Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the ranking member for his very cogent remarks that go to the principle of the matter before the House today.

I have to say, I come to the well of the House in outrage against the attack on the District of Columbia by the Republican House. In 1973-- that is 45 years ago--Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which created the locally elected government.

Understand that after the Civil War, it is Republicans who first gave the District of Columbia the right to have its own home rule, a tradition that this Republican majority has repudiated. According to the Home Rule Act, a central purpose of the act was, and I am quoting, ``to relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.''

President Nixon, who signed the bill, affirmed that purpose himself when he wrote--and I am going to quote President Nixon: ``One of the major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for local functions under local control and to provide local governments with the authority and resources they need to serve their communities effectively. The measure I signed today represents a significant step in achieving this goal in the city of Washington. It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right to elect their own city officials and to govern themselves in local affairs.

``As the Nation approaches the 200th anniversary of its founding, it is particularly appropriate to ensure those persons who live in the Capital City the rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen. But the measure I signed today does more than create machinery for the election of local officials. It also broadens and strengthens the structure of city government to enable it to deal more effectively with its responsibility.''

Signed, Richard Nixon.

How do we square those words and the bipartisan Home Rule Act with a fiscal year 2019 appropriation bill which is the most significant abuse of congressional power over the District

of Columbia since Republicans took control of the House in 2011?

This bill repeals two D.C. laws and prohibits the city from spending its local funds, consisting only of local taxes raised in the city by local citizens, not a cent of it raised from this House, to either carry out or enact three laws.

I filed amendments to strike all five of these undemocratic riders. Even though my amendments complied with the House rules, the Rules Committee did not make any of them in order, afraid, apparently, of debate on this matter before the people of the United States. Adding insult to injury, the Rules Committee piled on by making in order two additional anti-Home Rule riders. If this bill stands, there will be a record seven anti-Home Rule riders in it.

Some of these riders come back every year, and yet we have been able to get them off every year in conference.

This Republican majority endlessly touts their support of local affairs--a lie, as long as that principle stops at the District of Columbia border, and Republicans interfere with the spending and laws of a local jurisdiction not their own.

Pardon me for being angry, but I remind my colleagues that the 700,000 American citizens who live in the District of Columbia pay the highest Federal taxes per capita in the United States and have fought and died in every war since the Revolutionary War; yet they have no voting representation on this House floor, even on their own appropriation, and no representation in the Senate at all.

These riders amount to bullying that takes unfair advantage of the District of Columbia. No wonder we are making headway on our D.C. statehood bill, but it should not take statehood.

It should not take statehood for any district to be treated with respect and fairness.

We have been successful in cleaning up the D.C. appropriation in the past, and we will be successful again. The people of the District of Columbia will not let you get away with bullying them after they have paid their Federal taxes the way every Member of this House has.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York, and I particularly thank her for her very cogent remarks and wish to associate myself with those remarks in every sense of the word; and I say so to the good lady from the State of New York as the leader of the CBC task force on Federal court nominations, including the Supreme Court nomination, where I have had the opportunity to look deeply at the decisions of this nominee now serving on the court of appeals, as it turns out, for the District of Columbia, Brett Kavanaugh.

I think the gentlewoman's remarks are telling in their understanding of the extreme damage he would do--and I must add not only to African Americans, but to the rule of law as we have known it.

I rise to indicate that the Congressional Black Caucus stands in strong opposition to the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and we will be doing all we can to keep that nomination from proceeding to the floor of the Senate. We do have two members of the Congressional Black Caucus on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and we are working closely with them as well.

We in the Congressional Black Caucus are not the only Members of Congress opposed to this nomination, but we represent those Americans who have been disproportionately dependent on a fair Supreme Court. African Americans have always been a minority group in our country. For that reason, from slavery on to the days of discrimination in the 19th and 20th centuries, the African American community has been particularly dependent on the courts of the United States to protect them from unequal treatment by the majority.

We have had every reason to know that, if we are in the hands of the partisan majority, given 400 years of history, we have no protection. African Americans are disproportionately dependent on an objective Supreme Court. Now, that doesn't mean a Supreme Court of our choosing, but a Supreme Court that is open to all points of view and capable of seeing beyond partisanship.

Brett Kavanaugh is not that nominee. We know so because he has perhaps the longest record of opinions of names submitted to Republicans for review.

