[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 204 (Thursday, December 3, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H6061-H6068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3884, MARIJUANA OPPORTUNITY
REINVESTMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT ACT OF 2019
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1244 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1244
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3884) to
decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to provide for
reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War
on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis
offenses, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 116-67, modified by the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall),
my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
{time} 1400
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I feel I need to respond
to the meltdown that occurred right before the vote on the Republican
side.
As the distinguished minority leader knows, House Democrats have sent
two major coronavirus relief bills over to the Senate. Sadly, those
bills have been gathering dust on Mitch McConnell's desk. He has
refused to schedule a vote and a debate on those bills.
But the good news is that today, at 12:45, we find out that Leader
McConnell and Speaker Pelosi have spoken about their shared commitment
to completing an omnibus and COVID relief package as soon as possible.
I take that as good news.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time in this Democratic-
controlled House of Representatives. That means we need to deal with
not only passing an omnibus bill and a COVID relief bill, but we have
other work that needs to be done as well.
I find it curious, Mr. Speaker, that the bill the minority leader
objected to is a bill that deals with the unequal enforcement of our
drug laws where people are treated differently and more negatively
because of the color of their skin. Really?
My distinguished Republican friend did not object to any of the bills
we are bringing up today sponsored by Republicans--five different
bills--but he chose to object to a bill that is addressing the issue of
racial justice.
Now, I guess I shouldn't be surprised because it is consistent with
the attitudes that come out of this White House, but it also makes
clear to me that the Republican Party is no longer the party of
Lincoln. It is the party of some of the most intolerant voices on the
rightwing and those who dabble in conspiracy theories. It really is
sad.
The Republicans made a motion that the House do now adjourn to
highlight the fact that we are able to vote remotely in this Chamber in
the midst of a pandemic. The leader said that nearly one-third of the
Democratic Caucus didn't vote yesterday, which, by the way, they did
because we do have responsible voting rules in place in the middle of
this pandemic. Now, get this, Mr. Speaker. But then, right after saying
that, 95 percent of the Republican Conference didn't even show up to
vote. You can't make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker.
They didn't vote in person, and they didn't vote remotely--nothing.
Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't think the strategy was
very well thought through.
The distinguished minority leader is puzzled why we have passed rules
that allow people to vote remotely during this pandemic. I have a news
flash for him: Close to 275,000 people are dead. We have colleagues,
both Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues, who have been
infected by this virus.
While many Republicans are rushing to attend maskless superspreader
Christmas parties at the White House, we in the Democratic majority are
following the guidelines by the Attending Physician in the Capitol, by
the CDC, by Dr. Fauci, and by every reputable medical expert in the
world.
Operating remotely during a pandemic, I want to tell my friend, is
not radical, it is not unique, and it is not unprecedented or lazy. It
is responsible. It is constitutional. The Supreme Court is working
remotely, as are legislators around the country and around the world.
We aren't doing this because it is convenient, Mr. Speaker. We are
doing it because it is necessary, and we are doing it because we want
to save lives.
So, we invite our Republican colleagues to join us, to be
responsible, and to understand why these rules are so incredibly
important and maybe set an example for others in this country,
especially those who operate in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a
rule, House Resolution 1244, providing
[[Page H6062]]
for the consideration of H.R. 3884, the Marijuana Opportunity
Reinvestment and Expungement Act, under a closed rule. The rule
provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It self-executes
a manager's amendment by Chairman Nadler, and it provides for one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to continue our effort to reform our
Nation's failed approach to the war on drugs, to put racial justice at
the heart of our Nation's Federal cannabis policy, and to make
restorative justice a reality for so many Americans. This is what the
public has demanded for so long, that Congress address the broken
status quo that allows the color of someone's skin to dictate the
repercussions of their actions.
This is not hyperbole, Mr. Speaker. Cannabis accounts for almost half
of all drug arrests in our country--half. Most are arrested for
possessing small amounts, not for selling or manufacturing anything.
That is bad enough. But today in America, Mr. Speaker, you are nearly
four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis if you are Black.
Communities of color use cannabis at roughly the same rate as their
White counterparts, but if you look like me, Mr. Speaker, you are far
less likely to face the same penalties.
I am not okay with that, and nobody should be. I am not okay with a
system that treats those who have been convicted of minor cannabis
offenses like they are some kind of drug kingpin. And I am not okay
with a system that sends people to prison for cannabis-related offenses
even in States where recreational cannabis use has been legalized.
To do nothing about this is intolerable, and to pretend like this is
a problem for communities of color to solve alone is inexcusable.
America's failed war on drugs helped create this problem. It will
take a national, holistic approach to resolve it.
H.R. 3884 represents a major step forward. It complements other
bipartisan criminal justice reform bills passed in this Congress and in
the 115th Congress.
