[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MIXED SIGNALS: THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY ON MARIJUANA, PART III
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 9, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-111
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-090 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan Vacancy
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Government Operations
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
TIM WALBERG, Michigan GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 9, 2014...................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, A Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 11
Mr. Peter Newsham, Assistant Chief, Metropolitan Police
Department
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Mr. Robert D. MacLean, Acting Chief, U.S. Park Police
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Mr. David A. O'Neil, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Ms. Seema Sadanandan, Program Director, American Civil Liberties
Union of the Nations Capital
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
APPENDIX
List of penalties for marijuana possession and list of law
enforcement in D.C, submitted by Chairman Mica................. 62
MIXED SIGNALS: THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY ON MARIJUANA, PART III
----------
Friday, May 9, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Operations,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:09 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, Turner, and Massie.
Also Present: Representatives Fleming, Jordan, Cohen, and
Norton.
Staff Present: Melissa Beaumont, Assistant Clerk; Will L.
Boyington, Deputy Press Secretary; Molly Boyl, Deputy General
Counsel and Parliamentarian; David Brewer, Senior Counsel; Drew
Colliatie, Professional Staff Member; John Cuaderes, Deputy
Staff Director; Christopher D'Angelo, Staff Assistant; Howard
A. Denis, Senior Counsel; Adam P. Fromm, Director of Member
Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief Clerk;
Tyler Grimm, Senior Professional Staff Member; Christopher
Hixon, Chief Counsel, Oversight; Michael R. Kiko, Legislative
Assistant; Mark D. Marin, Deputy Staff Director of Oversight;
Emily Martin, Counsel; James Robertson, Senior Professional
Staff Member; Katy Rother, Counsel; Laura Rush, Deputy Chief
Clerk; Andrew Shult, Deputy Digital Director; Peter Warren,
Legislative Policy Director; Courtney Cochran, Minority Press
Secretary; Adam Koshkin, Minority Research Assistant; Katy
Teleky, Minority Staff Assistant; and Cecelia Thomas, Minority
Counsel.
Mr. Mica. Good morning, I'd like to welcome everyone and
call to order this Subcommittee on Government Operations. It is
one of the key subcommittees of the House Oversight and Reform
Committee. The title of today's hearing is Mixed Signals, the
Administration's Policy on Marijuana, and this is the third in
a series of hearings that we have been conducting in the
subcommittee to look at some of the changes in the law, and
also some of the practices that we're seeing across the country
in regards to the use and enforcement of law relating to
marijuana.
The order of business is we will start with some opening
statements, myself and other members that wish to be
recognized. When we finish with that, well, we have two panels
is this morning, and we have the delegate from the District,
Ms. Norton, who we'll hear from first, and then we have a panel
of four witnesses that we will hear from in the second panel.
We gather today, and I will start out by saying with an
opening statement in fulfilling an important responsibility of
the Congress, and that is the investigative and oversight role
of this committee. We are sent here by the people, not only to
legislate on some matters, but also to conduct the most
important investigative and oversight role in the House of
Representatives, and this is a longstanding committee. I'm
pleased to be the senior member having served here longer than
anyone else, I think, on the committee, but it does fulfill an
important role in, again, keeping government accountable and
responsible.
As today's hearing relates to the District of Columbia, I
know there have been some public pronouncements about what is
the committee doing looking at the District's law. Let me just
start out by saying, first of all, the District of Columbia is
not a State. It's not a territory. It's not a possession. In
fact, it is a Federal District. It's provided for under the
Constitution in a specific statute. And let me just say that
the law that we are talking about will impact, and that the
District has passed, will impact not only the people of the
District, but the people of the United States, and we have
millions and millions of people visiting us each year. It is a
law that is in conflict with some Federal laws, and I think we
have an important responsibility to review its implications.
Am I singling out the District of Columbia for examination
of the impact of changes in marijuana laws? Absolutely not. And
we have held two previous hearings in which we specifically
looked at the impact in Colorado, which has gone beyond the
statute in the District; and we're looking at other States,
too. More than 20 States have authorized and changed the legal
framework of marijuana for medical use; and so this is, again,
directed to our responsibility under the Constitution and laws,
a particularly unique responsibility of the Congress over and
in response to its responsibility over the District of
Columbia.
So, again, on March 4, we did a hearing with a Colorado
U.S. attorney, and we had found out actually on that date, and
I think that's the date that the D.C. Council voted to
decriminalize the possession of marijuana. The impact is
significant. More than 20 percent--can we put that little slide
up here--more than 20 percent of D.C. Is Federal land, and it
is, in fact, unclear as to how the D.C. Criminalization will
affect marijuana possession and consumption on Federal land
like the Mall. I'm color blind, but they tell me that the green
you see, there's a great deal of territory that, in fact, is
Federal land. I asked the question of staff what if I'm
standing on the Mall which adjoins, I guess its Independence
Avenue with one foot on each, this side of the roadway there,
what the impact of enforcement would be, and no one could tell
me.
There are many questions that have been raised by the
District's adoption of a bill that reduces the penalty for
marijuana possession from a criminal offense punishable by jail
time to a civil offense punishable by a $25 fine. And, again,
it is in conflict with some of the Federal statutes.
Currently, we have marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic.
Currently we have different levels of enforcement and penalty
for its use on Federal property of which you can see we have a
great deal in the District of Columbia. So that's one of the
reasons we're here.
Again, I've had some people, including our witness,
question our authority. Let me just review the authority under
the Constitution of the United States. Do you want to bring
that up? Article 1, Section 8, it's very evident to exercise
the exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the
District, and our authority, in this regard, stems from the
Constitution.
As you know, the District was created by an act of Congress
in 1790, and subsequently we have a 1973 law. Do you want to
put that up. Home Rule Act of 1973, and it says the Congress of
the United States reserves the right at any time, and this is
one of those times, to exercise its Constitutional authority as
legislature for the District. So we do have very clear
authority in that regard.
And then we are here in the House Oversight Government and
Reform Committee that dates back to the early 1800s because the
Congress wanted not only the authorizers to conduct oversight
and the appropriators, those who created agencies or the
District of Columbia, but also who appropriated, they wanted
them to conduct oversight, but they wanted a third party, and
we happen to be that third party, the House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and clearly the
laws, Rule 10 Clause 1, point out that this is our
responsibility. So with that, we will fill our Constitutional
and statutory responsibility and conduct this hearing.
