On the recordJuly 15, 2014
I certainly disagree with the gentleman's points there. First of all, Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate and exercise over all matters in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, if a law enforcement officer in the District of Columbia is not already familiar with Federal laws, then I question whether he should be a law enforcement officer. But most of all, I would make the point that the underlying bill already contains language that is virtually identical in form to the amendment that I have offered. For instance, section 809 states that ``none of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act.'' There are multiple examples in the underlying bill where the structure of those portions of the bill are identical to my amendment and require knowledge of law. The Acting CHAIR. The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination by the District of Columbia as to the state of Federal firearms law. The gentleman has not shown that this determination is already required. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
