Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, July 28, 2014, at noon for morning-hour debate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts and Public Defender Service Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments Act. The bill would make a minor change to the authorities of the District of Columbia Courts (D.C. Courts) and the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS), placing these entities in the same position as their federal counterparts for more effective management and operation.

This bill would give the D.C. Courts and PDS authority to offer voluntary separation incentive payments, or buyouts to their employees. Buyouts would allow the D.C. Courts and PDS to respond to their future administrative and budget needs. The sequester and other budgetary pressures are a factor in the need to offer employees who are eligible for retirement the incentive to retire. The D.C. Courts and PDS would like the flexibility to extend such offers to their employees. In particular, many of the jobs that the D.C. Courts are trying to fill require specialized skill sets and buyout authority would help to make the administration and operations of the court more effective and efficient.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has held that voluntary separation incentive payments may be made only where statutorily authorized. While federal agencies and federal courts have the statutory authority to offer buyouts, PDS and the D.C. Courts have not been expressly permitted to provide these types of payments to their employees. PDS and the D.C. Courts seek the same buyout authority in order to manage their workforce as budget conditions and needs change.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as described by my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, S. 2086 automatically suspends Federal Motor Carrier Safety rules for up to 90 days after a Governor of an affected State declares a state of emergency due to a shortage of residential heating fuel.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that last winter there were parts of the United States which experienced extraordinarily cold temperatures and extreme winter weather. I hate to predict this, but until we do something about climate change, we are going to see these vast contrasts of the kind we have never experienced before. At that time, of course, if people are experiencing unusually cold weather, there is going to be a demand for propane and other home heating fuels.

I also, of course, fully support maximum flexibility to ensure timely delivery of fuel to heat homes across the country, and certainly in a time of crisis. In fact, the House acted swiftly in March during that crisis to pass Chairman Shuster's HHEATT Act, H.R. 4076, but of course today most of the country is in the middle of a heat wave.

Most of the States have their eyes looking elsewhere. They are watching the Congress to see when we will shore up the highway trust fund. They are running out of money. Already they have slowed up their investments. And of course, in a matter of just a few weeks, we will be running on empty on the highway trust fund.

But I was not asked to come to the floor today to ensure that construction projects around the country employing hundreds of thousands of Americans will continue to be reimbursed so that workers can stay on the job and communities can upgrade their infrastructure. I was asked to come to the floor today to pass an exemption for home heating fuel, even though it is close to 90 degrees outside in much of the country.

Last winter, during the actual time of emergency, FMCSA acted promptly to issue exemptions to allow truck drivers delivering home heating fuels to drive for additional hours to get supplies to customers as quickly as possible. Then they acted promptly to extend the exemptions after the initial 30-day period.

Therefore, I must say I do not see any evidence of why this legislation is needed or warranted. Further, by automatically waiving motor carrier rules for up to 90 days, the legislation removes any safety consideration from the exemption decision.

Mr. Speaker, our surface transportation system has pressing needs, as I speak, that require congressional action in the immediate term-- yesterday, perhaps. Instead, we keep coming to the floor to chip away at truck safety rules?

I will not oppose the legislation under consideration, but I do believe calling up this legislation today is unnecessary and unproductive while we are staring at a deadline--and I must say, I think it is more aptly called an emergency every day--for replenishing the highway trust fund.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know about global warming, but virtually every scientist with any expertise agrees that climate change is occurring, not just in the colder parts of the country, but all over the world. The only debate now is whether it is too late and whether we can manage it, not whether it is occurring.

If the gentleman thinks it was cold in Wisconsin last winter, let us keep delaying doing anything on climate change and let's see if he will be in a position to do anything for his constituents.

I remind the Speaker that every time there has been a need, the Department of Transportation has not only acted, it has acted promptly. That is what an administrative agency is for. That is why we have administrative agencies. You can't keep running to the floor where you need two Houses in order to deal with a crisis.