This underlying bill removes cannabis from the Controlled Substances
Act, decriminalizing it at the Federal level so States can set their
own laws.
It also puts a process in place to expunge prior convictions made in
Federal courts and establishes services to help those convicted of
cannabis-related crimes whose lives have been harmed by the war on
drugs, because no lives should be destroyed by this failed policy.
Finally, this bill also makes Small Business Administration funding
available for legitimate cannabis-related businesses while helping
ensure people of color can participate in this thriving industry.
This is what beginning to reverse the failed war on drugs looks like,
Mr. Speaker. It is a testament to all of those who have fought for a
fresh and more effective approach year after year after year.
Now, I have worked side by side with many of them in this effort
since I was first elected to Congress back in 1996. For so long, we
were told the same thing. We were told to wait, to wait, to wait. Well,
cannabis-related amendments couldn't even get a fair fight on this
floor under the prior Republican Congresses. Not a single one was ever
made in order in the 112th, 113th, or 114th Congresses--not one. We
could bring no bill to the floor related to cannabis. The only one made
in order last Congress was an amendment to eradicate illegal grow
operations on National Forest System land.
Congress has stood idly by for too long as communities of color, in
particular, were being torn apart. This majority, Mr. Speaker, is
committed to doing something about it. The House has debated more
amendments on cannabis policy last year than it did during my entire 20
years in Congress, and now we are moving forward with the most sweeping
reforms in generations. This is what a more responsive Congress looks
like.
Now, some, particularly on the other side, have wondered why we are
moving forward with these reforms now. We must soon fund the government
for the next fiscal year and pass the annual defense bill. We are also
trying to prod the Senate to get serious about a true COVID relief
bill.
Again, as I said earlier, we have a little bit of hopeful news, based
on the conversation between the Speaker and the Senate majority leader.
We have a lot to do in the waning days of this Congress, and I get
that. But the answer is simple. This is not an either-or proposition.
Congress, as I said before, can walk and chew gum at the same time.
A recent survey found that nearly 60 percent of Americans support
this underlying bill. That includes a majority of both Democrats and
Republicans. The facts are clear, and the public wants Congress to act.
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
I think it is time for us to take a stand, to stand for restorative
justice, to stand for racial justice, to stand for criminal justice
reform, and to stand with the majority of Americans demanding reforms
to our Nation's cannabis policy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts yielding me the customary
30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this may very well be the last rule I do down here on
the floor of the House, and I was sad when Susan was reading from the
rule because I have gotten to do some humdingers. We have done some
serious legislating in the 10 years I have been in Congress. We have
done some serious rulemaking in the 2 years Mr. McGovern has been
chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, you can always tell when we have been burning the
midnight oil in the Rules Committee because the rule will take a good
7, 8, or 9 minutes to read here on the floor of the House. Why? Because
getting good legislation done is a complicated, difficult thing to do.
It involves a lot of give and take; it involves a lot of voices at the
table; and it involves a lot of time in the Rules Committee to make
that happen.
Mr. Speaker, we are down here today surrounded by Purell wipes, hand
sanitizer, and social distancing, and we are not here to talk about
that COVID package that my friend from Massachusetts referenced. We are
here to, sadly, participate in what has become a theme in this
Congress, and that is folks will have the germ of a wonderful idea on
the Democratic side of the aisle. They will nurture that idea in their
Democratic Caucus, and they will put together all the parts of that
idea they believe need to come together in their Democratic Caucus.
Then, we will come to the House floor, and we will pass that idea with
Democratic votes. Then, we will be vexed, truly vexed, about why that
idea goes to the United States Senate and dies.
I say truly vexed, Mr. Speaker. I have been here a long time. We have
seen this happen. Leadership of both parties knows, when you put
together an idea all by yourself, when you don't take the time to get
all the voices in the room together, and when you don't take the time
to build the strategic partnerships, then good ideas do die. Sometimes
it is on the way to the other Chamber; sometimes it is in conference;
and sometimes it is on the President's desk.
We had numerous amendments offered to this bill. None but the
manager's amendment was made in order. We had Republican advocates for
many of the provisions in this bill speak of the opportunity to do
something together but that those opportunities were missed along the
road in the Judiciary Committee.
I take my friend from Massachusetts' comments to heart when he is so
enthusiastic by a conversation that our Speaker has had with the
majority leader in the Senate. I, too, am excited about that because
talking about what we have done all by ourselves in a partisan way
doesn't lead to positive outcomes for my constituency. Our leadership
in the Democratic-led House getting together with the leadership in the
Senate, the Republican-led Senate, that kind of bipartisan partnership
does lead to good outcomes for our constituents back home. I am hopeful
that we will be able to see that come to fruition.