The D.C. circuit, which is the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which happens to be my district, has been a circuit where Kavanaugh has been very mindful of the Supreme Court. I say that because he has so often written in dissent from his own colleagues on a Republican Court that it has been as if he were trying to write his way onto the Supreme Court.

Remember Kavanaugh's background. He started his career as a political operative in the Bush administration, and he has brought that extreme partnership, as a political operative, straight into the D.C. circuit.

We are not asking the Senate for a nominee of the kind we would have chosen. That is not our demand. But because this is the most partisan Congress since the Civil War, I believe we are within our rights in asking for a Court that would be a stabilizing influence so the American people could see that not all is lost because there is an objective actor on the scene, and that actor is the Supreme Court of the United States.

It is that Court which has protected us, we who are African Americans, from unequal treatment ever since Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. That does not mean that African Americans have always won at the Supreme Court level, but they have always had reason to believe that there was a court of last resort that would be open to them.

We no longer would have that sense of openness to their views if Brett Kavanaugh becomes the nominee put

forward in this session. We have seen no evidence that he would adhere to equal protection of the laws.

I will cite some examples that illustrate where his views in his cases lead that he would not protect the long-held holding of the courts that no American can be arrested without probable cause, that he would not protect even the separation of powers, and that he would not uphold the rights of Americans to qualify for affordable healthcare.

All of those notions have a disproportionate effect on African Americans, though they affect every American in the United States.

Remember, Judge Kavanaugh would be appointed to a Court that already has a majority appointed by Republican Presidents. Yet, while sitting on the D.C. court of appeals, he has distinguished himself by seeking to overturn long-existing precedent, even when members of that court, also appointed by Republican Presidents, have disagreed with him.

Let me give an example in an area of criminal law.

We now see African Americans in the streets protesting overzealous law enforcement because African American men have been shot and killed and people go to the streets because, if you can't get justice to the courts, that is all they have.

Yet, Judge Kavanaugh has suggested that it is appropriate for the probable cause standard to be more ``flexible.'' Why?

Virtually no police have indeed been indicted, even given the evidence of African Americans shot down in the streets. Why do we need to narrow the ancient probable cause requirement?

He has indicated that police searches without a warrant or individualized suspicion should be allowed. He has even praised narrowing the rights long ago afforded to all defendants against incriminatory statements against themselves. How deep does that go in American constitutional law? How dangerous would it be to have a justice who would question the right against self incrimination?

Judge Kavanaugh's extreme views also show no respect for the fundamental right of women to make decisions about their own bodies, even though, 45 years ago, the Supreme Court itself established the right to abortion. That is a controversial right in our country, but it has withstood the test of time.

Let me offer an indication from a recent decision by Brett Kavanaugh, which his own court had to overturn, that shows he has no respect for precedent. That is perhaps our chief issue with this nominee. Precedent must be respected or else we are all open to whatever Congress or the Court wants to do.

A young woman, immigrant, undocumented, sought an abortion. As it turns out, she had gone through the most rigorous of requirements, those required by Texas, because that is where she entered the country. This matter came to the D.C. court of appeals, however.

Judge Kavanaugh found, with the time running--remember, if abortions are to be performed, they are to be performed, according to the Supreme Court, as early as possible--found that more time was needed because she needed a sponsor, something that the Supreme Court has never required, in order for that abortion to occur. The court overturned Judge Kavanaugh's opinion. Look how dangerous it would have been. She could have gone past the 12-week, the 15-week, the 20-week deadline, which the House has approved on occasion.

These are rights not to be tampered with, but he has already tampered with them on the court of appeals. This court, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia--and I won't go into all the cases--has shown that he is an executive-oriented justice. That is to say, whatever the President wants, the President gets. This is the court that looks at most administrative law decisions before they go anywhere else.

Kavanaugh tried to strike down the net neutrality rule. Now, that is controversial here in Congress. But the basis he used for the courts to do it, the majority said--remember, this is a majority which our Republican President has appointed--the majority noted that the dissent was, using their words, ``misconceived'' because Kavanaugh claimed a First Amendment protection for large internet service providers never found by any court, and certainly not the Supreme Court but found to be, again, by his Republican colleagues on the D.C. Circuit, to be ``counterintuitive.''

I cannot go through each and every one of Judge Kavanaugh's decisions here, but I must point to perhaps his most extreme opinion. In a decision on the Affordable Care Act, this is what a jurist in the United States of America said, and I quote:

``Under the Constitution, the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.''

