[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 64 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3396-H3398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, I come to the floor this afternoon because 
of interference in the local affairs of the District of Columbia that 
is about to take place pursuant to a hearing that has been called by 
the Government Operations Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee.
  First, let me be clear. The Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, led by Chairman Darrell Issa, has been respectful of self-
government in the District of Columbia. Chairman Issa has not only 
observed the same self-government for our District that he insists upon 
for his, but he has gone beyond that to encourage greater home rule and 
budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. This subcommittee hearing 
is not done under the aegis of the full committee but, rather, under 
the leadership of the subcommittee chair, John Mica.
  The respect for local control lies at the heart of the formation of 
the United States of America, itself. It was the denial of that respect 
that led to the Revolution and to formation of the United States. 
Essentially, at that time, when Americans were saying taxes are a 
matter for local jurisdictions, it meant the United States, and when 
the Constitution, itself, was drawn, the Framers were at pains to 
separate out local matters over which the Federal Government would have 
no say and no control.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that the House, of course, as well as the 
Senate, maintain some control over the District of Columbia that 
Congress does not have over other jurisdictions. I assert what should 
be clear in that illegitimate control, but at the very least, I respect 
and thank Members who have not gone out of their way not to violate 
their own principles of local government in order to exercise that 
control, as the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, under 
Chairman Issa, has been clear to avoid. In short, don't have hearings 
on the District of Columbia--that's for the District of Columbia City 
Council.
  The Government Operations Subcommittee has called for a hearing on 
Wednesday on the recently decriminalized marijuana law in the District 
of Columbia. It is important to note that there are Federal and State 
matters that are implicated in this hearing. The subcommittee has held 
two hearings on those implications because of the conflict between 
State and local law that is emerging very rapidly on

[[Page H3397]]

marijuana possession--but look at what the subcommittee did in its two 
prior committee hearings:
  In one hearing, it called a U.S. attorney, who is a Federal official. 
It was a U.S. attorney from a district in Colorado and in addition, an 
official from the Drug Enforcement Administration. In another hearing, 
it called only one witness, the Deputy Director of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy. Do note that each and every one of these 
officials was legitimately called as a Federal official.
  Why was no official from the State of Colorado called? There was no 
State official, no local official--only a Federal official from the 
State of Colorado. The reason is clear: Colorado would have taken 
umbrage at the audacity of this body to dare call them to account on 
their own local laws.
  Be on notice that we take the same umbrage. We will not silently 
allow this Congress or its committees and subcommittees to interfere in 
our local affairs, and on this matter, we are standing on very solid 
ground.
  Eighteen States went quite ahead of the District and decriminalized 
their marijuana laws. ``Decriminalization'' means that a fine rather 
than prison results from the possession of marijuana. Twenty States 
proceeded to enact medical marijuana laws, which to enable people who 
have certain medical conditions to get medical marijuana. It took me 11 
years to remove--or to get the Congress to remove--an amendment that 
kept the District from allowing its own citizens to have access to 
medical marijuana at a time when we had a runaway HIV-AIDS problem, 
where medical marijuana had been helpful. I was finally able to do 
that. Two States of the Union--Washington and Colorado--have legalized 
marijuana.
  How dare any committee or subcommittee call the District of Columbia 
local officials--any local official--to testify on our local law? I 
will get to why we enacted that law in one moment.
  Let me say who preceded us and who has not been called before this 
House or any committee or subcommittee of this House even though they 
have done either precisely the same thing or have gone even further 
than D.C. I am going to call the roll, Mr. Speaker, so you will know 
the company in which we find ourselves and why we insist upon treatment 
without discrimination, because we are the exact equivalent of other 
American citizens:
  Alaska: going back more than almost 40 years now--decriminalized 
marijuana. No penalty for use in one's home. Actually, that is further 
than decriminalization. That legalized marijuana in one's home;
  California: a $100 fine. Some of these are quite old, these laws. 
More recently, there has come a flood of marijuana laws changes.
  Colorado: no penalty. Of course, there are different amounts 
involved, and most of these involve people over 21;
  Connecticut: a $150 fine;
  Maine: as low as a $350 fine, as high as a $1,000 fine depending on 
the amount;

                              {time}  1300

  Maryland, $100 fine; Massachusetts, $100 fine; Minnesota, $300 fine; 
Mississippi, $100 to $250 fine; Nebraska, $300 fine. That goes back to 
1978, by the way. Nevada, $600 fine; New York, $100 fine; North 
Carolina, up to $200 fine; Ohio, $150 fine; Oregon, $650 fine; Rhode 
Island, $150 fine; Vermont, up to $200 in fines; and the State of 
Washington, no penalty for those 21 or older.
  What has the District of Columbia done? Its decriminalization 
involves a $25 fine instead of a criminal misdemeanor, penalty of up to 
6 months in jail, and as much as a $1,000 fine. It also prohibits law 
enforcement from using the smell of marijuana as grounds for stopping 
and searching a resident.
  The reason for the low fine is that the District faced the 
possibility--in fact, very real possibility--that if it didn't have a 
low fine, it would end up with another disparity, namely, those who 
could afford the fine would not go to jail, and those who could not 
would.
  I want to say something about why going to jail becomes so important. 
First, let me quote the President, who said:

       Middle class kids don't get locked up for smoking pot and 
     poor kids do. And African American kids and Latino kids are 
     more likely to be poor and less likely to have resources and 
     the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.