[[Page H6063]]
Today, however, we do not have the COVID package. We have the
Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act. Mr. Speaker, I
have long said that we needed to have a bill like this on the floor of
the House. My friend from Massachusetts tells me we have debated more
marijuana amendments in the past 2 years than we have in the past 20
years. I take him at his word that that is true. I don't think this is
a topic that we have not been spending enough time on. I think it is a
topic that has received more than its fair share of attention in this
Congress.
The racial equities that my friend talks about deserve better than to
be part of a partisan package that goes nowhere. The generational
disparities that my friend from Massachusetts talks about deserve
better than to be part of a package that has been cobbled together for
the floor rather than built together for the President's desk.
{time} 1415
I agree with absolutely every heartfelt comment my friend from
Massachusetts shared, from the time being now, to the opportunities
that have been wasted, to the inability to have these discussions when
we need to and the ability that we have had recently to have them more.
So to have all of that truth there to be wasted on a December 3
package that will not be moving anywhere, I would say to my friend, I
believe hurts me as much as I know it will hurt him. He does not go
through these efforts to simply be a part of the motion; he goes
through these efforts because he believes in the goal. I regret that
this appears to be another messaging exercise in front of us today.
NDAA, Mr. Speaker, National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that we
have come together as Republicans and Democrats to speak with one voice
on for over 60 years, still hangs out there, needs to be done by this
year; funding of the Federal Government, not just because of all the
healthcare items, but because of those more mundane items, from
transportation to education to our veterans--all of those dollars need
to be provided.
Reauthorization of program after program, like the United States
Coast Guard, for example, we have priority after priority after
priority that this House still has left to accomplish, not in a
partisan way, but in a unified way that can move through the United
States Senate and on to the President's desk. I know we are going to
get to these priorities, but it is not without some frustration that I
find myself on the floor here again talking about bills that will not
be on their way to the President's desk.
I find myself talking in a disappointed tone with my friend from
Massachusetts about opportunities that we have to make a difference for
families, but opportunities that are going to be missed because of the
way we have crafted it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and give us a
chance to do better. In the absence of that, I also will have an
opportunity to defeat the previous question and bring up some of those
COVID packages that really can make a difference for our friends back
home.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of
the Rules Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the distinguished member
of the Committee on Rules from Georgia, I, too, hope that the renewed
interest in both Houses in passing COVID relief yields fruit sooner
rather than later. It does require that the Senate make it a priority,
and I have been advised that the Senate's priority this afternoon once
again is confirming another conservative judge. So we will both have to
hold out hope as we move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today, pleased to rise in support of today's
rule and the underlying legislation, the MORE Act.
It becomes clearer by the day that the time is long overdue for the
Federal Government to bring its marijuana policy into the 21st century.
The current approach has failed our youth, has failed to stem more
harmful drug usage, and, most notably, has failed communities of color
across the United States. That is because, when it comes to marijuana,
there are two justice systems in the United States: a gentler, more
understanding system mostly available to White Americans, and a
punitive, less-forgiving system primarily enforced against Black and
Brown Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this isn't justice. This is not who we must be as a
nation.
Thousands of people, mostly younger Black and Brown men, remain
incarcerated, while a growing number of States, including Pennsylvania,
have decriminalized and legalized marijuana for medicinal and
recreational use.
The question is no longer whether we are living in a world if we will
legalize cannabis. States across the country are leading the way and
demonstrating how to safely, responsibly, and effectively regulate
cannabis for medicinal and recreational use.
Mr. Speaker, the MORE Act will decriminalize marijuana by removing it
from the Controlled Substances Act and apply retroactively to prior and
pending marijuana-related convictions. The bill will also require
Federal courts to expunge prior convictions and require courts to
consider resentencing hearings for those still under supervision.
The MORE Act will not fix all of the injustices caused by the
obsolete and ineffective approach of the Federal Government towards
cannabis, but it is a good and long-overdue start.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to side with justice and
side with common sense to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), one of our
former colleagues on the House Budget Committee, currently the leader
of the Republican side of the House Committee on Rules.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Georgia for
yielding.
Normally, when I come down to this floor, it is to debate the rule
with my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules, and it is to disagree with the legislation, in many cases. And
at least that is true: I am opposed to the rule and opposed to the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the real purpose that I am here today is something that
my friend from Georgia referred to oft too fleetingly in his opening
comments, and that is that this may be his last appearance managing a
rule of the floor of the House.
Now, I had the good fortune to serve in Congress throughout my
friend's distinguished 10-year career. We served, as he said, on the
Committee on Budget together. We have had the opportunity to serve on
both the majority and the minority on the Committee on Rules together.
I was very proud to be a member of the Republican Study Committee--
still am--during his tenure as our chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say, probably something that my good friend,
the chairman, will agree with, we regret very much that my friend has
made the decision to leave Congress and go pursue--and, I am sure,
successfully--other things.