That is bold. It says that the President may choose to rise above the law and enforce a law even if found unconstitutional. The Congress of the United States should not be willing to go along with this. I cite a case on my side of an issue but surely you can see the implications for yours.

The President is supposed to make sure to ``take care that the laws are faithfully executed.'' To faithfully execute that law, you would have to enforce whatever the Congress or the Courts had found.

Of course, most concerning for many is his view of the special counsel where he has opined that it may be unconstitutional, and there is every reason to believe that he may well believe that Mueller's special counsel role should be struck down.

A Republican President is entitled to a Republican nominee. He is not entitled to a nominee whose opinions fly in the face of the law for the last 75 years.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh's long list of opinions mark an extreme departure from established American constitutional and other law. We ask that every effort be made to oppose a man who would ignore established precedent, even precedent that his own conservative colleagues agree with, and who, I believe, cannot uphold the law fairly to protect the rights of all American citizens.

We believe that the first to feel the effect of such a nominee would be the millions of Americans who are of African American ancestry whom the Congressional Black Caucus represents.

I thank my good friend, again, from New York, for permitting me to go on at length about some of the precedents I have discovered that I thought would be particularly troubling, not only to the African American community, but to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Promoting National Service and Reducing Unemployment Act to address one ofthe greatest workforce tragedies resulting from today's economy--our unemployed young people--to spur economic growth and to alleviate strain on state and local governments. This tragedy is not only harming our young people, but it is also costing our government billions of dollars each year through lost tax revenue and other costs. Unemployment has reached a relative low of 3.8 percent, but my bill targets the almost two million young people who have not had a fair chance to ever use their high school and college education, which this nation has strongly urged them to obtain.

What is particularly disappointing is the high unemployment rate for young people who heeded our advice to graduate from high school and college. The total unemployment rate is currently 9.1 percent for young adults ages 18 to 24, and hundreds of thousands now compete for unpaid internships wherever they can find them. By significantly expanding AmeriCorps, my bill would need no new administrative structure or bureaucracy and would allow unemployed young people to earn a stipend, obtain work experience and develop a good work history to help them secure future employment. The net cost of the expansion would be low because these young people would be providing urgently needed local services that are being eliminated or curtailed because of state and local budget cuts, such as after-school programs, tutoring and assistance for the elderly.

The bill would significantly expand job opportunities for young people who have done everything possible to enter fully into the job market, but, despite their best efforts, remain unemployed in this economy. Participants receive a living allowance and are also eligible for an education award equal to the value of a Pell grant, school-loan forbearance, health care benefits and child care assistance. By expanding the AmeriCorps program, we would reduce the number of unemployed young people, provide them with work skills and experience and help cash-strapped state and local governments provide services that they would otherwise have to cut.

For some time, it has been clear that policies to address the most stubborn forms of unemployment need to be targeted in order to be effective. Without significant targeting, young graduates will continue to face their first years as adults without jobs and with no way to acquire necessary work experience. They deserve better. I ask my colleagues to support this urgently needed, targeted assistance for young, unemployed Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to The Julia West Hamilton League, Inc., which was formed in 1938 as an outgrowth of 10 women who dared to dream. Mrs. Ellen V. Johns Britain believed that women joined together as a dedicated unit might accomplish some of the things that seemed impossible at the time--achievements that contributed to the advancement of community, education, youth and self.

The League was named in honor of Mrs. Julia West Hamilton, who gave unsparingly of her time, devotion and love to the causes of humanity, and was herself a participating member of the League until her death. The League was incorporated in 1971 and first led by Mary EC Gregory. The current president of the League is Mary J. Thompson.

The purpose of the League is (1) to promote benevolence, cultural and education interests in the community; (2) to strive to gain new knowledge and skills of achieving better self-understanding, learning to interact more sensitively and honestly with others; (3) to encourage young people to aim early in life for education and to develop good character and find a useful place in society; and (4) to establish a monetary award known as the Julia West Hamilton Award. This award is presented to a student in each of the 14 senior high schools in Washington, DC and a four-year Julia West Hamilton Scholarship is awarded to one of the award recipients every four years. To date, the League has provided over $1 million in student awards and scholarships.