I'm not here to debate the merits or demerits of the
criminal law. We're here to examine its impact. We're here to
examine the enforcement questions. We're here to examine a host
of questions. This is not the last hearing. We started out with
the Deputy Director of the White House Policy on Drugs, and he
testified to a number of items in conflict with statements we
have heard from the President, in fact, even from the President
of the United States about, again, the impact of the current
marijuana that we see in the marketplace, its physical impact,
also its impact on the performance and even intelligence of
individuals again, sat at this table and told us some reasons
why we should not lessen penalties and why we should, again,
look at what's being done around the United States, much in
conflict with some agencies of the administration who are now
in turmoil trying to figure out how they comply with changes
in, albeit the District of Columbia or Colorado or some 20
States laws that have been passed.
In fact, with many local and Federal law enforcement
agencies, and I'd ask the staff, have we got a list of the--in
the District of Columbia we have this pretty extensive list of
enforcement agencies in the District, starting with the United
States Capitol Police, the United States Secret Service,
Supreme Court Police, the United States Park Police. Even the
Smithsonian have police. We have a whole host here of agencies
that are charged with enforcing the law within the District of
Columbia and also have different sets of penalties that they
must enforce that may be in conflict with the law that has been
proposed by the District for the District.
So, again, we have issues that relate not only to the
District but to law enforcement with other multiple agencies
within the District of Columbia and that have a legitimate law
enforcement role in the District.
So, again, we are here to look at some of these issues, to
explore the implications of this new law's impact on the
District, millions of people who will visit here, and we hope
to do so in a responsible manner. Whether or not we will make
any further recommendation, I'm not going to prejudge. We
haven't heard all the testimony. I invited the District to also
send a representative from the District council, and I think
they chose not to do that. I'm disappointed that they are not
sending someone who actually adopted the policy, but we do want
to provide an opportunity for the representative of the
District, Ms. Norton, to testify and have her position stated
on the record as we'll do in just a minute.
Are there further members that would seek recognition? Mr.
Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank you
for holding this hearing and for having the hearings you've
previously had. I think that the statements in the previous
hearing of the drug czar's representatives and the DEA Deputy
Director that came here spoke for themselves, and they speak
for the need for the President to replace those people and have
people in positions that reflect the values of America in 2014,
and the values that President Obama has espoused, and the
values that the people have espoused in voting in States
throughout this country where 21 States have medical marijuana
and two have recreational marijuana.
This particular case, one of the things that I really liked
about the States adopting this is Louis Brandeis, my favorite
Supreme Court Justice, said that States are the laboratories of
democracy, and that's the wonderful thing, and then there were
48. The States could try things. The others could learn and see
what's good and what's bad. D.C., while not a State, is a
separate jurisdiction and can be a laboratory of democracy just
as Brandeis envisioned, and no better laboratory of democracy
than right here where the Members of the House of
Representatives are situated to where they can see and be
around and experience in their homes and their home area,
second home area, how this law affects the populace. It has a
disparate impact upon African Americans, 8-1 in arrests, and it
has a big effect on the D.C. Budget and incarcerations and
police time. It takes away from other priorities that could be
people spending on human issues that need to be addressed. I'm
sure Delegate Norton who does such a wonderful job representing
the District will bring these issues up, but I am a strong
supporter of D.C.'s having the autonomy to address the issues
as they did by a 10-1 vote and appreciate the opportunity to
discuss these issues in this forum.
Thank you, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And I should have asked for unanimous
consent, since you're not on this specific committee or
subcommittee, to participate; and without objection, we have
granted you the ability to participate.
At this time, I also want to ask unanimous consent that our
colleague from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, be allowed to also
participate in the hearing; and without objection, so ordered.
So let me recognize further members of the subcommittee
first. Mr. Massie, did you want to be heard? Okay. Mr. Jordan?
Okay. Then we'll go to Dr. Fleming. Welcome, and you're
recognized.
Mr. Fleming. Well, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, today
for allowing me to sit in on this and other members of this
committee. I'd like to speak for a moment not so much
specifically about the law and the advisability of relaxing
laws on marijuana, but just to speak as a physician and as a
father, a family physician who's been a alcohol and drug
medical director twice, someone who wrote a book about
preventing addiction in children back in 2007, and what the
impact of marijuana is today in America and also changing
attitudes.
You know, it was back about 20 years ago, I believe, that
there was identified some theoretical value of the use of
marijuana medicinally in the case of dying cancer patients. It
gave them some comfort, and, of course, no one has any problem
with attending to the needs of a dying patient, someone with a
terminal illness.
Somehow this has morphed, though, into claims that
marijuana actually cures cancer, that it is necessary to treat
nausea, and many other claims that have been completely
disputed by the medical community. There is nothing that
marijuana treats today that can't be provided by other
medications that are much safer.
Now, let's talk about the safety of marijuana. Marijuana is
an addicting substance. Again, there's a myth out there that
it's not. The most common diagnosis for young people admitted
to rehab centers today is for marijuana addiction. Make no
mistake about it. Now, there's also discussion about marijuana
is a gateway drug, and I'll tell you what drug addicts tell me,
and that is that every addicting substance is a gateway drug to
another addicting substance. Marijuana is not excluded. I would
even include alcohol and perhaps tobacco in that category.
So any exposure of an addicting substance oftentimes leads
to worse addictions. What else do we know science? We have
learned, we have many studies now that confirm this, that the
human brain does not fully mature until almost age 30. Yet the
average age of a child who has first exposure to alcohol,
tobacco, or marijuana, is around 11. And what we have learned
is that these drugs, these addicting substances, actually
modify the brain and its chemical pathways, the biochemical
pathways and the neurotransmitters, and sets the stage for
addiction later in life. In fact, children who are exposed to
such addicting substances prior to age 15 have a five times
greater risk of future addiction than those who are not. So
there's no question that the rate of addiction goes up with
exposure in young people.
Two very recent studies have come out that have important
impact that came out just this month. One is being published in
Neuroscience where they did MRI scans of people who used
marijuana only once or twice a week. And what they found was
profound changes in two aspects of the brain, areas that
confirm what we have believed all along, and that is something
called Amotivational Syndrome that occurs in regular marijuana
users.