We regret it because Rob Woodall has been, throughout his 10 years,
a Member's Member, a person whom I have never heard say one ill word
about anyone on either side, even while vigorously disagreeing with
that person; a person who has made us proud with the civility and the
decency with which he has conducted his office and discharged his
duties; somebody that I think everyone on the Committee on Rules not
only likes and admires, but considers an invaluable part of the
Committee on Rules because he manages to make his points and bring out
the best in our committee and, again, do so in a way that is always
civil, that is always appropriate, and, frankly, that is quite often
humorous and diffuses difficult situations.
If we had more Members in the United States House of Representatives
like Rob Woodall, we would be a better body than we are--and I think
both sides would agree on that. He knows how to conduct debate and
argument. He knows the process. He knows how to work through the
process in a civil manner. I have seen him do it in the majority. I
have seen him do it in the minority.
[[Page H6064]]
I could not be prouder of him and the service he has rendered to this
institution. I could not be, frankly, sorrier about losing a colleague
who I think has contributed each and every day.
Now, Rob was the chief of staff, Mr. Speaker, before he came here, to
one of our predecessors, John Linder, who also was a member of the
Committee on Rules. So he came to this committee really understanding
how it works, much like the chairman, who had a very similar career
pattern himself, working as a staffer then coming on and now,
obviously, rising to the preeminent position on the committee as our
distinguished chairman. He has seen a lot of Members work through this
process as well, just as I have, and I suspect he values my friend,
even though he is on the other side, as deeply as I do.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, for the record, to my friend, Rob:
We are going to miss you. We are going to miss you on the committee.
But much more importantly, this institution is going to miss you. It is
going to miss your civility. It is going to miss your decency. It is
going to miss your industry. It is going to miss the manner in which
you represent all of us to your constituents and, frankly, when you
speak on this floor to the people of the United States of America. You
have every reason to be proud of the career that you have built here.
You could never be as proud of your career as all of us are of you and
the manner in which you have conducted yourself.
My friend, this may be the last rule; although, I have got to tell
you, if I can sneak you in one more time, I would. It is like we are
losing, I think, our best pitcher, and if I can find one more game to
stick him in, believe me, I will. But I want to tell you how much I
admire you, how much I like you, how much I revere your career, how
much I will miss you as a Member and a friend.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished
ranking member, Mr. Cole.
We are going to miss you, Rob, and this may be my final opportunity
to be able to yield to you during a rules debate. The end of Congress
is obviously rapidly approaching, and you have decided to retire from
Congress after a very distinguished career. We have spent countless
hours not only up in the Committee on Rules, but together on this floor
debating many contentious issues. My distinguished friend from Georgia
is always very focused, and he is always right on message and he is
really quite impressive.
Mr. Speaker, every once in a while, my mother watches these
proceedings, and she will always say: You know, that Woodall guy, he is
a very good debater.
And I always say: Well, what about me? I mean, do you have anything
nice to say about your son?
But the bottom line is I have had some of my best fights with you,
and we have disagreed on a lot of issues, but we have disagreed without
being disagreeable.
The Committee on Rules has to deal with a lot of contentious issues.
We have dealt with our share of contentious issues in this last
Congress, but I have really taken great comfort and great inspiration
by the example of you, Mr. Woodall and Mr. Cole and others who
understand the incredible nature and the incredible majesty of this
institution that we get to serve in. So even among these contentious
debates, you have never, ever drawn us down. It has always been in a
way that is respectful and that honors your convictions and your
beliefs.
We have been together early in the morning; we have been together in
the middle of the afternoon, late at night. We meet a lot in the
Committee on Rules, but Mr. Woodall's good nature and his sense of
humor, whether it is intentional or unintentional, makes it a little
more interesting and, I dare say, makes it a lot more fun.
So I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the many years of
distinguished service, both your near decade of service as a Member of
Congress and before that, as Mr. Cole pointed out, your service working
for Congressman John Linder, who was also on the Committee on Rules.
You have brought with you some incredible people as well. I see your
longtime Committee on Rules staffer Janet Rossi on the floor here
today. She is here to honor your service, as well as the others who are
here today. And I just want to thank her for all of her work in the
Committee on Rules as well over these years.
I always think it is really hard to be a staff member and work for us
on the Committee on Rules because you have to listen to all of us go on
forever and ever and ever.
Mr. Speaker, let me just close with this, and that is I think you and
I come from different parts of the country and we have very different
points of view on our politics, but to me, politics should be about
conviction, not about political opportunism or flip-flopping with
whatever way the prevailing winds are going.
What I have always admired about you is that you feel strongly about
what you believe in. You know what you believe in and you fight for
your convictions, whether it is popular or not popular. And I agree
with Mr. Cole when he said that this institution would be better served
if we had more Members like you.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you, and I hope you come by the
Committee on Rules next time you come back to Washington, and maybe if
I get lost and I am in Georgia, I will stop by your firm and we can
reminisce.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts as chair of the Committee on Rules, and I collectively
thank the Committee on Rules for its diligent work on the MORE Act, and
that is H.R. 3884.
