[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15752-15757]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      LOCAL CONTROL FOR LOCAL LAW

  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 a threat, a rare threat, because this seldom happens in the House 
anymore, but a threat from at least one Member of this House to try to 
nullify a local initiative approved by the voters of the District of 
Columbia.
  But when it comes to the lawful initiative for District of Columbia 
citizens, that is a threat to democracy

[[Page 15753]]

that means that anyone who represents this city, has to come to the 
floor and to indicate to Members how important it is to hold fast to 
your own principles.
  Wherever you stand on the District of Columbia or any of the 
underlying issues, this is the local jurisdiction of 650,000 people who 
pay taxes without full representation in this House.
  So I am asking Members of the House not to take advantage of an 
anachronism in the law which does allow Members of the House to step 
forward, if they are so inclined, to try to get others to join them in 
nullifying the local laws of a local jurisdiction. If one reads the 
history of our country, it is hard to find anything more un-American.
  That is why, particularly, I have to thank the bipartisan group of 
Members who stood with me yesterday, three Members of this House--two 
Democrats and a Republican--who themselves come from States that have 
taken action on the underlying issue, one that is rapidly developing in 
our country where the States differ among themselves. But since each 
State is, as a local or State matter, a government unto itself, those 
matters don't come before this House.
  The Members who stood with me yesterday were Representative Earl 
Blumenauer of Oregon, which has approved a ballot initiative just this 
past election day, that legalized small amounts of marijuana; 
Representative Jared Polis of Colorado, his was the first State to 
legalize small amounts of marijuana; and Dana Rohrabacher of 
California, who is perhaps the recognized leader in the House of 
Representatives and in the country for reform of marijuana laws.

