer either pass or interfere with the local laws of the District of Columbia. We leave that to D.C. The Congress did indicate there were a few exceptions. The Height Act, which proscribes how high buildings can go in the Nation's Capitol, is an example. Another example is that the District can't pass a commuter tax, even though many other jurisdictions have commuter taxes. Except for such examples, which are very few, there is no brand of local law that the Home Rule Act does not cover. So you can cite the Constitution all you want to, but you must also cite the Home Rule Act of 1973, which, in fact, repudiated the power of the Congress to interfere with the local laws of the District of Columbia or with the District of Columbia itself. And why wouldn't it? Who are the unaccountable Members, Democratic or Republican, of the House or Senate to have anything to say about either money they didn't raise or laws that respecting only with local concerns? Among those you would expect to be most familiar with the Home Rule Act would be our neighbors, those who live in Maryland and Virginia. And if I may say so, we have Republican Members, Democratic Members in both those States, and, for the most part, they have respected the integrity of the District of Columbia through its own local laws. But Representative Andy Harris, I believe he is a second-termer, has not yet read the Home Rule Act; and though he lives in the region, he has not reacted as a neighbor. Andy Harris is from the State of Maryland. The State of Maryland is one of those jurisdictions that has decriminalized marijuana. Now, Representative Andy Harris was unable to convince his own State not to decriminalize marijuana, so he steps across the border into the District of Columbia to try to tell us what to do. He happens to be from the Eastern Shore of Maryland. District of Columbia residents are so enraged that the major D.C. rights organization, DC Vote, has called for a boycott of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. You know what? The Eastern Shore of Maryland is, in a sense, a vacation spot. It depends on people from the region--the District, Maryland, and Virginia--to visit there, especially during this season. And the District of Columbia has many allies in this region who agree with us that the Congress shouldn't be in our business. I don't know why Representative Harris would want to stick his nose into the business of the residents of the District of Columbia. I can't understand why he thought that would benefit the economy of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. He is from Ocean City. They live off of the rest of this region, including the District of Columbia. I looked at his productivity here to see, is he busy? Is he not busy enough? He has introduced only 10 bills. I have introduced 63. I am trying to take care of my residents. The 10 bills he has introduced is very low productivity. I have cosponsored three times as many bills as he has cosponsored because I try to attend to the business of my own district. I don't know if Representative Andy Harris was fishing around for something to do, but he ought to fish at the Eastern Shore, and he ought to find something to do for his own residents because all he has done now is to outrage the people of the District of Columbia. And he has done worse. He has patronized us. He is saying, you know, I am a doctor. Well, you know, I am a lawyer. So what does that mean? Does that enable you to come into my district and doctor my people? ``I don't think marijuana is good for young people.'' Well, I don't either. I also don't think that young people ought to get a record for having used marijuana. I don't know what motivated the 17, 18 States that have legalized marijuana. But let me tell why you the council of the District of Columbia decriminalized marijuana. Two studies were done. Each showed that in the progressive District of Columbia, where half the population is black and half is white and/or Hispanic, that blacks were arrested at a rate of eight to nine times that of whites for marijuana possession. Do you know what that means for young blacks--particularly a young black man or boy in this country today? It ruins their lives. They often live across the Anacostia, which is a low-income part of the District of Columbia. Black men in our country--regardless of income or education--are surrounded by stereotypes. Let one walk in with a ``drug possession'' stereotype on his record, and I will tell you, you are looking at a black man who, if he starts out in life that way, will have his life ruined because he has a ``drug conviction.'' I don't know why they decriminalized in Alaska or Mississippi. But I know why they did it in the District of Columbia, although it is none of the business of this House. They did it for racial justice reasons, and we are not going to have it undone by somebody who has no sense of my district. An arrest or a conviction of any kind for a ``drug possession''--and that is what marijuana is--can lead a young man, particularly from poor neighborhoods in the District of Columbia, into the underground economy, even to selling drugs, where he was only possessing them before, because he can't find a job because he has got a ``record.'' So the District passed a marijuana decriminalization law. I must say that this city is well aware of the effects of drugs. This is a big city. It has had its time with drugs, just like every other big city in the United States. Nobody in this city fools around with the notion of drugs. Drugs have promoted violence in our city. They have ruined lives in our city. It is the last place in America that would encourage drugs of any kind. Also, we don't know what the effects of marijuana smoking may be. That is yet to be determined. I know this: millions of Americans are in their graves because we didn't know the effects of cigarette smoking. So the last thing I, or anyone in the District of Columbia is going to say is, go out and be free; smoke as much marijuana as you can find. Marijuana smoking could prove to be as bad or worse than cigarette smoking. I only wish that we had known for the 100 years or so when people were ruining their lives smoking cigarettes. And the District of Columbia appears to have recognized that. The bill requires the revenue collected from civil violations--that is, a civil violation of a fine--to be placed in a substance abuse prevention and treatment fund that is administered by the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health for substance abuse treatment and preventative programs. There are four D.C. prevention centers. They are funded by the Department of Behavioral Health. That serves all eight wards of the city. This is what the city has already done, even though--it is interesting to note--all the polls show that penalties for marijuana use are not key to determining whether teenagers decide to use marijuana or not. Nobody knows how to steer people away from marijuana. What they do know is that a record for having possessed marijuana can ruin your life. And if you are a person of color, it has an even greater effect. It is important to note that all of the polls in the District of Columbia and in the country show that blacks and whites in the District of Columbia and in the United States of America use marijuana at the same rate. So why are blacks not only here but across the country given a record more often? I would note also--and commend Councilmember Tommy Wells, who has introduced yet another bill called the Marijuana Use Public Information Campaign Act of 2014. That bill, which was recently introduced, would establish a public information campaign to educate the public on the impacts of marijuana use. I bet most of the 18 other States haven't gone to this extent in order