Also, the incidence of psychiatric diseases, particularly
schizophrenia, is higher among chronic users. Heart disease,
we're seeing a spike in heart disease among marijuana users as
well. Now, there's also a Libertarian argument on this that why
should government stand in the way of people utilizing a
substance if they wish to do so? And theoretically, that makes
plenty of sense, but the problem is you never hear libertarians
make the claim that when I'm unable to get or keep a job and I
can no longer support my family, that I will also tell the
government not to take care of us through our growing
entitlement system. So, again I would always challenge those
who argue on a Libertarian basis, you can't have it both ways.
If you can do whatever you want with your body, that is, ride a
motorcycle without a helmet or whatever, don't expect society
and taxpayers to take care of you when you're suffering from
those circumstances.
So, again, I want to be sure that we have the facts in
front of us. We're getting reports now in States like Colorado
where marijuana has recently been made legal, where children in
the fourth grade are now dealing the drug. It's finding its way
into food, and now we have a spike in poisonings in emergency
rooms where children have actually ingested marijuana and
become quite ill.
So these are all important things I want to be sure we have
out on the table, Mr. Chairman. And, once again, I thank you
for the opportunity to join everyone today, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Do you other members wish to make
opening statements. Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. With all due respect, I just want to clarify
the Libertarian position is not to have the government take
care of you if bad luck befalls you or you make poor decisions.
Mr. Fleming. Would the gentleman yield on that?
Mr. Massie. Absolutely.
Mr. Fleming. I would agree that should be the Libertarian,
but I interact with people every day on this subject because of
my stance on it; and I can tell you, and I would actually say
that there's kind of a faux Libertarian group out there who
make the claim on the basis you say, but they never come with
the second part.
So I agree with you, if you were to take a libertarian
stance on this, if I were to choose myself for instance, to
ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or to use marijuana and
tell the government to stay out of my life, then like you, we
should also demand that government not provide us benefits to
the charge of taxpayers to take care of us when that happens.
So we agree philosophically. I'm just saying there are many who
make the claim under the umbrella of Libertarianism, and it's
not Libertarianism at all, as you well state.
Mr. Massie. Yeah, I agree.
Mr. Fleming. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chair, can I ask a question of my
colleagues?
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Massie had time. Did you wish to
yield to Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Massie. I will yield time.
Mr. Cohen. I just wonder with your argument, Doctor, should
we outlaw alcohol so we don't have to pay for the alcoholics
who can't get a job and who we have to pay for for
rehabilitation and for DWIs and for assaults and murders when
they're drunk and those types of things? Should we get rid of
alcohol?
Mr. Fleming. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cohen. I yield.
Mr. Fleming. I'd be happy to respond. Great question. You
know, alcohol has been an accepted part of our culture and even
our religious practices for centuries. We did try even with an
amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the use of it, and it
just was not culturally accepted. It is very problematic, but I
would also say that on a medical basis, that moderate amounts
of ingestion of alcohol actually have positive health effects.
That is, again, not to diminish what it can do. There's no
question that it too can damage the brain, the liver and many
other organs, but that it's not realistic given the cultural
acceptance of alcohol to prohibit it.
The same is true of tobacco. We used it for 400 years
without realizing that it was a problem. And, in fact, as
recently as the 1950s, doctors actually recommended smoking, at
least on commercials, for health, and we found out, or course,
in 1969 when the Surgeon General came out and said that it
causes lung cancer and many other problems. But we have done a
lot of things to mitigate the use of it and the damage of it.
But marijuana is different. The public has never accepted
marijuana as a part of our culture. I know that that seems to
be changing, but I think we can turn it back in time to prevent
that from inculcating itself into our culture and damaging more
young people and ultimately causing severe health care problems
later in life.
Mr. Massie. I'll yield back my time so as not to derail
this committee meeting.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. And as you can see,
there's a lot of debate, not only among various groups, but
among Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and
within the parties themselves. And what's happening is raising
many questions across the United States, both the change in the
law in the District. But it does have implications. I'm going
to yield to Ms. Norton in just a second. I do want to provide
at this point in the proceedings, the penalties for marijuana
possession starting with Federal Law 21 U.S.C. Code, Section
844, which has simple possession that can provide for 1 year of
imprisonment or a fine of not less than $1,000. That's the
Federal law. The new D.C. Law is $25 penalty, civil penalty.
Federal Parkland penalties, in fact, are a fine or jail term up
to 6 months. There are 26 agencies that are responsible for law
enforcement.
Now, I have this joint here--okay. Don't get too excited
out there, some of you. This is not a real one. It's a mock
one, but I am told by staff that this joint, Ms. Norton, that
the penalty is, let's see, you have up to 1 ounce or less. 1
ounce is 28 grams. Is that correct? And each joint has about 1
gram, so over 20 joints you could be in possession of in the
District of Columbia. Here is the list of penalties which I'm
submitting to the record. I can't submit this. This as I said
is a faux joint. But for the record, I will submit this list.
Mr. Cohen. Did you roll that?
Mr. Mica. No, I had staff do it. They have more experience.
But all kidding aside, there are very serious implications, Ms.
Norton, to the step the District has taken. We want an open,
honest airing of what's going to happen, how this is going to
be enforced, and the implications. And that's why we brought in
Federal and District and other officials to discuss this in an
open an honest manner. With that, I welcome our delegate, and
recognize her.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Norton. I want to thank you very much, Chairman Mica
for the opportunity to testify, and I just want to say that
under the Attorney General's policy, I think you are safe with
that joint because the policy is not to enforce marijuana laws
here in the District of Columbia, and I think even in the
Capitol.
Mr. Chairman, before I say a few words and summarize my
testimony, I do have to say I think it's almost quaint to hear
a jurisdiction of 650,000 American citizens referred to as a
Federal District. Not since the 1973 Home Rule Act when
Congress realized it was wrong to have a Nation's Capitol where
people could not govern themselves, that people refer to my
district as a Federal district. I, of course, recognize that
the Congress kept unto itself ultimate power over the Nation's
Capitol while granting the citizens of this city the right to
govern themselves and to make their own local laws in the same
way as the members of the panel in their local jurisdictions,
have those laws made.
Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding that ultimate power, I do
note with great pleasure that this full committee on which I
serve has, in fact, respected home rule. This is the first time
that I can remember that there has been a hearing in Congress
on a purely local matter, notwithstanding the power of Congress
over the District of Columbia. It simply has the good sense and
fails to violate its own principles of local control most of
the time by almost always not interceding into our local
affairs as American citizens.
As to the 20 percent of the District of Columbia that is
Federal land, Mr. Chairman, six or seven States in the United
States have most of their land to be Federal land. And yet we
do not claim, this committee does not claim that that presents
any particular problem when it comes to the enforcement of
local laws which may differ from Federal laws.
As to the location of a number of police forces here, Mr.
Chairman, they will be enforcing Federal law under the Attorney
General's memorandum, which means that they will not interfere
with local law in the District of Columbia as it has been
passed with respect to marijuana decriminalization.
Mr. Chairman, though I appreciate the opportunity to
testify here this morning, I must say I come as much in protest
as in the normal, the usual sense of testimony because the
subcommittee has singled out the District of Columbia on its
marijuana decriminalization law as it has not singled out any
of the other 18 jurisdictions who have similar laws. In fact,
the subcommittee in two prior hearings has gone out of its way,
although it was investigating exactly what it is investigating
here, the conflict between Federal and local law, to observe
it's often cited adherence to the Tenth Amendment by not
calling any local officials, even when it looked at Colorado in
particular, which along with Washington, of course, has gone
much further in decriminalization but has legalized marijuana.
Still, no local official was called to Washington to be
cross-examined, as it were, by the national legislature about
what that local official was doing in its local jurisdiction.
That, too, Mr. Chairman, is at the root of our Constitution.
The ultimate authority of the District of Columbia came because
Congress devolved that authority in 1973 in its landmark law,
except for a few enumerated exceptions and plainly, marijuana
decriminalization was not among them.
Mr. Chairman, almost 40 years ago, the first State
decriminalized marijuana. That was Alaska. Since then red and
blue States alike have decriminalized marijuana from California
to New York, from Mississippi to Nebraska. Nothing, nothing is
similar about these States except they have taken this
particular step in keeping with what their local residents
desired. Yet the District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction
that has gotten a full-fledged hearing on its local
decriminalization law. Nothing distinguishes the District of
Columbia's decriminalization law from those 18 States, except
the illegitimate power of the national government to do what
would make the Framers turn over in their graves, and that is
to overturn the laws of locally elected officials in their own
jurisdiction, in contravention of every American principle of
local control of local affairs.
This hearing stands out because it does not--it flies in
the face of what my Republican colleagues often preach about
devolving power back to local States and jurisdictions. This
hearing does just the opposite, tries to snatch power by making
the District of Columbia vindicate its local power and its
local policy before the State legislature.
I just want to go on the record to say we will defend this
city's marijuana decriminalization bill against any and every
attempt to block it or to change it. There will be as a
courtesy, a city police department official here today, but the
mayor of the District of Columbia has informed me that he
objects to this hearing, and he has refused to provide, as has
the Council, any official who has had anything to do or will
have anything to do with devising or carrying out the marijuana
decriminalization law in the District of Columbia.
I am also pleased to note that two majority members of this
subcommittee, Representatives Justin Amash and Thomas Massie,
carried out the principle of local control of local affairs by
last week voting for the Blumenauer amendment to prohibit local
funds being used to implement the veterans health
administrative directive that forbids a VA provider from
completing forms seeking recommendations or options regarding a
veteran's participation in a State marijuana program.
Mr. Chairman, it took me 11 years to remove a marijuana, a
medical marijuana amendment from the District's appropriation.
Now, today 21 States have medical marijuana.
Mr. Chairman, the most important reason I am here today is
to make it clear to the committee what really propelled the
District to pass its own decriminalization law. Even though
blacks and whites in the United States use marijuana at the
same rate, a recent study showed that African Americans in our
country are four times more likely, are almost four times more
likely, to be arrested for mere possession.
Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to note that in your own
State of Florida you have, you are number three in the nation
for marijuana possession arrests, and blacks in Florida are
arrested for marijuana possession at a rate four times that of
whites. But here, even in the progressive, District of Columbia
where half of the population is black, we found an even worse
record, that African Americans were eight times more likely to
be arrested for mere possession than whites in our city, and 91
percent of all marijuana arrests were of African Americans.
These arrest rates are extremely troubling because in our city,
and across the country, they have ruined the lives of African
Americans, especially young African American men who start in
life surrounded by a host of stereotypes, regardless of who
they are or where they live, just because they are black. A
marijuana possession arrest, particularly for these young men
from low income areas, will almost surely wipe out the
opportunity to find a legitimate job. That, in turn, can lead
to the underground economy, even selling drugs. Who is paying
that price, Mr. Chairman? It is the black community itself.
Mr. Mica. I would like, if you could, to conclude. Now
we're 6-1/2 minutes over what we allot. But I would also like
to invite the gentlelady to come up and join the panel, and
you'll have time here both to ask questions and submit
additional information for the record.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say, particularly
given the concern, I will simply lead with the rest of my
testimony, but the concern that a member has indicated about
the use of marijuana himself. That is a very legitimate
concern, and he can be assured that the District of Columbia, a
big city which has experienced real drug problems, usually
heroin and cocaine, very, very clear about the problem of
people smoking marijuana, has gone out of its way to make sure
that decriminalization does not lead to more smoking of
marijuana. In fact, ironically, I think decriminalization is
going to start up, for the first time, an understanding of the
risks that may be associated with smoking marijuana, whereas we
haven't heard much about those until decriminalization took
hold. In a free society, of course, Mr. Chairman, we must
respect the liberty of Americans to use such substances. Rather
than simply punishing use, the District of Columbia has a
substance abuse prevention and treatment fund which will be
used, it will be engaged in preventative actions.
Mr. Chairman, I'm asking that the city, in any further
action within this committee, not be unfairly targeted and that
the members of this committee give the people who live in the
District of Columbia the same respect for their local decisions
as they would certainly demand for their own constituents and
jurisdiction.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady, and we also welcome her
to the panel and appreciate her testimony. We are going to go
ahead and have the second panel seated. And if we could go
ahead and do that, Ms. Norton, if you'd join us here, we had
appreciate it.