                              {time}  1400

  Alaska and Oregon joined two other States, Washington and Colorado, 
and yes, a third, the District of Columbia, approved the legalization 
of marijuana in small amounts. I am going to indicate to the House how 
that came about because it didn't come about in the usual way. There 
were pressing concerns that led the District to move to decriminalize 
and then legalize small amounts of marijuana.
  In fact, the D.C. Council, upon hearing concerns about disparities in 
arrests and convictions based on race, had moved to decriminalize 
marijuana with a small fine; whereas, before, there was a penalty of up 
to 6 months in jail and up to a $1,000 fine. After the council passed 
that decriminalization law--and 18 States have decriminalized--then 
some residents put legalization on the November ballot.
  Now the people have spoken. Two-thirds of the residents of the 
District of Columbia say that the council did not go far enough, and 
they have, I think, among them a number of reasons that I will try to 
indicate on the floor this afternoon why they thought they had to go 
further.
  I indicated that there are and already were States that had legalized 
marijuana, and the Justice Department has taken the position and took 
it again at a hearing on the D.C. decriminalization law that the 
District will be treated like the States that have relaxed their 
marijuana laws--in our case, 2 ounces of marijuana for personal use.
  And the position of the Justice Department--and I will indicate later 
why the Justice Department has taken that position--has been that, as a 
matter of prosecutorial priority, the Justice Department, the U.S. 
attorneys of the United States are not in the business of prosecuting 
people who smoke small amounts of marijuana.
  So the District is to be treated in the same way as the States who 
have either decriminalized or legalized marijuana. The Justice 
Department is on record in a hearing saying that--and we appreciate 
that the District is not to be treated differently when it comes to 
Federal enforcement, any differently than, for example, Oregon, 
Colorado, and Alaska, and you don't see the Justice Department rushing 
forward to prosecute what will almost always be young people for 
possessing small amounts of marijuana.
  Particularly for new Members, I want to make clear that there is an 
anomaly here, an anachronism, because the House does still have the 
authority to step forward and nullify the local laws of the District of 
Columbia. That goes back hundreds of years, and the fact that anybody 
would attempt to use that authority today flies in the face of 200 
years of history and democratization in our country.
  It is interesting to know that the Member who has stepped forward to 
stop D.C. thus far is a sophomore. I want to thank Members of Congress 
who recognize that they have the authority and who may disagree with 
the District but have not in fact moved to nullify local law. This 
really isn't where you stand on the law. It is whether you believe 
local jurisdictions should have what the Framers believed all should 
have throughout the United States, and that is the right to pass local 
laws without interference by the Federal Government.
  That is the principle at stake here. That is why we rarely have 
Members step forward to try to nullify a law of the District of 
Columbia, and I am very grateful that principle for most Members is 
almost always observed.
  Now, I want to make something very clear: I am not here this 
afternoon to make a case for the use of marijuana; I am here to make a 
case only for local control of local law.
  If you were to ask my preference, and obviously, I am obligated to 
support the laws of my local jurisdiction here, but if you were to ask 
my preference, I would say to you, in all candor, that I don't believe 
Americans should smoke anything.
  We know that millions of lives were lost needlessly because people 
didn't know about the deadly effects--I think I do not speak 
inaccurately when I say the ``deadly effects''--of cigarette smoking. 
Cigarette manufacturers are still paying the price with millions of 
dollars--billions of dollars that they have had to pay States in order 
to make up for essentially hiding information on the effects of 
cigarette smoking.
  Frankly, there is much investigation still to be done about cannabis. 
We certainly can't say it is good for your health, except for medical 
marijuana.
  Representative Rohrabacher yesterday spoke of a constituent whose son 
had come back from Iraq and had seizures and other problems emanating 
from his service, and no amount of medicine had done him any good. He 
was able to get a prescription for medical marijuana, and it controlled 
the problem.
  Yet, by the way, although there have been bills introduced, the VA 
could not have prescribed medical marijuana to that veteran.
  So I can't make the case for the underlying issue. In fact, there is 
evidence of harm to the brains of children. The bills that have passed 
the States are for adults only, people over 21. I am not even making 
the case for them. We need to know a lot more about marijuana, a 
substance that is breathed in deeply.
  However, I tell you this much: I cannot make a case at all for a drug 
conviction for smoking marijuana in small amounts. That is where it 
seems to me that there is increasing agreement by the American people.
  Just look at the latest polls. 54 percent approve legalization. I 
don't think they approve of legalization because they smoke cannabis; I 
think they approve of legalization because they don't believe people 
ought to be convicted of a drug offense for possessing small amounts of 
marijuana.
  There is very good news. The reason we always speak of marijuana and 
young people is because, apparently, people tend to outgrow the use of 
marijuana. As young adults leave college and become more mature, they 
tend to smoke very little of anything today and no longer marijuana. 
You don't see lots of middle-aged people talking about marijuana 
either.
  I wish I could say that their parents had outgrown alcohol, that 
people could outgrow alcohol, which is a legal substance that destroys 
lives, the lives of individuals, lives of entire families. Some become 
addicted to the substance, but if all you do is use it and get drunk 
and don't hurt anybody, then of course you are not convicted of a 
crime.

[[Page 15754]]

