[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13197-13201]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Daines). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the minority leader.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it is virtually mandatory that I come to the 
floor this afternoon because the two most serious, antidemocratic, and 
anti-home rule amendments are pending in this House. I am very hopeful 
that they will not be sustained when the full Congress gets a look at 
them, but they certainly have passed this House: an amendment from 
Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky that attempts to wipe out, 
eliminate, all the gun laws of the Nation's Capital--the Nation's 
Capital, a prime terrorist target; the Nation's Capital, where Cabinet 
members lunch in our public places, go to our theaters, and walk in our 
streets; the Nation's Capital, where there are 650,000 residents; the 
Nation's Capital, one of the big cities of America, and it is those big 
cities where gun violence is most likely to occur. That is the 
amendment from Representative Massie.
  Then there is another amendment from Representative Andy Harris, an 
amendment that flies in the face of what is occurring across the 
country, of course, as 18 States long before the District of Columbia 
decriminalized their marijuana laws. So, too, has the District of 
Columbia. But this Member is seeking to meddle in the affairs of the 
District of Columbia--the local affairs, local matters--and to somehow 
keep the local legislature from passing a local law just like the laws 
of those 18 States.
  Now, I hasten to add that the Senate, the comparable subcommittee in 
the Senate, has considered this matter, and the Senate has passed what 
we call a clean bill, a clean appropriations bill for the District of 
Columbia.
  Of course, there is a kind of anomaly here. Why am I talking about 
the District of Columbia at all? Well, that is an anomaly that allows 
the District's budget--every cent of it raised in the District of 
Columbia--to somehow come here to be approved by Members that are 
unaccountable for having raised a cent of that budget.

                              {time}  1430

  So, yes, the Senate had to consider the District's budget. By the 
way, our D.C. budget is balanced. The D.C. budget has a large amount of 
revenue in excess of its annual taxes, a rainy day fund that would be 
the envy of most Members of this House, and yet it has to come to a 
House that has hardly been able to pass bills much less balance its 
budget.
  So the Senate says we recognize you can handle your own affairs, like 
any other American jurisdiction, and they have quickly passed or 
approved the District's local budget. In addition, the Senate has also 
given the District both autonomy over its own budget so it wouldn't 
have to come the Congress in the first place, and what we call 
legislative autonomy.
  In addition to having to bring its local budget here, the residents 
of the District of Columbia, when they pass their local laws, those 
local laws have to rest here for a certain period of time to see if 
there is any Member who wants to jump up and ask to overturn them. 
However, usually the process of overturning a local law of the District 
of Columbia does not come through regular order, through the House and 
Senate, although there is such a process that is allowed. It usually 
comes in the way in which Representative Massie and Representative 
Harris have interfered with the District. They simply try to use an 
amendment to an appropriation bill in order to overturn a District law, 
a kind of shortcut method.
  Of course, if one looks at why the District budget is over here, the 
American people would be, I think, pleased to know that no one, not one 
Member looks at the budget. They recognize that they are incompetent to 
do so, not because they are inherently incompetent, but because nobody 
would want to look at somebody else's budget if they have not had the 
opportunity to go through what they have gone through, and that is all 
of the hearings and the rest of it. So Congress doesn't care about the 
budget. They have the budget here in order to use it as a vehicle to 
overturn local laws, and that is what has happened with the gun 
amendment and with the marijuana decriminalization amendment.
  Now, I want to speak about both responses from residents and about 
what these Members have done. The gun amendment is the most serious 
because what Representative Thomas Massie from Kentucky has tried to do 
affects the lives and the public safety of the residents of this city. 
This is something you don't fool with. The reason that the Framers left 
such local matters, public safety, to local people, is because of what 
is at stake. Nobody in Washington, that is to say official Washington, 
can tell anyone in someone's hometown anything that they should want to 
hear about their own local public safety.
  As it turns out, the District of Columbia is very proud of its low 
crime rate, its low gun violence rate, because like other big cities, 
earlier on, within the last 15 or 20 years, it was like other big 
cities. It had high gun violence rates, but those have been brought 
down.
  And you can imagine that in a big city, keeping the city safe from 
gun violence is a very big deal, particularly when that city turns out 
not to be just any city, when it turns out to be the Capital of the 
United States. And yet what Representative Massie has done would make 
the District of Columbia the most permissive gun jurisdiction in the 
United States. What is almost laughable, if it weren't so tragic, is 
that, were his amendment to become law, the District of Columbia would 
have a more permissive set of gun laws than Representative Massie's own 
district in Kentucky. This gentleman lives in a county of 17,000 
people. He is a cattle farmer. That is a different culture that I 
respect in his county, and yes, in his State.
  All the people of the District of Columbia are demanding is the same 
kind of respect, reciprocal respect, and that is what you don't get 
when a Member decides not to attend to the business of his own State, 
but knowing nothing about your State, saying not one mumbling word to 
you, who represent the District, the only Member who represents this 
district, or to any local official, when you then decide in the most 
tyrannical way to use authority that essentially even this Congress 
never intended you to have because 40 years ago the Congress passed the 
Home Rule Act.
  It recognized when the country was, frankly, being criticized for not 
using the same standard with its own Capital that it demands of the 
rest of the world. Its own Capital didn't even have a local government, 
a home rule government. It was ruled by three commissioners. The people 
of the District couldn't elect their government. It had