I'd just say while they're doing that, let me put a
unanimous consent request in the record, and this relates to
marijuana, Federal marijuana prosecutions. In August of 2013,
the Department of Justice issued a memo stating that the
Department of Justice will not enforce marijuana laws in States
that have legalized it and maintained a robust regulatory
scheme. However, the Department of Justice listed eight
priority areas for which they intend to focus marijuana-related
prosecutions. One of those eight areas, ``preventing marijuana
possession or use on Federal property'' is one of those
exceptions.
Under these policies it seems the Federal District Court
would prosecute marijuana possession on Federal land. This is
contrary to what we just heard, and that's one of the reasons.
No one is here to negate the District law. We are looking at
the implications and the enforcement regime with 26 Federal
agencies responsible for enforcing different penalties. So with
that, do we have all of our witnesses, if they'd step forward.
We have Mr. Peter Newsham is the Assistant Chief of
Metropolitan Police. We have Robert D. MacLean is the acting
chief of the United States Park Service; we have Mr. David
O'Neil is the acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal
Division at the U.S. Department of Justice; and we have, our
fourth witness is Ms. Seema, Sadanandan, Director of the
American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capitol.
If you could remain standing, we do swear in all of our
witnesses. If you would raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give before this subcommittee of Congress is the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses answered
in the affirmative. Please be seated. We try to get you to
limit your testimony to 5 minutes. We'll be glad through a
request of the chair to add to the record additional
information, data or testimony that you would like made part of
the record and welcome you.
Mr. Mica. Let's start out and we'll start with Peter
Newsham who is the Assistant Chief of Metropolitan Police.
Welcome, sir, and you're recognized.
If you could turn that up, and I'm only a lowly
congressman.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF PETER NEWSHAM
Mr. Newsham. Good morning, Chairman Mica, other members of
the committee, and members of the public. I am Peter Newsham,
Assistant Chief of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police
Department. I'm pleased to be here today to discuss the
District of Columbia's recent legislation to decriminalize
small amounts of marijuana. The Marijuana Possession
Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014, D.C. Act 20-305, which
is projected to become effective law in approximately mid-July,
amends the District of Columbia's criminal code to
decriminalize the possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana.
Instead of facing a misdemeanor charge punishable by up to 6
months in jail, up to $1,000 fine or both, once the act goes
into effect, individuals will be subject to a $25 civil fine.
The Metropolitan Police Department officers can seize any
visible marijuana.
The use of marijuana on public space will remain a criminal
penalty punishable by up to 60 days in jail or a fine of up to
$500. The act defines public space as any street, alley,
sidewalk, park, or parking area. A vehicle on any street,
alley, park or parking area, and any place to which the public
is invited.
Public attitudes about marijuana use have changed
significantly in recent years with many accepting it to be no
more harmful or addictive than alcohol or tobacco.
Decriminalizing marijuana may help reduce the number of people
with arrest records for possession of small amounts of
marijuana which may enable them to more easily find gainful
employment. The act maintains criminal penalties for selling
marijuana and public usage of marijuana, which is important to
combat drug dealing and to ensure neighborhoods' quality of
life.
Even though the District of Columbia will decriminalize
possession of small amounts of marijuana, we will continue to
send the message, especially to our young people, of
marijuana's danger and effects, just as we do with alcohol and
tobacco, to discourage them from using it. Due to the
District's unique status, some Federal law enforcement agencies
such as the U.S. Park Police, have concurrent jurisdiction in
the District of Columbia and can enforce District or Federal
law anywhere in the city. Although MPD officers will enforce
the act, the local act, Federal law enforcement agencies are
not bound by the act so long as the possession or use of
marijuana remains a Federal criminal offense.
I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, and we'll hold the questions to the
end.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Newsham follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Let's now hear from and recognize Robert MacLean,
and he's the acting chief of the United States Park Police. And
you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MACLEAN
Mr. MacLean. Thank you, sir. Chairman Mica and members of
the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before
you today to discuss the Federal Government's response to the
potential decriminalization of the District of Columbia's
marijuana possession laws. My name is Robert MacLean. I'm the
acting chief of the United States Park Police. I'd like to
submit the Department's full statement for the record and
summarize those views here.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, the entire statement will be
made part of the record.
Mr. MacLean. The U.S. Park Police is one of the Nation's
oldest uniformed Federal law enforcement agencies. The Park
Police have enjoyed a long history of partnership with the
citizens of the District of Columbia and cooperation with the
Metropolitan Police Department. The Park Police is responsible
for safety and crime prevention in all parklands administered
by the National Park Service. In the District of Columbia, the
Park Police have primary jurisdiction over Federal Parkland
which comprises approximately 22 percent of the District of
Columbia, including the National Mall, East and West Potomac
Parks, Rock Creek Park, Anacostia Park, McPherson Square, and
many of the small triangle parks.
The Park Police is a law enforcement unit of the National
Park Service within the Department of the Interior, and our
jurisdiction is usually set by congressional legislation.
Officers of the U.S. Park Police are authorized under Federal
law to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the
United States committed in their presence within areas of the
national park system. Further, two additional acts of Congress
provide that Park Police officers have the same powers and
duties as the Metropolitan Police Department officers within
the District of Columbia. Park Police enforcement is left to
the sound discretion of the individual officer on the ground
depending on the circumstances.
If an individual is arrested for simple possession of
marijuana by one of our officers within the District, the
arrestee can be currently charged under D.C. Code. Under
existing D.C. Law, simple possession of marijuana is a
misdemeanor with a penalty of incarceration of up to 6 months
and a fine of not more than $1,000. If the violation occurs on
Federal Parkland, the arrestee can be charged under the
National Park Service regulation at Title 36, CFR, resulting in
a misdemeanor with a possible penalty of incarceration of up to
6 months, and a fine of not more than $5,000.
Finally, marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance
under Title 21, United States Code, the possession of which is
a misdemeanor, and in the event of a conviction, the sentence
is determined by the court.
Between 2010 and 2012, approximately 55 percent of the Park
Police arrests for marijuana charges in the Washington
metropolitan area occurred on Federal Parkland within the
District of Columbia. The majority of these arrests were for
simple possession, with a few arrests for possession with
intent to distribute. We understand the District of Columbia's
Marijuana Possession Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014
would only amend District law and would not alter the National
Park Service regulation or Federal law on marijuana. We also
understand that the D.C. Act would still make is a misdemeanor
to smoke marijuana in a public space or park.