  A Member of this House, Representative Andy Harris, makes the case 
for nullification of the D.C. law based on harm to young people; 
except, of course, the law doesn't allow young people to smoke, and it 
is interesting to know that Representative Polis said, because it is 
legal in Colorado, that smoking among juveniles in Colorado has gone 
down. I asked why.
  He said it is because Colorado is wiping out the illegal market and 
kids have to go to that illegal market to get marijuana--and to a very 
illegal market to get it because some are under 21, so young people are 
smoking less and less in Colorado.
  I don't think you can make the case against freedom and liberty based 
on children here, where we are talking about a substance for adults, 
and not when the District of Columbia already has introduced a bill 
called the Marijuana Use Public Information Campaign, which Council 
Member Tommy Wells has put on a fast track for passage. I like the bill 
that Council Member Wells is taking through the council. It would 
include education forums for each ward of the city. There are eight 
wards.
  It is trying to get to people where they live, educating the public 
on what we do know of the impact of marijuana use and abuse. The bill 
requires that the Mayor report to the council on the type and the 
frequency and the provider and school age level of public school health 
education programs related to substance abuse, including marijuana use, 
and of course alcohol and tobacco.
  Again, not making the case that I cannot in honesty make, I do want 
to draw the attention of the House to the fact that marijuana is still 
classified under Schedule I, and that is the schedule for the most 
dangerous drugs.
  Marijuana is scheduled in the same category as heroin and LSD and 
ecstasy, even though the science we know today tells us that the 
addictive qualities of cannibis are nowhere near the same; worse, 
marijuana is scheduled above cocaine.
  Now, if you want to know a drug that has torn big cities and suburbs 
alike apart, it would be cocaine. So cannibis is more dangerous, 
according to the scheduling of drugs, than cocaine and methadon and 
OxyContin.
  Well, young people know that is not the case. The young people who 
smoke and then outgrow marijuana know that is not the case, so they 
don't pay any attention to the law.
  And as I shall indicate, the laws don't pay much attention to them 
because most of them do not face the possibility of conviction. They 
don't face conviction, and I want to emphasize this because, when you 
consider law enforcement, it is impossible not to recognize that State 
and local law enforcement officials and Federal law enforcement 
officials, have virtually ceased to enforce the laws that make 
marijuana a Schedule I drug offense--but some people do get arrested.
  I have already indicated that the Justice Department has said that it 
will not prosecute people for possession of small amounts. U.S. 
attorneys in Democratic and Republican administrations for years now--
there are many who have never prosecuted anyone for small amounts of 
marijuana.
  In effect, that means that marijuana is so widely used, has caused so 
little in the way of known harmful effects, that it is, today, de facto 
legal. That is why young people take the risk.

                              {time}  1415

  If that is the case, if convictions rarely occur, let's look at what 
happens when arrests and convictions do occur.
  What led the District of Columbia to pass its law, its first law, the 
decriminalization law, were two studies done by outside organizations, 
two reputable organizations: the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 
Under Law and the American Civil Liberties Union. They found that while 
Whites and Blacks use marijuana at the same rate, 9 out of 10 arrests 
are of African Americans. This city is half White and half Black.
  The people of the District of Columbia have decided that 
decriminalization alone would not undo this outrageous disparity. A 
conviction on your record for marijuana is a conviction for a schedule 
1 drug offense. And it doesn't matter; the word ``drug'' is what 
matters. That record can sentence, for example, a young Black man or 
woman or young Hispanics to a lifetime of underemployment or 
unemployment. Indeed, if there is enough underemployment and 
unemployment, a drug conviction for a small amount of marijuana can 
lead some further to a life where drugs become, in their view, the only 
way to make a living at all. So for them it can be a gateway drug 
precisely because the marijuana arrest or conviction has simply stopped 
their lives.
  So when the council understood that 9 out of 10 arrests were of 
African Americans, it could not justify keeping that law on the books. 
And I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have now had, for 10 years, 
a Commission on Black Men and Boys and am cochair of a Congressional 
Caucus on Black Men and Boys because of issues like this that affect 
young men of color. Such a conviction can ruin a young man's life for 
work. If it makes work impossible or work possible only in the 
underground or the illegal economy, then it ruins his life for marriage 
and for children and for stability in the community.
  The D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys and the Congressional 
Caucus on Black Men and Boys, of course, look at issues across the 
board, but there are serious concerns about disparities of this kind 
that affect men and essentially take them out of the African American 
community, out of the Hispanic community, and make them men apart. 
Marijuana use is simply one example.
  And again I point out, it is not that people of color use marijuana 
at a greater rate than their counterparts of the same age who are 
White. It is who gets arrested. Whether that is in the ordinary course 
of law enforcement, intentional or not, those are the facts.
  The interesting thing about the investigations by the independent 
organizations in the District, is that they find that these statistics 
showing hugely disparate treatment of people of color from other 
Americans on marijuana convictions and arrest are by no means confined 
to the District of Columbia. It is a nationwide phenomenon. If only a 
tiny minority are arrested and they turn out to be people of color, you 
have a classic case of racial discrimination.
  I note that I have been joined on the floor by a very good friend 
from Nevada (Ms. Titus). I am pleased to yield to her.
  Ms. TITUS. Well, thank you very much.
  I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Norton, for 
arranging this important discussion about an issue that is moving 
quickly in State capitals across the country, here in Washington, D.C., 
but in Congress maybe not so much.
  I would like to speak about the legal regulated use of marijuana for 
medical and commercial sale because this is an important issue that has 
garnered attention nationwide as States and communities continue to 
enact laws to allow for legal and carefully regulated and taxed sale 
and use. We see this in all parts of the country, in all types of 
communities, and we see it not just passed by State legislatures, but 
mandated through public referenda.
  I represent the heart of the Las Vegas Valley in the State of Nevada 
where, for nearly 14 years, we had a voter-approved mandate allowing 
for medical marijuana. Then just last year, the State legislature put 
forth a legal framework for medical marijuana businesses to be 
permitted, regulated, and to go into operation around the State.
  This has led to enormous interest from investors and entrepreneurs, 
researchers, and, most importantly, patients who now can benefit, 
through the assistance of their physicians, from medical marijuana for 
the treatment for all kinds of things, a variety of things: epileptic 
seizures in children, PTSD treatment, pain relief from cancer, appetite 
enhancers for people undergoing chemotherapy, and HIV/AIDS.