[[Page 13198]]

no Member of Congress. What kind of democracy is that in your Nation's 
Capital? Well, Congress said that is not democracy.
  So Members can cite all they want about the Constitution, which 
indeed said that because it is the Nation's Capital, there is 
jurisdiction in the Congress. But nothing in the Constitution said that 
Congress had to keep that jurisdiction and could never give the 
District democracy, and so it did. The Home Rule Act of 1973, with that 
act, from this Congress, this Congress said we shall no longer be the 
tyrannical lawmakers for people unaccountable to us, making laws for 
people who can't vote for us or against us. We give that up because it 
is inconsistent with our values of democracy, and we say it to the 
world: we give it up now. And so they did.
  So any Member who tries to say we have the authority, it is like any 
tyrant in the world who says because I can do it, I am going to do it. 
Yes, you can do it if you want to betray your own principles.
  Now, I note for the Record that these Members profess to be Tea Party 
Republicans. Their major standard in this Congress is that power, even 
power that the Federal Government legitimately has, shall be devolved, 
sent back to local jurisdictions and to States.
  How can you call yourself a small government, local government, 
states' rights Republican and then be instrumental in putting the big 
foot of the Federal Government on a local jurisdiction--as it turns 
out, your own Nation's Capital--and just to make this more absurdly 
antidemocratic, in a Congress where that Member cannot even vote up or 
down on the Harris amendment or on the Massie amendment.
  If, my friends, that is not tyranny, then the word has no meaning. 
Unaccountable, and you stand in the way of making the only Member who 
represents the District, where you are interfering, making her 
unaccountable too with no vote on this floor--is this America? No, it 
is the Tea Party Republican Congress.
  The gun amendment that has been introduced by Representative Massie 
as a bald attempt to score political points, and he says so--I will 
quote from his own statement shortly--to make political points at the 
expense of states' rights, the rights of my own constituents, and most 
seriously, at the expense of their public safety.
  What is Representative Thomas Massie trying to do here in Washington, 
instead of finding things to do for the people of Kentucky? Well, this 
is what he is trying to do in the Nation's Capital: to allow carrying 
on the streets a gun, open or concealed, of any kind; assault weapon, 
any kind, no holds; allowing assault weapons, including .50-caliber 
sniper weapons, to be possessed; allowing magazines holding an 
unlimited number of bullets to be possessed.
  Do you know how many motorcades of cars go through the streets of the 
Nation's Capital every single day carrying dignitaries at every level 
of government from across the world? They stop the traffic because the 
safety of these officials is so important to the Nation and to the 
world. So we are not only talking about our own Cabinet officials, we 
are talking about 20 million people who visit this city, prime 
ministers, heads of states.
  Let me go on about what kind of gun atmosphere Mr. Massie wants here 
in the Nation's Capital.
  Private sale of guns without any background checks. Any Tom, Dick, or 
Harry, rogue or criminal, could get a gun and bring it into the 
Nation's Capital.
  The purchase of guns with no waiting period.
  The purchase of an unlimited number of guns in one day.
  That is what he wants here in one of the big cities, the Nation's 
Capital.
  Well, all he has done is bring unintended confusion. He certainly has 
gotten a response from the city. The mayor of the city, the police 
chief was out of town but her assistant chief came to this House and 
held a press conference about the outrage of interfering with the chief 
and most important duty of the mayor and the police chief: keeping the 
streets of the District safe.
  But this amendment isn't quite doing what Mr. Massie intended. In 
fact, both of these amendments, the Harris marijuana decriminalization 
amendment and the Massie amendment, show why amendments to 
appropriations bills really aren't the way to proceed. It is true that 
you can try to introduce a bill to accomplish the same thing, but 
amendments to appropriations contain a few words and they end up doing 
things you never expected. This was a 69-word appropriation rider that 
tries to overturn four complicated laws; you just can't do it with an 
amendment and get done what you are trying to do.