If the D.C. Act becomes law, then we will work closely with
the United States Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia
to determine our future enforcement options especially if the
person is on Federal Parkland.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. MacLean. We appreciate your
testimony.
[Prepared statement of Mr. MacLean follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. We will now turn to David O'Neil, the acting
Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the
United States Department of Justice. Welcome, sir, and you are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. O'NEIL
Mr. O'Neil. Thank you Chairman Mica and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I appreciate your invitation to
testify on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. My
testimony today will focus on our marijuana enforcement program
nationwide and the guidance the Department has issued to all
United States Attorneys regarding our program. As you know, the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970 makes it a Federal crime to
possess, grow or distribute marijuana. Financial transactions
involving proceeds generated by marijuana-related conduct can
also form the basis for Federal prosecution under money
laundering statutes, the unlicensed money remitter statute, and
the Bank Secrecy Act.
Starting with California in 1996, several States have
authorized the cultivation, distribution, possession, and use
of marijuana for medical purposes under State law.
In 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington approved
initiatives legalizing marijuana use under State law and
establishing State regulatory systems for marijuana use. In
2010, the Council of the District of Columbia authorized use of
marijuana for medical purposes, and following congressional
review of that legislation, it became law in the District of
Columbia. The Council has now enacted broader decriminalization
legislation, which is currently under congressional review.
The Administration will treat D.C. In the same manner as
every other jurisdiction with respect to the enforcement of
Federal marijuana laws. In the District of Columbia, the U.S.
Attorney's Office will also continue to enforce drug offenses
under the D.C. Code.
For decades and across administrations, Federal law
enforcement has targeted sophisticated drug traffickers and
organizations, while State and local authorities generally have
focused their enforcement efforts under their State laws on
more localized drug activity. Since medical marijuana laws and
decriminalization laws have been enacted, the Department of
Justice has continued to work with its State and local partners
to target dangerous drug trafficking organizations. At this
point, more than ever, we will maintain strong partnerships and
coordination among Federal and State and local law enforcement.
On August 29, 2013, the Department issued a guidance
memorandum to all United States Attorneys directing our
prosecutors to continue to fully investigate and prosecute
marijuana cases that implicate any one of eight Federal
enforcement priorities. This memorandum applies to all of our
Federal prosecutors, and it guides the exercise of
prosecutorial discretion against individuals and organizations
that violate any of our stated Federal interests, no matter
where they live or what the laws in their State permit. Using
our prosecutorial discretion, U.S. Attorneys' Offices have
historically devoted resources to cases involving these eight
Federal enforcement priorities and will continue to do so in
the future. For example, we have targeted enforcement actions
against marijuana businesses and residential grow sites near
schools. We also actively investigate and prosecute cases
involving international smuggling and interstate shipment of
marijuana, marijuana grows where firearms and violence are
involved, marijuana grows on public lands, and cases with
potential organized crime involvement in marijuana businesses.
In addition, in February 2014, the Department issued
guidance to all Federal prosecutors regarding marijuana-
related financial crimes. That guidance seeks to mitigate the
public safety concerns created by high-volume cash-based
businesses without access to banking and the financial system,
while at the same time, ensuring that criminal organizations,
gangs, and drug cartels do not have access to the financial
system to launder criminal proceeds. The guidance states
clearly that the provisions of the money laundering statute,
the unlicensed money remitter statute, and the Bank Secrecy Act
remain in effect with respect to marijuana-related conduct. The
guidance advises Federal prosecutors to assess marijuana
financial crimes under the eight Federal enforcement priorities
laid out in the August 29th memorandum. The Department expects
financial institutions to continue to apply appropriate risk-
based anti-money-laundering policies, procedures, and controls
sufficient to address the risks posed by these customers. This
includes conducting customer due diligence consistent with any
guidance issued by FinCEN. The Department of Justice is
committed to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in all
States and the District of Columbia, and we're grateful for the
dedicated work of our Drug Enforcement Administration and
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, our Federal
prosecutors, and our State and local partners in protecting our
communities from the dangers of illegal drug trafficking. Our
goal is to ensure that we are effectively focused on the eight
Federal enforcement priorities outlined in the August 2013 and
February 2014 guidance from the Department.
Ultimately the achievement of that goal requires
cooperation among law enforcement agencies at every level. I
look forward to taking your questions.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And I appreciate your testimony.
[Prepared statement of Mr. O'Neil follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. We'll go now to Ms. Sadanandan, and she is the
Program Director at the American Civil Liberties Union here in
the Nation's Capitol. Welcome, ma'am, and you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF SEEMA SADANANDAN
Ms. Sadanandan. Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to address D.C.'s overwhelmingly popular decision
to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. My name is Seema
Sadanandan, and I am the Program Director of the ACLU of the
Nation's capitol.
We work to protect civil liberties and civil rights in
Washington, D.C., through public education, legislative
advocacy and litigation. In 2013, the ACLU published a
nationwide study of the widespread racial disparities in
marijuana arrests from 2001 to 2010. The report documented
arrest rates for marijuana possession by race for all 50 States
and the District of Columbia. The ACLU of the Nation's Capitol
soon thereafter issued a shadow report entitled Behind the D.C.
Numbers, the War on Marijuana in Black and White, focusing on
racial disparities in marijuana arrests here in the District.
While the ACLU's nationwide study found black people to be
3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession
than whites, in the District of Columbia, black people were a
staggering eight times more likely, despite roughly equal usage
rates among black and white populations.
Ms. Sadanandan. These reports catalyzed several months of
high profile public debate about police enforcement practices
here in the District. There emerged a public consensus that the
aggressive enforcement of marijuana possession did not make our
communities any safer.
In the face of increasing public pressure, in March 2014
members of the D.C. Council passed by a margin of 10-1 the
Marijuana Decriminalization Amendment Act of 2014. Prior to the
passage of the act, adult possession of marijuana was a
misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail or up to a
$1,000 fine. The act of decriminalizing marijuana makes
marijuana possession of one ounce or less a civil offense under
D.C. law subject to a $25 fine. In passing this act, the
District joined 11 other States which had already instituted
similar legislation.
In 2010, as you can see the graph here, black and white
populations in the District were nearly equal, yet nearly 91
percent of all arrests for marijuana-related offenses were of
black people. In 2010 alone, 5,393 arrests for marijuana-
related offenses. Approximately three-quarters of those arrests
were for marijuana possession.