[[Page 15755]]

  Nevada is now one of 23 States with legal marijuana for medical or 
commercial sale, and those numbers continue to grow after poll after 
poll shows increasing support for legalization and regulation. We saw 
two States just in the election last week where marijuana was approved.
  Now, that brings us to what is happening here in Congress. Over the 
course of the last 113th congressional session, we have seen 
considerable advancements that had not been the case up until now. A 
few years ago, just a short time ago, only a small group of Members of 
Congress would be willing to speak out about medical marijuana, much 
less support any kind of legislation that would update our Nation's 
antiquated drug laws. But today, Democrats and some Republicans have 
come together to advocate for this industry and work to update the 
Nation's laws to catch up to what is happening in the States and to 
reflect the realities of what is going on in Nevada, in Washington, 
D.C., and in places around the country.
  For the first time, with the help of leaders like Congressman 
Blumenauer, Congressman Rohrabacher, and others, the House of 
Representatives passed not one, but two significant amendments to 
protect the rights of States when it comes to legal marijuana sales and 
use.
  As more States and communities move forward with ballot initiatives 
like the one that passed here in D.C., 2-1, or with regulatory laws 
like those that were just enacted in Nevada, it is important that we, 
as elected representatives of our communities, become educated and 
advocate for the community's best interests.
  Because of the important potential role that medical marijuana will 
play in Nevada's economic future and because this conversation is so 
quickly becoming a national issue, I have tried to educate myself and 
have been traveling the country visiting dispensaries, growers, and 
experts in the industry to learn about the fiscal and scientific 
potential, as well as the obstacles that are faced by these businesses.
  I traveled to the Berkeley Patients Group, The Apothecarium, and Blum 
dispensary in the San Francisco Bay area to learn more about how the 
industry has evolved from leaders like Sean Loose, Ryan Hudson, and 
Salwa Ibrahim, all of whom are recognized experts and innovators in the 
field of medical marijuana.
  I went to Arizona to visit with Beth Stavola and Dr. Sue Sisley and 
discussed the advantages of medical marijuana in treating veterans with 
PTSD and for helping seniors. I also met with folks at Monarch Wellness 
Center to hear how an entrepreneur's personal history with his mother's 
medical condition inspired him to open Scottsdale's first medical 
marijuana dispensary. And I recently traveled to Colorado, where I was 
very impressed by CannLabs' facility that is bringing the highest 
standards of quality and safety to the medical cannabis industry.
  I would encourage my colleagues here in Congress to visit these 
businesses, talk to their employees, and see firsthand that today's 
industry is not just some little head shop on the corner with a picture 
of Che Guevara. It is a very professional, very scientific, very 
regulated industry. It is a modern, professional office with skilled 
and educated personnel.
  So we have more work to do. It has begun, but we have a lot to do as 
we start the 114th Congress. We should concentrate on issues that are 
having a significant impact and bringing uncertainty to an industry 
that is booming and needs certain protections. We also need to regulate 
it to protect children, for example, and also hold it accountable so it 
can make a financial contribution by being a legal, regulated operator 
that pays taxes.
  Congress should also allow medical personnel at our veterans 
hospitals to recommend the best available care for our Nation's 
veterans, and that may include medical marijuana. This could help with 
the effects of PTSD that are far too common in our Iraq and Afghanistan 
veterans.
  We must also ensure that products are available for vital research 
into the medical benefits of marijuana. So far the research has mostly 
been on the negative side. What are the possible positive contributions 
that can come from studying the benefits so we can advance the science 
and move us beyond that notion of ``Reefer Madness''?
  And as you have been hearing from my colleague, it is important that, 
in considering all of this, Congress respect home rule and the will of 
the people. That is certainly true in the District of Columbia. Their 
laws need to be respected because they have been enacted in the best 
interests of that own community. Just as State laws are, we need to 
respect those states' rights.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this 
important issue and to protect the rights and interests of those 
communities like Washington and States like Nevada where the people 
have decided that this is the way of the future.
  I thank you for letting me join you today, and I look forward to 
working with you on this issue.
  Ms. NORTON. Well, Ms. Titus, I must say I thank you for coming to the 
floor, but I particularly thank you and congratulate you for the 
extensive homework you have done educating yourself before you took a 
position on this issue. It is something to be emulated.
  I do want to say, when you spoke of the need for further 
investigation, and particularly when you considered how many veterans 
with PTSD and other ailments may benefit from medical marijuana, it is 
worth noting that marijuana is so sharply regulated and restricted that 
we have not even been able to do the studies necessary to find out what 
is wrong with it or what is right with it. For example, medical 
marijuana cries out for studies. If, in fact, the anecdotal evidence is 
to be believed, that in itself should lead to Federal studies by the 
NIH and federally funded studies.
  What are we afraid of? We need to know more about this substance. And 
on the negative side, we know that it has some harmful effects on the 
brain for children. We need to know more about it for adults. Why would 
the Federal Government not be out front, considering how widely used 
this substance is?
  If the government had done the kind of homework you had, Ms. Titus, I 
think we would be much further ahead. Thank you very much for coming to 
the floor with all of that useful information from your own study.