  What the President said in general should be understood in particular 
in the District of Columbia, and I suspect in many States as well 
because the problem of disparity in enforcement is nationwide.
  The District of Columbia is a very progressive jurisdiction, and it 
is very racially sensitive. We have a population that is about half 
Black and half White, about 10 percent Latino, very progressive. And 
yet, in the progressive District of Columbia, African Americans are 
eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than 
Whites.
  Understand that, in the District of Columbia as across the country, 
Blacks and Whites use marijuana at the same rate. Why then are African 
Americans eight times more likely to be arrested? I can only guess. 
Sometimes they live in high-crime areas where there may be more police 
out on the street.
  Notice that the legislation bars arresting someone because an officer 
smells marijuana on the person. Of course, if that is the reason for an 
arrest, what you can do is take somebody in who has violated no law 
except possession of a small amount of marijuana--and all of the 
amounts we are talking about are small amounts--and what happens is 
that that an African American or White person or any other resident has 
a criminal record for the rest of his or her life. For an African 
American, that matters.
  We have a whole generation particularly of young men who, with that 
first arrest, are essentially ruled out of the job market because they 
have a ``drug possession arrest.'' That drug possession is a small 
amount of marijuana. That ruins that young man's life not only for 
work, but as the world turns, for the opportunity to have a good 
marriage, to raise children, and for African Americans to have a stable 
community, all beginning with one marijuana possession arrest.
  The result may be to lead this person, frankly, into a life of 
criminal activity. You can't get work because you have a drug 
possession arrest on your record. And if you can't get work and you 
need money, what can you do? What you often do is you go from 
possessing marijuana, as many young people do, to the next level, to 
distributing it or otherwise being involved in criminal activity.
  We don't have to go this way.
  I suspect that some of the jurisdictions that have decriminalized 
marijuana have done so--and you will notice they are very diverse--
simply because they are more libertarian, a bit more open to what they 
see around them, which is that people engage in alcohol consumption as 
much as they do, in smoking marijuana, at least as much. We learned the 
hard way that you don't put people in jail when it comes to drinking 
alcohol or even distributing it.
  I want to be clear. I do not and will never advocate the smoking of 
pot, don't think it is a good thing, don't think being high is fine. I 
also don't think drinking alcohol is a good thing, but I wouldn't want 
to put anybody in jail for it. If someone is unfortunate enough to 
develop a habit, I want to do what we do with people who develop that 
habit with alcohol and try to get them off that habit.
  Look. It is a free society. We cannot keep everybody from every sin, 
but we don't lock them up in the jails. That is why you find State 
after State opening their jails and letting out people who have been 
convicted of drug possession, don't want to ruin lives, particularly 
what amounts to young lives.
  We feel very deeply about this. If I may say so, I think every 
jurisdiction that has passed these laws feels deeply about it and would 
tell Congress which way to go if Congress came anywhere close to their 
local laws. I am not going to tell Congress which way to go. I am just 
going to tell Congress: Don't mess with our marijuana laws. And the 
reason I have to say that to the Congress is because Congress can.
  This hearing could be the first step toward overturning D.C.'s 
marijuana law. Usually when they try to overturn one of our laws, they 
don't give us a hearing. They just try to do it in some sneaky way.

[[Page H3398]]

  This hearing is for show. But it is a dangerous hearing because it is 
about a real law and real people and real racial disparity and, yes, 
real discrimination against my district because we have been pulled out 
as no other jurisdiction has been.
  I want to compliment those Members on the floor from the other side 
who were consistent with their own principles yesterday. There was a 
marijuana amendment on the floor yesterday, and the full details of it 
I don't have before me, but I recall it would allow prescription by 
Veterans Administration physicians for medical marijuana for certain 
wounded veterans because of the finding that it has a beneficial effect 
on some of their concerns, especially nausea and other kinds 
of conditions they bring back with them.