                              {time}  1445

  This is what we found. We are still looking at the implications of 
the Massie amendment. It appears that Thomas Massie has made some of 
our laws less restrictive and some more restrictive.
  Then there is another interpretation that says that the city may be 
left with only laws that have been declared unconstitutional, and of 
course, those are unenforceable.
  Then looking at the language, another reading says that the amendment 
has not only blocked the four complicated gun laws intended, but has 
also blocked enforcement of laws that these laws amended, and these 
laws amended laws that have been found unconstitutional. That is just 
how complicated this is.
  Now, what I think I have shown is that it is technically impossible 
to do what Thomas Massie tried to do in 69 words. Never mind, though, 
if all you are bent on is undemocratically poking, inserting yourself 
into a district not your own, you are bound to make mistakes.
  In order to do what Thomas Massie wanted to do, he would have had to 
write a law as complicated as the District of Columbia's own carefully-
wrought laws--gun laws are. Remember, their laws had to be redeveloped 
because of the Supreme Court decision that said that D.C.'s original 
laws were not constitutional, so they went back and revised their laws, 
and they came up with, yes, strict gun laws.
  There have been challenges to those gun laws. The Federal courts have 
upheld the District's gun registration requirement, the Federal courts 
have upheld the District's assault weapons ban, and the Federal courts 
have upheld the District's ban on large-capacity ammunition feeding 
devices.
  Why in the world would anyone have gone to court against those in the 
first place, I am not sure, but anybody who reads the Supreme Court 
decision as saying you can carry any gun, anywhere you want to, ought 
to read it again.
  All the Supreme Court said was that you are allowed to have and own a 
gun in your own home, period. That is all the Supreme Court has said--
not to carry those guns into the streets of big cities where gun 
tragedies occur on a frequent basis.
  I make no challenge to where my colleagues stand on guns. I believe 
in a country full of diversity of all kinds. If you look at the great 
United States from East to West, with its extraordinary diverse 
geography, you can understand why there would be vast differences among 
residents on issues like guns.
  Why in the world would we not want to respect those differences? This 
is the United States of America. It means, in the States & D.C., we 
have the freedom to entertain differences and to carry them out there. 
That is all the residents of the District of Columbia are asking--
indeed, demanding.
  Wherever you stand on guns is no business of mine, and I will never 
try to convince you in your own State how to behave with those guns. 
All that the people I represent are asking is that we be accorded the 
same respect.
  Representative Massie came on this floor initially with a version of 
his gun amendment. The Speaker sitting there before him found his 
amendment to be out of order. It was unartfully written.
  Normally, if your own party--the Speaker in the chair is from his 
party,