                              {time}  1430

  I particularly appreciate your supporting the District's home rule 
and the right to pass its own local laws without Federal interference. 
I thought that was what both Democrats and Republicans believed. I 
thought that was the contention of Republicans that want to get the 
Federal Government even out of Federal matters. I thought they would be 
my natural allies to say, ``Big foot Federal Government, don't mess 
with any local jurisdiction.'' Yes, even here in the District of 
Columbia.
  In July, the District's marijuana decriminalization bill took effect. 
I should note that the District passed medical marijuana earlier with 
one of the strictest sets of regulations in the United States. Our 
council has shown it knows how to handle these issues.
  The threat that has been made is to use our local budget. Now, if you 
want to know insult on top of injury, you ask what is our local budget 
doing here? We are talking about $6 billion raised in the District of 
Columbia locally from businesses and residents. It comes here, again, 
because of an anomaly.
  Although the District got home rule 40 years ago, there was still the 
obligation to bring its balanced budget here, where there is no 
balanced budget. Well, it has resulted in shutdowns of the District of 
Columbia more than once. It has been responsible for the fact that the 
District pays a premium on Wall Street because our budget has to be 
passed by another body that knows nothing about our budget. And to its 
credit, the Appropriations Committee doesn't even have hearings on our 
budget because it doesn't intend to overturn our budget. But it does 
allow

[[Page 15756]]

people to come forward and use the budget as a vehicle for attachments 
to try to nullify our local laws. It is rarely done--and I appreciate 
that--because Members, in their own forbearance, have tended not to do 
that. But we do have a threat on this bill.
  Now, the House did pass an amendment to block D.C.'s 
decriminalization bill. Representative Harris offered it in committee. 
And this amendment was not included, I am pleased to say, in the fiscal 
year 2015 short-term resolution or in the Senate's fiscal year 2015 
D.C. appropriation bill. You see, there is a real difference here, and 
I hope that the House, in contemplation, will understand it also should 
go with liberty and freedom for the local jurisdiction.
  The administration has issued a statement of policy that it strongly 
opposes the amendment that passed the House. And it did so. And here I 
am quoting its words:

       Because it violates principles of states' rights and of 
     District home rule.