  The vote was divided, but I looked at the members of the subcommittee 
who will be hearing on Wednesday about cannibus laws in the District of 
Columbia. There are seven members of that subcommittee; and two 
Republicans on that subcommittee, that seven-Member subcommittee, voted 
to respect states' rights and voted, in effect, to allow States to do 
what is necessary when it came to medical marijuana for veterans.
  Yes, the parties are coming together on this issue, and for that 
reason it makes no sense whatsoever to have a divisive hearing that 
calls out one local jurisdiction--the weakest in the country because 
the District of Columbia has no Senators, because while I vote in 
committee, whatever you do to my District or even for my District, I 
cannot vote on it on this floor.
  I can tell you this. As a result of this hearing and because the D.C. 
decriminalization bill has to lay over here for 60 days before it 
becomes final, it is still here, I have alerted my allies throughout 
the country, and particularly in those States which have decriminalized 
marijuana or legalized it. So if any Member of this House ever gets 
oversight over this matter and dares to vote that the District can't 
decriminalize cannibus, even though their citizens have the opposite 
right, we will call them out.
  I don't believe that kind of hypocrisy exists in this House, nor do I 
know whether there is any attempt to try to overturn our laws. I have 
to come to the floor proactively, my friends, because Members don't 
exactly come to me ahead of time and tell me when they want to perform 
the illegitimate act of overturning a local law in the District of 
Columbia. So I am calling them out right now: Don't you dare to seek to 
countermand the elected, the democratically elected D.C. council which 
has decided what is best for its citizens, particularly if your own 
jurisdiction--and I have called your names--has decided that some form 
of marijuana possession decriminalization or legalization should occur 
in yours.
  Even for those of you who come from parts of the United States which 
have not changed their marijuana laws, let me say to you: I respect 
that your local jurisdictions, your State jurisdiction has not acted in 
that way. There are real issues here. We don't want people smoking 
marijuana to end up where people who smoke cigarettes did.
  A lot of what is being done now, the city is already holding hearings 
on the law's effects, is putting in place measures that would have the 
effect of not only alerting people to the problems of smoking anything, 
but keeping this matter from being excessive. Smoking pot perhaps has 
more of a chance of being excessive at least among young people if it 
is barred. I am not so sure now that it is allowed in so many States, a 
third of the States, that you will have nearly the excitement about 
smoking pot as you did before it was decriminalized.
  Whatever is the result is not for a national legislature, not in 
America where local matters get decided by local folks. Yes, there is a 
conflict with Federal law. That is for the Federal Government in its 
implementation of drug laws to take care of.

                              {time}  1315

  And if you want to somehow go out against these States which are 
rapidly decriminalizing marijuana laws--you have got to come after all 
of them, not just one--that is what I am here to say. We don't intend 
to be the outlier that Congress uses to prove its point about 
marijuana.
  We demand respect for the principles for which the Constitution 
stands. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about respecting 
local control, except for the District of Columbia. The Framers left 
some control of D.C. matters with Congress, but certainly not the kind 
of control that would be exercised here. The Congress on its own 
decided that even the control that the Framers left in the Congress, it 
would never exercise, when it passed 40 years ago the Home Rule Act of 
the District of Columbia.
  The Home Rule Act says that matters of local law are for the local 
jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, just as they are for the 
local jurisdiction of each of the 50 States. That was a landmark law. 
We intend that it will be respected. No hearing called, however 
illegitimate as this hearing is, is enough to override that law and its 
intent.
  That law needs to be expanded, not sat upon with a hearing that picks 
out one local law. It needs to be expanded so that the 100 percent of 
local funds raised in the District of Columbia don't have to come 
before a national body before we can spend our own money, as if you 
were the masters of our local funds--almost $4 billion of it raised 
from local citizens and local businesses.
  You want to bring us before you on Federal funds? Be my guest. But 
don't come to the District of Columbia when it comes to its own money. 
And don't come to the District of Columbia when it comes to its own 
laws.
  Nobody in this House can speak with any credibility to the reasons, 
and they are legion, but don't forget the most important reason that 
the District decided to decriminalize its laws. It didn't even legalize 
marijuana, as two States have done; it decriminalized them.
  It is a modest step, it is a responsible step. And it is a step taken 
in the face of horrific evidence, shameful evidence, that showed that, 
essentially, the only people that got arrested in the District of 
Columbia for marijuana possession are Black people. That is an outrage. 
The council had to do something about it. Just as the other States, for 
whatever reasons, have decided to move for local reasons, our council 
has moved for entirely local reasons.
  We ask you to respect that move, especially when it comes to what I 
am sure will be countless lives of African American citizens in the 
District of Columbia that will now have a chance, at least, to escape 
from penalties of law enforcement, to live a fruitful life because they 
will not start off in life with marijuana possession penalties that 
ruin their entire lives.
  We ask for equality of treatment. We are equal citizens under the 
law. If your citizens were treated unequally, each and every Member of 
this House would be on this floor. I come in that spirit, and I come 
asking for the very same respect.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________