The League has donated approximately $175,000 to the Hospital for Sick Children and has supported Howard University's Sickle Cell Anemia Program over the past 41 years. The League has also contributed to the United Negro College Fund, the Cardozo and Eastern High School bands and the Eastern High School Choir for travel abroad. Assistance is also provided to needy families during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. The League holds lifetime memberships with the National Council of Negro Women and the Phyllis Wheatley YWCA. In 1980, the Ellen V. Johns Britain Award was established in honor of the founder of the Julia West Hamilton League, Inc. This award is presented to a longstanding member of the League for outstanding and dedicated service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House of Representatives join me, on the occasion of the 80th anniversary, in paying tribute to the gentle ladies of the Julia West Hamilton League, Inc. whose motto, ``The only gift is a portion of thyself,'' and good works are worthy to be praised.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5729, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential Accountability Act of 2018.

Since 2002, when Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act, problems have beset the Transportation Worker Identification Credential card, or TWIC card, as it is called, a maritime security credential.

Since its inception, concerns and questions about the reliability of background check information, the efficacy of fraud detection capabilities, and the relatively high cost of the credential have been persistent shortfalls that the Department of Homeland Security has never gotten right.

As explained by the bill's sponsor, the Coast Guard issued a flawed final rule in 2016 for the use of TWIC card biometric readers at high- risk maritime facilities. The Coast Guard issued this rule despite Congress directing the Department of Homeland Security in 2016 to conduct a ``top-to-bottom'' review of the effectiveness of the entire TWIC program.

If there was ever an example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, the issuance of this reader rule was it. Considering the history and pattern of mismanagement of TWIC credentials, I agree with the purpose of this legislation. It makes prudent sense to put a hold on any new TWIC rulemaking until such time that the Department of Homeland Security completes its effectiveness review as required by Congress.

Ensuring the security of high-risk maritime facilities remains a vitally important homeland security priority. If the TWIC card is not up to the task, it is best for Congress to understand why and how the deficiencies might best be resolved.

On the other hand, if it is determined that the best course of action is to abandon the TWIC card, we need to evaluate alternative security measures that might fill the gap immediately.

I urge my colleagues to join me and support this noncontroversial legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment Home Rule Act. This bill would give the District the authority to appoint all members of the D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment (Board), except when the Board is performing functions regarding an application by a foreign mission with respect to a chancery. The Board issues special exceptions, or variances, to the regulations issued by the D.C. Zoning Commission (Commission). This bill does not alter the authority of the Board.

Like every other jurisdiction in the United States, the District should be free to set its own local land-use policies. As the District continues to contend with rapid population growth and economic development, it is more important than ever that the members of the Board are accountable to District residents and local elected officials.

Under current law, in general, the Board consists of a representative each from the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission, each of whom may be a federal official, and three mayoral appointees, subject to D.C. Council approval. The Board has no authority over federal property.

Under current law, when the Board is performing functions regarding an application by a foreign mission with respect to the location, expansion or replacement of a chancery, the Board consists of the Executive Director of NCPC; the Director of the National Park Service, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, or the Administrator of General Services, as designated by the President; and the three mayoral appointees. This bill does not change this composition.

This is an important step to recognize and increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump's ``corrective'' order no longer separating children from parents takes families out of the fire of separation and throws them into the inferno of unlimited detention on military bases. Thus Trump's zero tolerance policy stands, costing the government untold millions required to be spent for meals, air conditioning, libraries, private showers, medical, dental, and mental health.

There are no good options when families enter the country seeking asylum, but herding them together in internment camps is the worst of those available.

That is why past administrations have released the detainees with ankle bracelets and frequent contacts, with the overwhelming majority of detainees reporting back. The courts are likely to order a similar remedy.

It is time for the administration to look at practices that have worked instead of inventing inhumane ones that don't.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Veterans Legal Support Act of 2018, which would allow the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide certification and support to law school clinical programs that provide pro bono legal and support services to veterans, including, among other things, assistance with disability claims and appeals and foreclosures. There are already at least 22 law schools that have clinics devoted to veterans' legal needs, including the William & Mary Law School Veterans Benefits Clinic, which serves as a national model for this idea and was the first recipient of a ``best practice'' certification from the VA. There are many other law schools, such as the University of the District of Columbia's David A. Clarke School of Law, that are interested in starting their own VA-certified clinics.