  Mr. Speaker, I know that the District is not even a pioneer when it 
comes to marijuana decriminalization or legalization. Yet it is the 
District that is singled out. There has been no Federal interference. 
No one has come to this floor who may disagree with the notion of 
legalization to call down the States that have legalized or 
decriminalized. And I think the reason is because there is simply no 
principled way for Members who 100 percent believe in local control to 
call out the States that may have taken their own route different from 
the other States and the District.
  There is just no principled way to do anything with respect to what 
those States have done because those are local matters or State 
matters. Therefore, for the District, it is particularly painful not to 
be respected because the District has no vote on this floor.
  When the bill containing the Andy Harris amendment was passed, 
everybody in the House could vote on it except the Member who 
represents the District of Columbia, because I have no vote even on 
matters affecting the District of Columbia. When the Democrats 
controlled the House, I would have had a vote on amendments to 
appropriations bills because they occur in the committee of the whole, 
but even that was taken away. So every Member got to vote on a matter 
affecting only my district except the one Member that the District 
sends to the Congress, and that is why I come to the floor.
  We pay $12,000 per capita in Federal taxes. Keep that figure in mind 
because that is the highest per capita figure in Federal taxes paid by 
any jurisdiction. The lowest in Federal taxes happens to be 
Mississippi. I point out the difference because I think Mississippi 
pays about $4,000 per capita. The District pays $12,000 per capita.
  So you can imagine if you support the Federal Government at this rate 
and you have no vote on the House floor and others have a vote that 
could take away your laws, you perhaps have every reason to be 
concerned.
  May I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 18 minutes remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  When I say that there is no principled position except the American 
position that local jurisdictions must have complete autonomy to deal 
with local matters, I can offer at least one very prominent example.
  Senator Rand Paul was asked what he thought about the District's 
marijuana legalization initiative. And I want to quote him. Senator 
Paul said:

       I'm not for having the Federal Government get involved. I 
     really haven't taken a stand on the actual legalization, but 
     I'm against the Federal Government telling them they can't.