[[Page 13199]]

the majority controls the floor--if your own Speaker says that your 
amendment is out of order, that is the end of it.
  To understand the kind of Member we are dealing with--his own Speaker 
had ruled his amendment out of order--the sensible thing to do is what 
he was finally forced to do, go back, go to the staff who knows how to 
write these amendments, and say: write me an amendment that won't be 
out of order.
  Instead, he stood his ground and said he wanted a vote to overrule 
his own Speaker, that his amendment was out of order. That so 
embarrassed his colleagues on the other side that people gathered 
around him trying to convince him he really didn't want to do that, 
there was another way, go back and rewrite your amendment.
  What began as stubbornness was becoming a matter of embarrassment for 
the Republican majority because a vote to overrule the Speaker demands 
an immediate vote of the House. It was now 7 or 8 at night.
  Members had been told there would be no more votes, so they were 
scattered throughout the region, in Maryland, in Virginia, and the far 
reaches of the District of Columbia. Had, indeed, they been called 
back, the most angry Member would not have been me, it would have been 
his own colleagues.
  Finally, unable to convince him to accept the ruling of the Chair--
and the people of Kentucky ought to know what kind of Member they sent 
here and perhaps do something about it--instead of accepting the 
technical problem and going back forthrightly and dealing with it, he 
demanded a vote anyway.
  The vote could only be called a humiliation of the Member because the 
votes were by voice and both sides voted against the Member's 
amendment, including his own side over there, and the only one to vote 
for his amendment was him.
  So what he did finally is what he had to do. He went back, and he 
rewrote his amendment, and, of course, he has come back, and it passed, 
but with the unintended and confused consequences I just indicated.
  This is a Member, I say to the people of Kentucky, who has introduced 
all of six bills--just by way of comparison only, because you can't be 
judged by the number of bills you introduce--but he has introduced six, 
I have introduced 64. The difference is I have spent my time asking: 
What do my constituents need?
  I bet the people of Mr. Massie's district in Kentucky need more than 
an amendment likely not to prevail at the end of the Congress that 
overturns all the gun laws in the Nation's Capital. Indeed, I want to 
know what that does for one single resident of Thomas Massie's 
district.
  He was asked by the press: Why would you do this? He said: Because I 
want to try to restore gun rights anywhere I can.
  He thinks he can here, despite the Home Rule Act, where Congress gave 
up the authority to pass laws for the District of Columbia.
  Well, he had an opportunity twice since the D.C. amendment passed to 
try to restore gun rights any way he could. A congressional staff 
member was arrested here in the House just a few days ago for bringing 
a gun into the Capitol complex. This person has been arrested. I can't 
believe, since he is a staffer, he intended to bring it here, but the 
law is the law, whether you are a staffer or a visitor.
  Why hasn't Thomas Massie introduced a bill here where nobody could 
say he lacks jurisdiction, a bill to allow guns to be brought into the 
House of Representatives? I challenge him, if he means what he says, 
that he wants to at least try to restore gun rights ``anywhere I can,'' 
then he must begin where he lives, right here on the House floor, so 
that no staff member will be embarrassed again. Here, at least, those 
who would be affected are accountable to him, as the residents I 
represent are not.
  It looks like--if you were to judge by these incidents all within a 
week's time--there are people who believe that Representative Massie 
meant what he said because just a couple of days ago, a man--yet again, 
from South Carolina--brought a loaded Ruger LC9 semiautomatic pistol 
with a round in the chamber, into the Capitol complex, and he too was 
arrested, because it is a Federal law, 40 U.S.C. 5104, which makes it 
an offense to carry a gun in the Capitol complex with a penalty up to 5 
years of imprisonment.
  Do you want to do something for the people of Kentucky who may visit 
here or the people of America? Here is a law that Thomas Massie has 
full jurisdiction to overturn, so I challenge him--if Thomas Massie is 
looking for a way to restore gun rights ``anywhere I can,'' I challenge 
you to at least introduce such a bill here, if for no other reason, for 
consistency's sake.
  Don't think that what Mr. Massie has done has not been noted in 
Kentucky. I am quoting from a Kentucky TV station--and maybe this is 
partly inexperience because we don't see more experienced Members who 
may agree with Mr. Massie coming forward so recklessly--but this 
Kentucky staffer says:

       First-term Republican Representative Thomas Massie said it 
     is his business to try to overturn Washington, D.C.'s gun 
     control laws.