Let me, as well, thank Jerry Nadler, chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, for his great work and, of course, two outstanding members,
Barbara Lee and Earl Blumenauer, for their consistent and persistent
determination.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I spoke to a representative of the law
enforcement community, and I indicated to him that we are about to move
forward on the decriminalizing of marijuana at the Federal level,
eliminating, federally, the criminalization of marijuana and cannabis.
I indicated that it was not to undermine law enforcement and not to
promote drug use but, in essence, to bring about justice and to provide
for the right kind of roadway for what over a majority of Americans,
Republicans and Democrats, want.
It is an important legislative initiative. It provides a vehicle for
sales tax and a vehicle that allows businesses in the marijuana
business to be able to bank legally. It provides for a reinvestment
program, an opportunity grant program, and, as well, an expungement
program governed by Federal courts.
{time} 1430
It ensures that there are no sales made to those under 21. It deals
with substance abuse. This is a real step forward in bringing America
together, and I know that my colleagues tomorrow on the floor of the
House will recognize that is what we are doing.
As many people know, the States that have decriminalized can
continue; those who have not can continue their laws as well.
So I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3884 when it comes to the
floor. Let us do it in unity.
I, too, want to take the opportunity, very briefly. Mr. Woodall, I
think we have seen each other quite frequently, either on this floor in
debate or in the Rules Committee. Let me echo the generosity and
cordialness of your persistent intellect in challenging each and every
one of us who came to make our case. That is all we can do as Americans
and Representatives, is to make our case.
I join you. Let us work together for a COVID-19 relief package and
have that as our legacy as we leave this place. But I wanted to make
sure you knew that Texans appreciate your great leadership. Georgians
and Texans have a good relationship. Congratulations to you. Thank you
for your service.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Rules
Committee.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, first, before I talk about the bill at hand,
I
[[Page H6065]]
want to say just what an honor it has been serving with you on the
Rules Committee, Mr. Woodall.
You know, I didn't know Mr. Woodall, really, before I served on the
Rules Committee with him, and I found him to be very witty, a very good
debater as well. You do it in such a nice way. You really win the
debates, but you do it with a smile, and you do it in a friendly way. I
really appreciate the way you conduct yourself and how you actually win
arguments, but you are very friendly about it.
I don't know what your future holds, but I wish you all of the best.
You are extremely talented, and it really is an honor to serve with
you.
Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the bill. I find it crazy, quite
frankly, that the American people and small businesses are hurting,
because of the COVID crisis, and they need COVID relief, and we are not
concentrating on a bipartisan COVID relief stimulus package right now
that will actually be signed into law.
I find it just incredulous that, instead, my Democratic colleagues
are focusing on legalizing marijuana nationwide.
Sometimes I think that the world is turned upside down, when you have
a State--I think Oregon--that bans plastic straws but legalizes cocaine
and heroin. It is just insane to me and I think to a majority of my
constituents, whether they be Republican, Independent, or Democrat,
quite frankly.
It is interesting to me--I sit on the Rules Committee and the
Judiciary Committee--that on a lot of these tobacco bills that the
Democrats have been promoting, it says, okay, we don't want flavored
tobacco. But yet on marijuana, they don't seem to care about that. They
don't care.
In this bill, there is nothing about we shouldn't have flavored
edibles or candies or brownies that would be enticing to children. As
far as I know, that is not in this bill at all. Yet, we want to ban
that with tobacco. This makes absolutely no sense to me and no sense, I
think, to the American public.
At a time when parents are trying to get their children back into
school with an in-person option, because their children are falling so
far behind because of the lockdowns of schools, here we are with a bill
that will make it easier for these same children to get marijuana
products.
I am sorry. I just don't get it. I don't understand the motivation. I
am absolutely opposed to this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my good friend from Arizona. I am
not sure she was on the floor earlier when I announced that, finally,
Mitch McConnell seems willing to want to negotiate a deal, not only on
an omnibus bill, but he seems to be interested in talking about how we
can get a COVID relief bill. This notwithstanding the fact that for the
last over six months, he has held everything up. We have actually sent
two major COVID relief bills over to the Senate. So I am hopeful. I am
going to try to be hopeful that, in fact, this is for real.
I would also say that the focus of this bill is on unfair, unequal,
and racist drug laws. I mean, as I said in my opening statement, if
people want to know what systemic racism is, look at how our drug laws
are enforced in this country.
If you look like me and you were caught with a small amount of
cannabis, you would probably get off with a very, very light sentence,
if anything. But if the color of your skin were black or brown, it is a
whole different story.
I mean, our system of drug laws is what systemic racism is in this
country. No matter what you think about, you know, States legalizing
marijuana or not legalizing marijuana, or whatever, I think we all
ought to be committed to making sure there is equal justice under our
laws.