More than 600,000 veterans are waiting for their disability claims to be processed by the VA. With the assistance of lawyers and law professors, clinical programs provide free legal resources to assist veterans in processing their claims. My bill would merely build on what some law schools have begun to do for the last several years. More needs to be done to sustain and increase these programs.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, a concrete measure that would assist our veterans, who have repeatedly put their lives on the line for this country.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Paul Laurence Dunbar Commemorative Coin Act. This bill recognizes one of the first influential African-American poets in American literature and benefits the Dunbar Alumni Federation, the alumni association for the Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School, which is historic for being the first public high school for African Americans in the United States, and which is my alma mater.

Paul Laurence Dunbar was born June 27, 1872, to freed slaves, and went on to pen such classics as Majors and Minors and Lyrics of Lowly Life. He also composed the lyrics to In Dahomey, the first all-African- American musical produced on Broadway. By the late 1890s, Dunbar had become a prominent author, having had his poems published in major national newspapers, including The New York Times. Dunbar died February 9, 1906, at age 33.

Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School was established in the District bf Columbia in 1870 as the Preparatory High School for Colored Youth. The school was renamed for Dunbar in 1916.

The Dunbar Alumni Federation was organized in 2002 to provide scholarships and other financial support to students and graduates of Paul Laurence Dunbar High School.

The Federation has alumni from more than 35 graduating classes, and supports the school through its scholarship efforts, community activities and other endeavors.

This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 50,000 five-dollar coins, 400,000 one-dollar coins, and 750,000 half-dollar coins, with a surcharge on each coin. The surcharges will benefit the scholarships and similar activities of the Dunbar Alumni Federation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Zoning Commission Home Rule Act. This bill would give the District of Columbia the authority to appoint all members of the D.C. Zoning Commission (Commission). Currently, the Commission consists of two federal officials (the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) and the Director of the National Park Service (NPS), or their designees) and three mayoral appointees, subject to D.C. Council approval. The federal officials are members even though the Commission has no authority over federal property.

Land use is a quintessential local matter in our country. Despite the D.C. Home Rule Act, which gave the District jurisdiction over its local matters, 40 percent of the members of the Commission are federal officials, who are unaccountable to the more than 700,000 residents who live in the District. The federal government would lose nothing as a result of this bill because the federal government's land-use interests in the nation's capital are protected by federal law and federal agencies.

The Commission creates the zoning maps and regulations, which must ``not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the national capital.'' The mayor is responsible for the local elements of the comprehensive plan, subject to D.C. Council approval. The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), which is the central federal planning agency for the federal government in D.C. and approves federal projects here, is responsible for the federal elements of the comprehensive plan. This bill would not alter the comprehensive plan process or the authority of NCPC and the Commission.

This bill would immediately remove the AOC and the Director of the NPS from the Commission, and the Commission would, at least initially, consist solely of the three mayoral appointees. The District would have the authority

to reconstitute the membership of the Commission through local legislation.

This is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Home Rule Act. This bill would give the Council of the District of Columbia authority over the jurisdiction and organization of the local D.C. courts. The 1973 Home Rule Act (HRA) expressly prohibits D.C. from enacting any law with respect to any provision of the D.C. Code title that relates to these matters.

Forty-five years after the passage of the HRA, matters involving the D.C. courts almost never come to Congress, so Congress knows almost nothing about the District's courts. Notwithstanding the importance of D.C.'s courts to District residents, the D.C. Council, which is the repository of knowledge and experience for the District's criminal and civil justice systems and the accountable body to our residents, is irresponsibly left on the sidelines while Congress remains the sole entity to correct flaws in the District's courts.

Under the HRA, the D.C. Council has no authority to ``enact any act, resolution, or rule with respect to any provision of title 11 of the District of Columbia Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts).'' Matters in title 11 include rules of criminal and civil procedure, court administration, the number of authorized judges, the branches of the courts, the rules of jury service and admission to the bar. The bill would strike this limitation on the D.C. Council's authority.

The District has never had authority over its local courts, even when it was responsible for paying for their operations. Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, the federal government assumed the costs for several state-level functions, including the courts. This bill would not affect the authority of the President to nominate, or the Senate to confirm, local judges.

This is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Home Rule Bridges Act. This bill is necessary to repeal a redundant 1997 federal law that makes it a

crime for a person in the District of Columbia to obstruct any bridge connecting D.C. and Virginia. The District already had, and continues to have, its own local law prohibiting obstructing a bridge in the District. There is no federal law that prohibits a person in Virginia from obstructing such a bridge or a person in any state from obstructing a bridge connecting two states, and, fortunately, D.C. does not need a federal law to keep our bridges clear either.