In 2010 law enforcement officers in the District of
Columbia were making approximately 15 marijuana arrests per
day. Usage rates do not explain this glaring racial disparity
in the enforcement of the District's marijuana laws,
particularly where time and time again studies have shown that
black and white populations use marijuana at remarkably similar
rates.
This is a 2010 nationwide survey by the National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse and Health. We have the 2001 and 2010
surveys here which show that based on self-reported usage rates
between black and white populations you have near equal rates.
In addition, studies have consistently indicated that drug
markets, like American society in general, reflect our Nation's
racial and socioeconomic boundaries. For example, university
students tend to sell to one another.
Here we have a map of all the marijuana arrests in the
District of Columbia. The yellow points indicate the arrests of
black individuals and the blue points indicate arrests of white
people. This map demonstrates that the vast majority of the
arrests in the District of Columbia took place east of 16th
Street. And for anyone who lives here in the District, you know
that these are the neighborhoods where the overwhelming
majority of black residents live and far from the four major
universities that lie west of 16th Street.
When faced with the question of what to do about these
disparities, the council considered several key factors in
support of marijuana reform. The cost of marijuana enforcement
was a huge factor. The District spends more per capita on
marijuana enforcement than any of the 50 States. By a
conservative estimate, D.C. in 2010 spent approximately $26
million on marijuana enforcement.
Second, focusing valuable police time and resources on
marijuana enforcement reduced police ability to respond to and
solve more serious crime.
And finally, saddling thousands of primarily black men in
the District with convictions for marijuana possession year
after year with negative consequences for employment,
education, and housing did not serve the interests of public
safety and had a corrosive effect on the relationship between
police and the community.
Based on these factors, the policy choice was clear: The
council overwhelmingly decided to remove criminal penalties
under D.C. law for marijuana possession.
Before I close, I will briefly address the issue of Federal
versus local marijuana enforcement. According to our data,
which we obtained through a FOIA request from the Metropolitan
Police Department, 93 percent of all marijuana arrests in 2010
were made by the Metropolitan Police Department. Less than 3
percent of all the arrests in the District of Columbia for
marijuana-related offenses were made on Federal land. According
to our estimates, approximately 99 percent of all arrests were
made under the D.C. Code.
Accordingly, we do not predict a significant tension
between Federal and local marijuana enforcement in the wake of
reform. We urge this committee to respect this local and widely
supported measure to address racial disparities in marijuana
enforcement in the District of Columbia.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Sadanandan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mica. Well, thank each of our witnesses for their
testimony and participation. Also, failed to say at the
opening, thank you again. We have had to change the scheduling
of this hearing at least twice, and yesterday, in deference to
our departed Member, the late Mr. Jim Oberstar, Ms. Norton and
I and many other members were at his funeral. So that is the
reason, and I appreciate so much your complying.
Let me start with some quick questions. I cited, in fact,
Mr. O'Neil, that there are 26 Federal law enforcement agencies.
You issued and you cited the August 29th, 2013, memo that the
U.S. Attorneys wouldn't be going after some of the laws in
these States, at least you wouldn't be going after as far as
Federal prosecution some of the laws. You did cite eight
exceptions, and the eighth one I have here, which I put in the
record, was preventing marijuana possession or use on Federal
property. Is that correct? Is that part of what was issued?
Mr. O'Neil. Chairman Mica, I guess I would characterize the
memo slightly differently. I think it was not an indication
that we would not prosecute Federal marijuana laws except where
those exceptions or where those areas are indicated. I think
what I would say is that that memo indicated that those are the
areas where we are going to focus our priorities. So we have
instructed Federal prosecutors to focus on those areas.
Mr. Mica. Right. And one would be preventing marijuana
possession or use on Federal property.
Mr. O'Neil. That is correct.
Mr. Mica. That is correct.
Mr. O'Neil. That is one of our priorities.
Mr. Mica. In conflict to some comments that have been made
about what the Department of Justice has said and what they
would do.
We have also looked, and we called in your U.S. Attorney
from Colorado because that is one of two States that have--now,
we have 20 States that have gone in for the medical marijuana,
but we have the penalties basically eliminated for possession,
I believe, in Colorado; the other one Washington. So we are not
picking on the District, we are looking at the implications
from Federal prosecution.
Mr. MacLean, you cited, too, that you will be enforcing
Federal law on Federal property. Is that correct?
Mr. MacLean. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Mica. As far as possession. Which are you going to
enforce, the District law or Federal law on Federal property?
If I have got this little old joint here, just possession, what
are you going to do, and I am on Federal property, Park
Service, and you told me all the area that you cover, what law
are you going to enforce if this goes into effect in a few more
weeks here?
Mr. MacLean. The current law over National Park Service
land in the District of Columbia is title 36 Code of Federal
Regulations.
Mr. Mica. So you will enforce the Federal law in conflict
to the--in deference, too, to what the District has passed,
right?
Mr. MacLean. That is correct. We also have available to use
the authority under----
Mr. Mica. And you would prosecute that. I guess the
prosecutorial agency would either be--well, the District has a
different law, so it would end up in the Federal courts. Is
that right?
Mr. O'Neil. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Columbia has authority in the District for prosecuting cases or
offenses under the D.C. Code. And so to the extent an arrest
was made under the D.C. Code, that would be prosecuted in
Superior Court. To the extent a case was brought to us in
violation of Federal law, then, yes, that would be prosecuted
in Federal District Court.
Mr. Mica. And MacLean just testified 55--was it 55 percent
of your--give us exactly, I don't want to change the words, but
the marijuana possession were 55 percent of offenses, or what
was that number?
Mr. MacLean. Of the specific year, 55 percent of the
arrests made for marijuana possession by the United States Park
Police occurred on Federal parkland.
Mr. Mica. On Federal parkland.
Mr. MacLean. Correct.
Mr. Mica. So we could have an increased number, given the
disparity.
I am not here to negate the District law. We are here to
review what the District passed, and there have been precedents
for that, and I am not here to just review its implications in
the District. We have at least two States, and we have had one
hearing on one of the States and the U.S. Attorney, to see how
this would be administered and executed under the law.