Nevertheless, we do not oppose this legislation, but we do think it is our duty to remind the House that there is an emergency pending and that, if we go home certainly for August recess without attending to it, the bottom will fall out of the highway trust fund.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as the nation's capital brings thousands of Americans to Washington, D.C. this tourist season, I rise to reintroduce the United States Commission on an Open Society with Security Act of 2014. The bill expresses an idea I began working on when the first signs of the closing of parts of our open society appeared after the Oklahoma City bombing, well before 9/11. This bill grows more urgent as an increasing variety of security measures proliferate throughout the country without any thought about the effects on common freedoms and ordinary public access, and often without guidance from the government or bona fide security experts. Take the example of government buildings. Federal building security has gotten so out of control that a tourist passing by some federal buildings cannot even get in to use the restroom or enjoy the many restaurants. The security for federal buildings has too long been unduly influenced by non-security experts, such as the administrator in federal agencies, who do not take into account actual threats and, as a result, spend taxpayer dollars on needless security procedures or insist on restricting the public without regard to risk.

Another example is the District of Columbia's only public heliport, which the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shut down following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, without explanation or means to appeal the decision. Just days after the 9/11 attacks, helicopter service was restored in New York City, the major target of the attacks. However, even twelve years after the attacks, TSA and FAA and particularly the Secret Service still will not permit commercial helicopters to fly to D.C., unlike all other cities in the U.S.

The bill I reintroduce today would begin a systematic investigation that fully takes into account the importance of maintaining our democratic traditions while responding adequately to the real and substantial threat that terrorism poses. To accomplish its difficult mission, the bill authorizes a 21-member commission, with the president designating nine members and the House and Senate each designating six members, to investigate the balance that should be required between openness and security. The commission would be composed not only of military and security experts, but, for the first time at the same table, also experts from such fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art, engineering, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology. To date, questions of security most often have been left almost exclusively to security and military experts. They are indispensable participants, but these experts should not alone resolve all the new and unprecedented issues raised by terrorism in an open society. In order to strike the security/access balance required by our democratic traditions, a diverse group of experts needs to be at the same table.

For years, parts of our open society have gradually been closed down because of terrorism and the fear of terrorism, on an often ad hoc basis. Some federal buildings such as the U.S. Capitol have been able to deal with security issues, and then resume their openness to the public. Others, like the new Department of Transportation headquarters, remain mostly inaccessible to the public. These examples, drawn from the nation's capital, are replicated in public buildings throughout the United States.

After 9/11, Americans expected additional and increased security adequate to protect citizens against the frightening threat of terrorism. However, in our country, people also expect their government to be committed and smart enough to undertake this awesome new responsibility without depriving them of their personal liberty. These times will long be remembered for the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country and for the unprecedented challenges it has brought. Nevertheless, we must provide ever-higher levels of security for our residents and public spaces while maintaining a free and open democratic society. What we have experienced since Oklahoma City and 9/ 11 is no ordinary threat that we expect to be over in a matter of years. The end point could be generations from now. The indeterminate nature of the threat adds to the necessity of putting aside ad hoc approaches to security developed in isolation from the goal of maintaining an open society.

When we have faced unprecedented and perplexing issues in the past, we have had the good sense to investigate them deeply before moving to resolve them. Examples include the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Silberman-Robb Commission), and the Kerner Commission, which investigated the riots that swept American cities in the 1960s and 1970s. In the aftermath of the Navy Yard shooting, I wrote to the President of the United States requesting the establishment of an independent panel to investigate issues raised by that tragedy and to evaluate how to secure federal employees who work in facilities like the Navy Yard that are a part of a residential or business community. However, this bill seeks a commission that would act not in the wake of events but before a crisis-level erosion of basic freedoms takes hold and becomes entrenched. Because global terrorism is likely to be long lasting, we cannot afford to allow the proliferation of security measures that neither require nor are subject to civilian oversight or an analysis of alternatives and repercussions on freedom and commerce.

With no vehicles for leadership on issues of security and openness, we have been left to muddle through, using blunt 19th-century approaches, such as crude blockades, unsightly barriers around beautiful monuments, and other signals that our society is closing down, all without appropriate exploration of possible alternatives. The threat of terrorism to an open society is too serious to be left to ad hoc problem-solving. Such approaches are often as inadequate as they are menacing.

We can do better, but only if we recognize and come to grips with the complexities associated with maintaining a society of free and open access in a world characterized by unprecedented terrorism. The place to begin is with a high-level commission of experts from a broad array of disciplines to help chart the new course that will be required to protect our people and our precious democratic institutions and traditions.