  Then it says--and this is a straight-out news report:

       Massie's congressional district stretches from eastern 
     Jefferson County, Oldham, Shelby, and Spencer Counties, all 
     the way to the West Virginia border.
       If the libertarian Republican has his way, his influence 
     will stretch to the District of Columbia's gun laws.

                              {time}  1500

  That is how it was reported in Kentucky. There is an irony here that 
is not lost in his home State. Take the Courier-Journal in Kentucky, 
which ran an editorial that was headlined, ``Big foot government.''
  It says, ``A couple of Members of Kentucky's congressional delegation 
who claim to want government out of our lives want to force more of it 
on the District of Columbia. Tea Party favorites''--they also name Rand 
Paul because he has introduced a bill (not an appropriation amendment) 
that has been set back in the Senate, but his is an entire bill to 
overturn the gun laws of the Nation's Capital.
  Rand Paul wants to be President of the United States, and he is 
putting in bills, by the way, that are far softer than the gun bill--
bills that you might expect from the Democratic side--in order to try 
to make Independents and Democrats think that he is more acceptable 
than his words have indicated he is in the past.
  Continuing, The Courier-Journal, the biggest newspaper in Kentucky, 
says that the two of them, ``libertarian-leaning Republicans, are 
pushing measures in Congress to roll back Washington, D.C.'s strict gun 
laws adopted by its officials to try to reduce gun violence in the 
nation's capital.''
  It goes on, but let me quote from another part of that editorial. 
``Too bad their concern doesn't extend to the right of residents of 
Washington to have a vote in Congress. The delegate from Washington has 
no floor vote, which means Ms. Norton could only complain about the gun 
measure, but not vote against it. That sounds like taxation without 
representation, something anyone who purports to love liberty ought to 
oppose.''
  Mr. Speaker, not only taxation without representation, but the people 
I represent pay the highest taxes per capita to the Federal Government, 
$12,000 per resident, which is the highest in the United States.
  One ought to understand our outrage when people from Kentucky or 
Maryland or anywhere else in the country who pay less taxes try to tell 
us how to conduct our local affairs.
  The gun amendment certainly riled D.C. residents, but that amendment 
is one of only two such amendments. The other, of course, is the 
marijuana decriminalization law that I mentioned when I began.
  It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that when the marijuana 
decriminalization law passed, along with the gun law, The Associated 
Press had an apt headline: ``Guns Okay, Pot Dangerous.'' That tells you 
something about the Republican House of Representatives.
  The residents of this region--where we have lived as one region--have 
built the same Metro and use the same

[[Page 13200]]