People's lives were ruined because of the color of their skin and how
our drug laws were enforced. It is wrong. The time has long since
passed for us to do something. That is what this is all about.
So we will work on the COVID relief bill, and I hope that Mitch
McConnell is sincere in what he said to Speaker Pelosi. I believe we
will come together on an omnibus bill to keep our Government running,
but we also need to address issues like this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments
and his courtesy.
Listening to my colleague from Arizona sort of made my head hurt.
This legislation does not legalize cannabis across the country. What it
does is it stops the Federal Government from interfering with what
States have decided to do.
No small amount of irony, her State just approved legalizing
cannabis. And this legislation would prevent the Federal Government
from interfering with what her voters decided.
I have been waiting for this historic moment for a long time. I was
in the Oregon legislature when we were the first State to decriminalize
cannabis. I have been working from Bangor, Maine, to Santa Barbara ever
since trying to end the failed prohibition of cannabis.
It is happening today, because it has been demanded by the voters, by
facts, by the momentum behind this issue.
It is now a $17 billion industry. It employs 250,000 people. It is
powerful in terms of economic development.
More important, as my friend from Massachusetts said, this is an
opportunity to strike a blow against the failed war on drugs that has
literally destroyed hundreds of thousands of young Black lives. Black
people use cannabis no more frequently than Whites, but they are
arrested about four more times, and in some parts of the country, it is
much, much greater.
We are still arresting or citing 600,000 people a year for something
that the majority of Americans now think should be legal. That is why
the voters in this country took it into their own hands. That is why
today, 99 percent of the American population have some access to
legalized cannabis.
This will help us set up a system moving forward. It will stop the
interference by the Federal Government for research, for banking, for
being able to promote an opportunity to make this work properly and not
interfere with what voters in States have decided to do in the best
interest of their public.
I really appreciate our being at this point. The legislation was
carefully crafted over the course of two years with the Judiciary
Committee. It comes on the heels of other legislation, like the Safe
Banking Act, and we have research legislation that is moving forward.
Five States, including Arizona, just approved it.
Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment. It is an important step
towards rationalizing the policy, towards racial justice, towards
health, so that maybe the parents in my neighborhood don't have to
formulate cannabis medicine to stop their babies from being tortured by
extreme seizure disorder.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yarmuth). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, that is why a number of States that
haven't yet legalized cannabis have passed legislation to legalize
that.
This is an opportunity for us to right this historic wrong. This is
an opportunity for us to turn the page and move forward without Federal
interference so that we are not outsourcing the product development to
Canada or Israel. It is an opportunity for us to realize the promise
while we realize the notion of racial justice.
I urge, in the strongest possible terms, for my colleagues to get in
step with the vast majority of the American public, with what has
happened at the State level, to be able to make this safe, affordable,
and healthy, something that will make a big difference for people
across the country. It is something for which time is long overdue, and
I herald the day and hope that my colleagues will vote for it.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
amend the rule to allow for consideration of a bill that will assist
our struggling small businesses as we enter the winter months and folks
are anticipating increased risks of having to shut their doors.
[[Page H6066]]
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the ranking Republican on the Small Business
Committee, a gentleman who has had great experience bringing together
bipartisan groups in an effort to make a difference for families back
home.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the comments of the
previous speaker on our side, the gentlewoman from Arizona. Mr. Woodall
has made great contributions to this body in the decade that he has
served here.
He happens to be a classmate of mine. We came together in 2010. That
was his first time as a Member of Congress. It was my second time
around, because I lost back in `08 after being here 14 years. So I have
seen Mr. Woodall in operation here for the last decade. He has done a
tremendous job on behalf of not only his constituents but for the
people of this great Nation. I want to thank him for his dedication and
hard work for the people that he represents and for the people of this
Nation overall.
Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, I spoke on this very floor urging action on
behalf of our Nation's 31 million small businesses, as the ranking
member of the House Small Business Committee, formerly the Chair of
that committee for two terms.
I said then that there was no better way to celebrate Small Business
Saturday than to deliver much-needed aid, again, to the small
restaurants and manufacturers and shops that are many of them just
hanging on by a thread.
That assistance could come in the form of the Paycheck Protection
Program, the PPP. That program has supported over 50 million jobs
across this great Nation. That is over 50 million people who didn't
have to worry about how they were going to pay their bills or how they
were going to support their families, because of this bipartisan
program that we passed here in this body.
{time} 1445
Unfortunately, that program stopped accepting applications almost 4
months ago, back on August 8, but still has over $130 billion remaining
in its coffers. Millions of small firms across the country have
utilized the PPP program to keep their shops open, to keep paying their
employees, and to keep serving their communities.