to deter people from using marijuana at the same time that they have decriminalized it. The District of Columbia has been very responsible. Who is irresponsible is Representative Andy Harris because the irresponsible thing to do is to mess with my district. You are not accountable to the voters of my district. You are seeking a free ride through an act of congressional bullying. And that is the way we take it. And like anybody who is bullied, we don't know how to do anything but fight back. We don't like to be patronized. We will not be bullied. And we will not have a Member tell the residents of the District of Columbia, who have no way to hold him accountable, what we may or may not do. So I ask the Members of the House to be consistent, particularly my Republican friends with your own small Federal footprint approach as a core value, because of your own notion of local control, as opposed to Federal control, the hallmark of your values, I ask you simply to apply the same principles to me and to the District of Columbia that you are insisting upon for you and for your own constituents. I will remind you that we are all Americans, that there are no second-class Americans, and that the Americans who live in the Nation's Capital insist upon being treated fully equally with all of you, all of us who are fortunate to be citizens of the United States of America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank my good friend from New York for yielding and for her work on this rule. Mr. Speaker, A Congress controlled by Members trying to reduce the Federal footprint at every turn ought to be the first to reject two amendments in the Financial Services appropriation, which fly in the face of their own core philosophy. First is the abortion amendment that would keep the District of Columbia from spending its own local funds on abortions for low-income women. Mr. Speaker, 17 States that are represented in this House spend their own local funds in this way, and we are determined to fight until the district's low-income women have the same reproductive health rights as the women who live in those 17 States. There is a second bill--a second amendment that targets the District of Columbia and its marijuana decriminalization law at the same time that the States are rapidly moving in the same direction. Eighteen of them, before the District even got there, have decriminalized marijuana. Two States have legalized marijuana, 23 States have legalized medical marijuana, and a recent Pew Research poll found that more than half of the American people support marijuana legislation. Mr. Speaker, this amendment that targets the District of Columbia is authored by Representative Andy Harris of Maryland. Maryland is one of the States that has decriminalized marijuana. Now, he couldn't convince his own State, where the voters are accountable to him, not to decriminalize marijuana.

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate the generosity of the ranking member. He wants to come to this floor and try to convince this body, where not a single Member is accountable to the residents of the District of Columbia, that it should not allow the District to decriminalize its marijuana laws. I don't know why the Members from those 18 States have decriminalized, but let me tell you why they were decriminalized in the District of Columbia. They were decriminalized for racial justice reasons. We discovered, through a scientific study, that African Americans were eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than Whites, even though Whites and Blacks in the District of Columbia and in the United States of America use marijuana at the same rate. Forty years ago, this Congress passed the Home Rule Act leaving local matters to the District of Columbia, just like your local matters are left home. We demand the same respect for local control for the District of Columbia residents who are full American citizens, like everybody else who represents people on this floor. We demand that our American citizens have the same respect for their local control that on this floor, that every day, you demand for your own residents. I thank the ranking member.

Ms. NORTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the gentleman for yielding. First, let me set straight that the District of Columbia gets not one single benefit that any other Member who pays taxes--except we pay taxes without representation--not one single benefit that is any different from what other members get. Secondly, on marijuana decriminalization, I respect the differences we have there, and the States are experimenting now. The District has only decriminalized marijuana, and recently, a member of the council introduced an amendment--which I bet you the other 18 States have not done--to educate our young people about marijuana, so that they don't go off and try it. Nobody is for smoking marijuana--I wish we hadn't smoked all those cigarettes, there would be millions of people alive if we hadn't--but we really don't want to see people go to jail for possessing marijuana, and we don't want to live in a city where the only people who get arrested for possessing marijuana are people who look like me. This is a city full of college students. They don't get arrested. Those who get arrested are African Americans because the police patrol those areas more sternly than others. We are asking for racial justice, but above all, we are asking for local control. I want to say one thing about your citing of the Constitution. You are absolutely right. The Constitution gives the Congress control, but Congress passed, 40 years ago, the Home Rule Act, and that Home Rule Act was Congress' understanding that there ought to be no Members of this House who don't have total control over their own local money and over their own local affairs. We ask for the same respect, and I thank the gentleman.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Christopher Murphy of Murphy's Auto Body Shop, the recipient of my 2014 D.C. Small Business of the Year award. The award is given each year to an outstanding D.C. small business at my annual Small Business Fair. I commend Murphy's Auto Body Shop for its accomplishments and service to our city. Murphy's Auto Body Shop is a family and minority owned small business located in Ward 8. During its time in the District, Murphy's Auto Body Shop has grown to become one of the largest auto repair facilities in the national capital region. The business prides itself on quality craftsmanship, integrity and customer service. The business has 28 highly skilled, well-trained technicians and support staff, who are known for honesty, integrity and customer service. Murphy's understands the importance of reliability, timeliness, and hard work. Christopher Murphy opened Murphy's Auto Body Shop in 1993 in Forestville, Maryland along with his father and a small staff. In 1997, Christopher Murphy, a lifelong resident of Ward 7, moved his burgeoning auto body shop to his hometown of the District of Columbia--where it remains to this day. We are particularly proud that Murphy's Auto Body Shop established itself at an accessible location in the heart of a neighborhood east of the Anacostia River. Yet it has attracted official affiliations with multiple insurance companies and towing services. Murphy's also has performed work in the District of Columbia and the region for government agencies, such as the General Services Administration (GSA), the Federal Protective Service (FPS), the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, the D.C. Department of Public Works, and Potomac Jobs Corps. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Christopher Murphy and Murphy's Auto Body Shop as this year's recipient of the 2014 D.C. Small Business of the Year award.