Metro with taxes coming from the entire region, and even though we have 
differing views on many issues, we try to live as one region and not 
meddle into the affairs of our neighbors, so this marijuana amendment 
was a particular outrage because it came from a Maryland 
Representative.
  The first thing that the largest D.C. rights organization in D.C. did 
was to call for a boycott of the Eastern Shore, which Mr. Harris 
represents. The Eastern Shore lives off of Maryland, Virginia, and 
D.C., in the summertime. They have got to make it then, or the Eastern 
Shore isn't going to make it for the rest of the year.
  When D.C. Vote called for a boycott, it suggested that residents 
choose Rehoboth Beach, Delaware; or Chincoteague Island, Virginia; but 
not the Eastern Shore because it said: They don't support us; why 
should we support them?
  Of course, there will be allies across the region who will hear that 
call and who will not go to the Eastern Shore this summer.
  Residents continue to try in other ways to say to Representative 
Harris: stay out of our affairs, attend to your own.
  Two dozen residents came here this week to file complaints with 
Representative Harris. They say he is acting like he is a member of the 
city council, so we are going to treat him like he is a member of the 
city council.
  So they brought their complaints one by one, and Representative 
Harris' chief of staff had to stand there to receive these complaints 
from the residents of the District of Columbia.
  Nathan Harrington, who is a teacher in the District of Columbia, 
said, now that he sees who has the power, he is coming to Rep. Harris 
because there are some vacant houses in his neighborhood and he demands 
that Representative Andy Harris take care of those vacant houses, right 
away. Andy Harris has got the power. He has shown us he has got the 
power.
  Mr. Harrington said: either he represents us or doesn't. If he 
doesn't, then stay out of our business. If he does, take care of those 
vacant houses.
  Representative Harris did not come forward to receive these 
complaints, but his chief of staff did stand there, with civility, and 
receive these office-hours complaints from D.C. Vote residents.
  There were a number of other complaints that came to Mr. Harris' 
office. A resident said they wanted more visible street signs. One 
resident said they want more bike lanes. If you have got somebody who 
can put the big foot of the Federal Government on your back, then 
surely he can do little things like get you some bike lanes.
  This may be tongue-in-cheek, but it does show you the residents of 
the District of Columbia are going to come at you in more ways than 
one, and yes, there is a sense of humor here, and then there is 
something very serious, like that boycott.
  To its credit, when the boycott of the Eastern Shore was initiated by 
D.C. Vote, it sent word to its local chamber of commerce and to its 
local commercial section that it had absolutely nothing against them, 
that many of us had enjoyed the Eastern Shore, but essentially, we were 
powerless here.
  I could note vote against the Harris amendment. I don't expect the 
residents of the District of Columbia to sit around and take it. You 
want to mess with us, we are going to mess with you. We are going to 
mess with you in your district, we are going to mess with you here.
  We are first-class American citizens. We are not going to take it. We 
are going to do everything we can to blanket your State about how you 
are meddling in our affairs, instead of taking care of your state's 
business.
  I didn't organize any of this. I am expressing the outrage of the 
people I represent, and let me tell you, while they made light with 
this constituent services day in Representative Harris' office, this is 
dead serious for us because our marijuana amendment wasn't passed 
because of some college students--and this is a big college town--
lobbied the council about pot.
  It was passed in the wake of two studies by very reputable 
organizations, The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and 
the American Civil Liberties Union. They found that in this progressive 
town, 90 percent of those arrested for smoking marijuana were Black.
  I can't tell you exactly why, but it probably has a lot to do with 
where the police presence is most likely to be, but these figures fly 
in the face of figures that show that Blacks and Whites use marijuana 
at the same rate.
  I don't know whether Members appreciate what a ``drug'' offense--and 
that is what a marijuana offense is--means to a Black kid. It is the 
end of his working life. He is likely to carry around a stereotype 
based on his color and often his gender, if he is a Black boy or Black 
man. He won't be able to explain away this drug offense--marijuana 
offense.
  That is what got the city council to pass this law. So anyone who 
interferes with us on this issue is meddling with a serious racial 
issue in the District of Columbia, and we are demanding that you stay 
out of this very serious affair.
  The amendment was passed to combat racial injustice. Twenty-three 
States have legalized medical marijuana, 18 have decriminalized 
marijuana, and two States have legalized marijuana. We will not be 
treated differently from any other State in the Union. The one thing we 
demand is equal treatment.
  I must note that there is a growing sense among my Republican 
colleagues in this Congress that marijuana should no longer be 
criminally treated. We don't treat alcohol, which does far more harm, 
in a criminal fashion. While I am the last one to say smoke weed or 
cigarettes, I don't think people should get a criminal record for 
having done so.
  We do not see any consistency among my Republican colleagues. When 
the Harris amendment came in committee, Republicans voted for it, and I 
want to say something about those Republicans.
  Ken Calvert of California, Jeff Fortenberry, Jaime Herrera Beutler, 
David Joyce, David Valadao, Andy Harris--of course--and Mark Amodei, 
these members, along with Mr. Harris, violated their own limited, small 
government, local control, states' rights principles by voting in 
committee for the Harris amendment.
  I want to say a special word about Mark Amodei of Nevada because he 
exceeded other Members in hypocrisy. He joined a majority last month on 
the floor in favor of an amendment blocking the Federal Government from 
interfering with medical marijuana in those States which allow it--
because Nevada allows it.