This law is as offensive as it is redundant. It harks back to a time when a private group in D.C. attempted to block the 14th Street Bridge into Virginia, although there is no evidence that D.C. authorities failed to act. The District's local criminal law prohibiting obstructing a bridge takes care of any obstruction occurring here.

Under the 1997 federal law, ``whoever in the District of Columbia knowingly and willfully obstructs any bridge connecting the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia . . . shall be fined not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000, and in addition may be imprisoned not more than 30 days. . . .'' Under D.C. law, a person may be subject to imprisonment and/or fines for ``crowd[ing], obstruct[ing], or incommod[ing] . . . [t]he use of any street, avenue, alley, road, highway, or sidewalk.''

The courts have long held that D.C. may repeal federal laws that predate the 1973 Home Rule Act (HRA) and apply exclusively in or to the District, but have not ruled on whether D.C. may repeal post-HRA federal laws that apply exclusively in or to the District. My bill would avoid any court challenge the District could face if it tries to repeal this 1997 federal law.

This is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act. My bill would permit the use of marijuana in federally assisted housing, including public housing and the Section 8 housing program, in compliance with the marijuana laws of the state where the property is located.

Individuals living in federally funded public housing should not be denied admission, or fear eviction, for using a legal product. The use of recreational and/or medicinal marijuana is currently legal in 29 states and the District of Columbia, and over 90 percent of Americans support legalized medical marijuana. Under current federal law, the users of drugs that are illegal under federal law, including marijuana, are prohibited from being admitted into federally assisted housing. Moreover, federal law allows landlords to evict current residents for drug use. Even the Food and Drug Administration has recently supported approving certain medication made from cannabis, including Epidiolez, which would be administered as a syrup. Epidiolez is used to treat children who suffer from seizures. Notably, the drug does not contain tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive component in cannabis.

For the last several years, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using federal funds to prevent jurisdictions from implementing their medical marijuana laws. This bill would similarly allow individuals to use marijuana in federally assisted housing in compliance with the state's marijuana laws.

Under my bill, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development must also develop regulations that restrict smoking marijuana in federally assisted housing in the same manner and to the same locations as the Secretary restricts smoking tobacco in federally assisted public housing.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, like the DOJ, should not be allowed to enforce federal marijuana laws where states have taken action to legalize marijuana. The Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act states that a person may not be denied federally assisted housing based on the use of marijuana in compliance with the marijuana laws of the state where the property is located.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Police Home Rule Act. This bill is necessary to eliminate the President's authority to federalize the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), the local District of Columbia police department. The President has no authority to federalize any other local or state police department, and no president has tried to federalize MPD. Under the Home Rule Act, ``whenever the President . . . determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the [MPD] for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the [MPD] as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.''

Under the section of the Home Rule Act that would be repealed by this bill, the President may federalize MPD for a period of not more than 30 days, unless a resolution passed by Congress extending such federalization is enacted into law. Congress may also terminate the federalization at any time by enacting a resolution. This bill is necessary, even with these protections, because, under the principle of home rule, the President should not have control over the District's local police department.

While it does not appear that a President has exercised this authority over MPD, this latent power is totally unnecessary, should not exist and is an affront to MPD, which has always voluntarily assisted federal authorities. MPD's first responsibility is to protect District residents and visitors, and it must always remain under the authority of the D.C. mayor to accomplish its mission. Moreover, federalization is outdated in light of current practice. MPD regularly assists the federal government as a matter of comity, not as an arm of the federal government, just as I am sure other local police departments do in the region. There are approximately 30 federal police departments under the President's control in the District. In the case of a federal emergency, the President can unilaterally deploy these federal officers, as well as the D.C. National Guard, to address it, and also request the support of our local police department, as the President would do in any other jurisdiction.

This is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, when Members attack one another on this floor, we sometimes have to apologize publicly.

What is the appropriate penalty when a Presidential administration attacks children in our country?

That is what is happening now at the border, as children are forcibly taken from their parents. Even if these children were being held in palatial splendor, nothing could make up for being taken from the only adult they have known since birth.

Our country's policy has always been family unification. Breaking with that policy and with decency, Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions have devised a new deterrent for crossing the border to seek asylum.

Says Jeff Sessions: ``If you're smuggling a child, then we're going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you.''

If they want to attack border crossers, the Trump administration should pick on somebody their own size.