  This is a classic principled position because Senator Paul hasn't 
taken a position on the underlying issue. He has only taken a position 
consistent with his views, and what I thought were the views of my 
Republican and Democratic colleagues alike, that the Federal Government 
shouldn't tell a local jurisdiction that it can't do what is, in this 
case, de facto legal, because the Federal Government does not 
prosecute. All I am asking Members to do is to take the same principled 
position that Senator Paul has taken.
  Notwithstanding Senator Paul's position, Representative Harris has 
said that he will try to insert language into the omnibus bill to block 
legalization in D.C. Well, I am going to try to keep him from doing 
that. But isn't it interesting to note that Representative Harris 
couldn't keep his own State, Maryland, from decriminalizing marijuana, 
and so he hops over into my jurisdiction to do what he couldn't do in 
the State where he has authority. Well, we are not going to have it.
  Representative Rohrabacher and I disagree on any number of things. 
That is why I was pleased to have him stand with me. But what he said 
is interesting because he has the longest history of fighting for 
marijuana reform. I want to quote him. He called on Members of his own 
party to ``wake up and see where the American people are.''
  Representative Rohrabacher is from conservative Orange County. He 
says he believes that his position on marijuana reform may have helped 
him to gain 5 points in the last election. He says that he thinks that 
GOP principles about individual liberty and limited Federal Government 
are completely consistent with his own views on marijuana, and 
certainly consistent with his own philosophy. I cite Representative 
Rohrabacher and Senator Rand Paul because they have taken positions 
that I do not believe are inconsonant with the positions of their 
party.
  People are fond of saying that this is not a partisan issue. Well, I 
guess it is because the parties have not come together on it. What is 
not a partisan issue, however, is local control of local laws.
  I want to note what my good friend from Nevada referred to. 
Representative Rohrabacher and a Democrat, Sam Farr, succeeded in 
passing an amendment in this House, this very Congress, that would keep 
the Justice Department from intervening in States that have legalized 
medical marijuana. This matter passed in a Republican House.
  The fact is that the Justice Department has indicated that it will 
not intervene--and it has not intervened--when it comes to medical 
marijuana or recreational use of medical marijuana when we are talking 
about small amounts. And yet the House came forward and indicated where 
it stands, and that is where I think the country is going and where the 
House is going.
  But there is an important issue still pending--one that this House 
has passed and I urge the Senate to pass, along with the Rohrabacher-
Farr bill--and that is a bill that is sponsored by Representative 
Blumenauer and Representative Rohrabacher, who were joined at a press 
conference by Grover Norquist, who, of course, is the antitax advocate. 
Their bill passed this House. It would change Federal tax law so that 
State-sanctioned providers can claim deductions and credits as other 
businesses do.
  I am sorry I said that passed. This did not pass. This is pending. 
What did pass is an amendment that would no longer penalize financial 
institutions because they provide financial services to State-
sanctioned marijuana operations. Now, you can imagine those operations 
now must deal in cash because the banks and the financial institutions 
are afraid to deal with them.
  This amendment, which is perhaps the most urgent of the reforms, did 
pass the House, and I think it, again, shows growing recognition of 
where the country is and where the House should be headed.
  It is worth noting that just hearing the names of the States that 
have decriminalized marijuana, I think, makes the case for where the 
country is headed. This is decriminalization alone. States that have 
done so, in alphabetical order, have red and blue running right through 
the list. I am talking decriminalizing marijuana for small amounts.
  They are Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, 
North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. 
They have nothing in common except they don't

[[Page 15757]]

convict people for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

                              {time}  1445

  The Congress, 40 years ago, passed the District of Columbia Home Rule 
Act. That act says that matters of local law are for the District 
alone. It was a landmark law. We intend to have it respected.
  There were some exceptions. They were very small, and I can guarantee 
you that there were no exceptions of the kind that I have spoken about 
today.
  Legalization in the District of Columbia comes from the direct votes 
of two-thirds of the people in my district; therefore, it comes with a 
very special mandate. It comes with a mandate of freedom and liberty, 
and it comes with a very special mandate that the country will probably 
increasingly note, and that special mandate is the disparity in arrests 
based on race, where 9 out of 10 of the arrests are of blacks in, by 
the way, a progressive city.
  It is very hard to justify such a law remaining on the books. That is 
why I think the people went all the way to legalization.
  So what I am asking this afternoon is for House Members to remember 
your own States and the States of your colleagues that have taken 
action in one form or another to relax marijuana laws, and I am asking 
for all of the residents of the District of Columbia simply the same 
ordinary privilege.
  I particularly ask, not only our own Members, but Members who I think 
would particularly want to take note in the other body because in that 
body are found the Senators who represent the 23 States that have 
passed medical marijuana laws, the 18 States that have passed marijuana 
decriminalization laws, and the four States that have legalized 
marijuana.
  It is difficult for me to see how the other body, which has States 
which have relaxed marijuana in this way, could possibly vote not to 
give equal treatment to the residents of the District of Columbia.
  So, Mr. Speaker, at bottom, I am asking only for equality of 
treatment for the residents of the District of Columbia. I come in that 
spirit only. I don't ask for your support for the underlying matter.
  I ask for your support on the one issue in which I believe I can say 
Members in this body, to the last Member, are in agreement, and that 
is, since the very founding of our country, the principle that holds us 
together is federalism, that what happens in a State may not be what we 
would desire or do in our own, but if it is a local matter and if it is 
legal and constitutional, then it is for the people of that State.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of freedom and democracy. I ask in 
that spirit for the same respect for the people of the District of 
Columbia that I would give to the people of every State of the Union.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________