                              {time}  1515

  He didn't want the Federal Government interfering with what had been 
sanctioned by his own state, but he was quick to interfere with the 
local affairs on a related substance right afterwards.
  I call on my Republican colleagues to at least abide by their own 
principles and to show some consistency of principle.
  Also passed recently was an amendment that prevents the Federal 
Government from penalizing financial institutions that provide services 
to legal marijuana businesses. If you have got a marijuana business in 
your State and the State says it is okay, then the Federal Government 
cannot keep financial institutions from dealing in bank transactions 
with these local marijuana businesses.
  Forty-five Republicans voted for that amendment that passed. That is 
a large number of Republicans to cross the aisle in this House. The 
House has also voted to block the Drug Enforcement Administration from 
using funds to target medical marijuana operations in States where 
those operations are legal. Forty-nine Republicans voted for that.
  Be consistent. If you are going to vote to keep the Federal 
Government out of matters involving marijuana where your State has 
sanctioned its use, then apply that same principle to the District of 
Columbia. That is why the Associated Press said: ``House GOP to D.C.: 
Guns OK, pot dangerous.''

[[Page 13201]]

  Like the Massie gun amendment, the Harris amendment had unintended 
consequences, too. The District of Columbia marijuana decriminalization 
is legal because the law has passed its layover period of 60 
legislative days. At the end of that 60 days, the law became legal. 
Now, the Harris amendment--seeks to overturn it. What happens when you 
use a pre-loaded Federal political bomb against a local jurisdiction is 
clear from what has happened with Representative Harris' amendment. 
That amendment now would not only block the District from enforcing its 
laws, it would block the District from issuing the fines that, with a 
sense of responsibility, were put in the law for those who, for 
example, smoke marijuana on the streets. There are unintended 
consequences because you don't know what you are doing when you meddle 
in the business, the local business, of another jurisdiction.
  It is remarkable that Mr. Harris is a Club for Growth, Tea Party 
acolyte, who was known before he came here and is known now for his 
support of states' rights more than he is known for anything else; and 
it is remarkable to note that his own State, Maryland, has 
decriminalized marijuana. He is a Member who has the power in Maryland. 
Yet, he could not keep his own State from decriminalizing marijuana. So 
he tries to do in the District what he could not do in the State where 
he is accountable to the voters.
  A recent article on Mr. Harris and the District of Columbia when 
these residents Constituent Services Day in Representative Harris' 
office:

       I thought this media stunt was going to be a colossally 
     goofball effort that had little to no effect on Harris or his 
     views, and we still don't know if it will, but on that day, 
     his employees were clearly rattled, so mission accomplished.
       Moreover, Harris--who also has said that, to District 
     residents, Congress is their local legislature--missed an 
     opportunity to come across as something beyond another guy 
     stuffed in a suit, overreaching his boundaries. By leaving 
     the completely manageable demonstration to his marginally 
     prepared aides, his stance on what the city's drug policies 
     should be came across as even more aloof and more nonsensical 
     than ever.

  Look at how you are viewed. Think before you decide to insert 
yourself against your own professed--and often announced--principles 
into the affairs of a local jurisdiction not your own.
  I am here this afternoon to serve notice on these two Members--and we 
are not through with them yet--or on any other Members who come forward 
that, yes, you can vote when I can't, but you cannot keep the residents 
of the District of Columbia from doing what they can to show you and to 
show America that we will not be treated as second-class citizens in 
our own country, not by Thomas Massie, not by Andy Harris, not by any 
Member of the House or Senate. Don't expect us to just lie down and 
take it. No red-blooded American would take what these Members have 
tried to do to this city with the gun amendment and with the marijuana 
decriminalization amendment.
  In the name of your own principles--principles on which I agree that 
matters in the States and localities are for them, and my friends, 
maybe even some of the things we do here can better be done in the 
States--there is a democratic way to accomplish that mission, but it is 
not by an act of profound congressional bullying where you exert power 
to which even the local Member cannot respond except on this floor, 
with her voice--not even with a vote.
  When Thomas Massie decided that he wanted to overrule his chair, they 
didn't pull him off the floor. They let him have a vote. I will not 
have a vote on any matter affecting the District of Columbia. In the 
name of decency, if you are not going to give me a vote, stay out of 
the affairs of the District of Columbia.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________