To me, it seems like common sense to open the program back up. After
all, it was initially crafted, as I mentioned, in a bipartisan way,
Republicans and Democrats actually working together. It was bicameral,
the House and the Senate working together, and then the administration,
obviously, signing it into law. And that program has proven to be
overwhelmingly successful and saved so many jobs all over this Nation,
including in my district back in Cincinnati.
So I introduced a bill that would do just that and provide targeted
assistance to small businesses that truly still need help.
Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership in this body has blocked
efforts to even have a vote on this legislation, not just once or twice
or three times or a dozen times, but 40 times, 4-0. Forty times the
Democratic leadership has blocked consideration or having a vote on
this.
Because the Democrats would also support this. You would have
Democrats and Republicans, once again, working together and passing
this and helping small business people all across the country and, most
importantly, the people and families that are supported by them.
As we all know, many small businesses are still uncertain about their
future. Many are on the verge of closing their doors permanently. If
that continues to happen, communities all across our great Nation will
be absolutely devastated.
This should have been dealt with months ago. But apparently our
Democratic leadership feels it is more urgent to vote on legislation to
legalize pot and to deal with lions and tigers than they do to help
those small businesses that really need the help. That is just a shame.
Today, if we defeat the previous question, we make improvements to
the Paycheck Protection Program, and finally get additional targeted
relief to the small businesses all across this country that are
counting on us. Let's not let them down.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Ohio, I think we
all know what needs to happen, and that is that the Senate majority
leader needs to be willing to come to the table and sit down and work
out a deal.
We heard today that the Speaker has had a constructive conversation
with him. Hopefully we will end up with something that, quite frankly,
is going to help a lot more people than what the gentleman is
suggesting here. What we do know is that nobody has been working harder
than the Speaker of the House to try to get a COVID relief bill. She
met around the clock with Secretary Mnuchin, with anybody in this
administration who would be willing to come to the table.
Our problem has been the Senate. Now, that may be changing today. I
hope it is. But I would also say that we have sent over two major COVID
relief bills, which, unfortunately, the gentleman voted against, which
would help not just small businesses, but help our schools, help our
first responders; help with PPE for people who, quite frankly, are
running short right now as we see another surge; help support our
cities and towns that are struggling; and help support our restaurants.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think about how many times the gentleman from Ohio has
been down here to do exactly what he has just done, which is to say: I
have a bill that is ready to go, a bill that I know will get bipartisan
support here on the floor of the House, a bill my friends in the Senate
will be anxious to move, and a bill that I know the President will put
his signature on.
I appreciate his efforts in that, and I know it is not a Johnny-come-
lately commitment to these struggling businesses. I remember when we
were sitting down trying to work out that very first package in the
spring, and the very productive role that the gentleman from Ohio
played in bringing people together to get that done.
You remember that, Mr. Speaker.
We didn't have a bunch of debates on the floor of the House, a bunch
of previous questions to defeat, a bunch of amendments designed to
confuse or distract. No. We worked it all out together, both sides.
Both sides, politically here in the House, both sides bicamerally here
in the Congress, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Why?
Because we all felt that sense of urgency to get something done, and
we did it.
Mr. Speaker, I tell constituents back home that the thing most
freshmen are going to learn in the first 6 months that they didn't know
when they got here is how hardworking and conscientious all of their
colleagues turn out to be. All you see are these faces on FOX News or
MSNBC fussing with one another, but the truth is that behind the scenes
it is a very powerful orchestra of men and women trying to get the
people's business done.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Massachusetts, first and
probably most importantly, I wish he was not chairman of the Rules
Committee. I wish a Republican was chairman of the Rules Committee
because the American people felt in their wisdom that Republicans
should be running this institution. There are a lot of reasons why it
didn't happen. I am not here to place blame on that today.
But I will say to the gentleman that if it cannot be a Republican who
leads the Rules Committee, how pleased I am that the gentleman has led
the Rules Committee, because his love for this institution far
transcends whatever the political passions of the day are.
The Rules Committee has had to do a lot of difficult decisionmaking
in this Congress, Mr. Speaker. I wish we did not have proxy voting in
this institution today. We do. That is the product of a Rules Committee
effort. In many
[[Page H6067]]
cases, the effort of the wisdom of Solomon trying to figure out how to
protect an institution and all of its practices, where we are just
caretakers of this institution, going to pass it on to the next
generation, while we have had to grapple with some challenges that we
never anticipated grappling with, and hopefully will never have to
grapple with again.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has brought an
incredible amount of not just leadership, but a great amount of love
for this institution, and for the members of his committee. And I don't
want to embarrass the gentleman by pointing out some of these
circumstances, but I can go through a list of times this year where the
gentleman from Massachusetts stood not on behalf of the Democratic
Caucus, but on behalf of the Rules Committee against some other
undercurrents in the United States Congress, to stand up on behalf of
his 13 members and the work that we have to get done there together.
That's never an easy thing to do, and I want to tell the gentleman how
much I appreciate and notice those efforts.
Mr. Speaker, to do the really big things that we all know need to get
done, not the least of which are on the committee you and I serve on,
the Budget Committee, it takes strong men and women, men and women of
conviction, but also men and women of faith, not just faith in their
Lord, but faith in this institution that we can bring out the very best
in one another as opposed to bringing out the very worst.
Far too often we have bills like the one before us today that could
be bills that we were talking about with one voice.
When is the right time to decide that edible marijuana for our
children should be banned at the Federal level? Is it after 50 States
have grappled with these decisions? Is it before?
Well, we have made that decision in terms of alcohol. We have made
that decision in terms of tobacco. It seems like the easy time to make
that would be now. But we have not made that decision in the underlying
bill. We have not made those amendments in order.
Mr. Speaker, I said at the beginning, and I will say here at the end:
I am glad we are taking up this legislation.
It offends me, as one who loves the law, that we ask Federal law
enforcement officers to enforce one set of rules while the State and
local law enforcement officers may be enforcing a completely different
set of rules. It offends me that we would put Federal law enforcement
officers in harm's way for an industry that, as my friend from
Massachusetts pointed out, is a multibillion-dollar cash cow legalized
by State jurisdictions across the country.
I am troubled by having two sets of laws in this country. Laws we
choose to follow and laws we choose not to follow. This is the
institution to solve that. Having this discussion for the first time is
a step in the right direction. Having this conversation end today,
because it is a partisan package that is not well thought through
serves none of us.
Mr. Speaker, I would again encourage my colleagues to defeat the rule
so we don't go down that road.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts mentioned Janet Rossi on my
team. I have Nick Scoufaras on my team, sitting beside me. We all are
surrounded by great people that we get to work with day in and day out.
When you go to work for a member on the Rules Committee, that means
you will work early, and you will work late, and you can work often. It
is an amazing opportunity that we have to serve in this institution. It
is also an amazing opportunity that folks that we get to surround
ourselves with have to serve in this institution.
There is no more humbling space than having someone who can do
anything they want to with his or her life say, Rob, I will join you; I
will sit here with you; we will work side by side and we will
accomplish things together.
While I appreciate the very heartfelt comments from my friend from
Massachusetts and my friend from Oklahoma, one thing that occurs to me
on my way out the door is how much less one would be able to do without
all the greatness that folks are surrounded by.
Mr. Speaker, I get to thank Nick because he is here. I can thank
Janet because she is here. But I would just say to each of my
colleagues who are here, we are all so lucky folks are surrounding us
in order to help us all lift this great Nation up. We often get sucked
into the drumbeat of whatever the activity of the day is if you have
not had an opportunity to recognize the greatness of those staffers
around you, and occasionally even the Members around you, even those
who sit on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to be concerned about in America today,
but a lot of opportunities for optimism. And many of those
opportunities sit here, and sit here, and sit there, and sit here. I am
grateful to be a part of that.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to defeat the previous
question so that we can bring the Chabot legislation to the floor. If
we can't defeat the previous question, defeat the rule so that we can
go back and make sure all voices are heard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his kind words. I
almost feel like I want to yield him more time to have the compliments
keep coming.
The bottom line is that even though we disagree on a lot of issues,
and sometimes in our debates you make me want to pull the remaining
last two strands of hair out of my head, the reason why I sometimes
feel that way is because you are passionate, you are smart, and you are
effective. You have served your constituency incredibly well, and you
have served this institution incredibly well.
Mr. Speaker, going back to what Mr. Cole said at the very beginning,
I think this place would benefit from more people of your caliber. And
even though you would like to demote me to ranking member instead of
chairman, I am still going to miss you, and I thank you for your
friendship. You are a good man, and we are going to miss you a lot.
{time} 1500
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill deserves to be considered and
passed. As I said earlier, nearly 60 percent of the American public
supports this bill. A majority of Democrats and a majority of
Republicans throughout the Nation want this bill passed.
Prior Republican Congresses were apparently fine with turning a deaf
ear to the will of the people. They blocked virtually all cannabis-
related measures from getting a vote on the floor year after year.
But this majority is not. We believe in listening to the people we
represent. We believe in actually doing something about the war on
drugs. Its failures have been staring us in the face for a very long
time.
Americans came together in record numbers following George Floyd's
death to fight against systemic racism. Combating that means, among
other things, reforming our policies toward cannabis. These laws have
been used to disproportionately lock up people of color for decades. It
is past time we showed the moral courage to do something about it.
This is a historic moment. Let us seize this chance. Let us pass this
bill. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, and I
urge a vote of ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 1244
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 8265) to amend the Small Business Act and the
CARES Act to establish a program for second draw loans and
make other modifications to the paycheck protection program,
and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small
Business; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 8265.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
[[Page H6068]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
MR. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.
____________________