So, again, and I have already put this in the record, we
would have Federal prosecution. It would be at a higher. But we
still have the issue, and I think you brought it up, Chief
Newsham, of this being a Schedule I Federal narcotic, too, even
though the District has again reduced the penalty, and you have
jurisdiction on all of the non-Federal land. So you would
prosecute it under the new statute. Is that correct?
Mr. Newsham. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, again, it isn't a purely local
matter, particularly given the relationship between the
District of Columbia. And, again, it is a unique status in the
scheme of political and enforcement jurisdictions.
There is no question there is disparity in the prosecution
when it comes to blacks. Our prisons probably, I don't know the
current number, but probably half the population of the
prisons, State and local jails, are filled with African
Americans. The number of people in jail for various penalties,
there is probably a larger population of African Americans in
jail and prosecuted for a whole host of crimes. And that is
wrong, and in many cases it is wrong that they find themselves
in that situation in the beginning. But I am not certain that
again changing the penalty in the District of Columbia is going
to benefit that population that much.
Unfortunately, marijuana, Ms. Sadanandan, becomes a gateway
narcotic, and that is what we had testify the Office of
National Drug Control Policy Director under the--the Deputy
Director--under the President of the United States, who brought
up some of this topic by comparing the use of marijuana
equivalent to alcohol. So, again, it is not a question, but a
response to some of your comments, there are inequities that
need to be resolved.
I appreciate each of you coming. We are trying to sort
through this, its implications. I don't know what the
administration will do on the categorization. Do you have any
recommendation, Mr. O'Neil? Probably not.
Mr. O'Neil. In terms of scheduling of marijuana?
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. O'Neil. No. There is a process for considering that
which would begin with a petition to the DEA, which then would
be referred to the Department of Health and Human Services for
a study and a recommendation.
Mr. Mica. And we plan to bring in people from the
scientific area to see what is out there and again review that
whole process. And right now with the laws changing, as you
testified to, and we all see across the land, we need to see
where we are going with this.
I thank both of you, you are both law enforcement officers,
for the job you are doing, and I hope you see the problems that
we are trying to sort through as a committee.
Ms. Norton. I am going to try to stick to the 5, Ms.
Norton, because we do have 5 votes scheduled soon.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify, Mr.
Chairman, on parkland and Federal property, nothing I said was
meant, and I heard nothing that said that Federal law would be
any different on Federal property, Federal Park Service
property, Federal buildings. I joked about how you wouldn't be
arrested here.
Mr. Mica. Even up here.
Ms. Norton. Yeah. This is Federal property. You may be in
some jeopardy up here, Mr. Chairman.
But what I was pointing out is that parkland and Federal
property is to be treated the same way here as in other parts
of the United States. Isn't that true Mr. MacLean and Mr.
O'Neil?
Mr. O'Neil. That is correct.
Mr. MacLean. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. I mentioned when the chairman pointed out 20
percent of the land was Federal parkland or Federal property
that there were any number of States--staff has given me some
of them, Nevada, Utah, Alaska--where the entire State virtually
is owned by the Federal Government. Does that create any
particular difficulty with respect to the--for example, in
Alaska where they have decriminalized marijuana, has the fact
that so much of Alaska is Federal land created any particular
difficulties enforcing Federal law on Federal land.
Mr. O'Neil?
Mr. O'Neil. I am not aware of any particular difficulty
arising from the high percentage of Federal land in a State
like Alaska. As you pointed out, we are going to approach
marijuana enforcement in the District of Columbia just as we do
in States like Colorado, Washington, and other jurisdictions
that have chosen to amend their laws in this way.
Ms. Norton. I just want to note for the record that the
Federal Government owns 81 percent of the land in Nevada, 66
percent in Utah, and 61 percent in Alaska.
Mr. Newsham, does the District's marijuana bill change D.C.
law regarding the sale and distribution of marijuana or intent
to distribute marijuana?
Mr. Newsham. That would still be an arrestable offense.
Ms. Norton. What about notification of parents and
guardians if you find marijuana in the hands of a youth?
Mr. Newsham. The youth would be issued, for less than an
ounce, would be issued a notice of violation. And then again
with regards to distribution it would be an arrestable offense
and parents would be notified.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Sadanandan, you noted that where there are
a great many young people, because this is a college town, west
of 16th Street there are almost no arrests, but there are in
that map that showed high numbers in many areas where African
Americans live. Why do you think? How come there are so many
arrests for mere possession there? How do they come about?
Ms. Sadanandan. Well, the study that we did was a
descriptive study, so we looked purely at sort of the arrest
data. But based on anecdotal evidence there are a number of
different reasons that have to do with the way in which
marijuana enforcement is prioritized by various law enforcement
agencies. And I think that you can look, even with the number
of various law enforcement agencies here in the District, you
see more than 93 percent of the arrests are happening through
the Metropolitan Police Department.
Ms. Norton. Are these youngsters or people, whatever their
age, picked up, do you think, because of the smell or odor of
marijuana?
Ms. Sadanandan. According to reports from young people in
the District, it was under the alleged smell of marijuana that
they were being singled out for stops and searches. But what we
found in our data is that the majority of people who were
actually arrested were not young people at all. In fact,
juveniles made up less than 4 percent of actual arrests for any
type of marijuana.
Ms. Norton. I don't mean juveniles, Ms. Sadanandan. I mean
young people.
Ms. Sadanandan. Yeah, absolutely. So the pretext of odor
was definitely being used, according to anecdotal evidence, to
stop and initiate contact.
Ms. Norton. What is the reason for the low fine?
Ms. Sadanandan. The reason for the low fine is because the
majority of the areas of the District where people were being
arrested are areas with high rates of low-income individuals,
and the implication for a $25 fine is very different for a
person who is living at or below the poverty line than, say,
for example, a person who is middle class or upper middle
class. And so the $25 fine is more likely based on the arrest
patterns we see now to be levied against someone of low income.
And so we wanted a fine that was a deterrent for engaging in
possession, but it was also manageable and realistic and didn't
saddle someone with an additional burden which would be
unrealistic for them to actually pay.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I find the racial disparity aspect of the enforcement and
prosecution of these laws very disturbing, but it does strike
me that the answer might not be just to ignore the law when we
find a problem like this.
Ms. Sadanandan, did you find racial disparity in
distribution crimes as well as possession, or have you looked
at that?
Ms. Sadanandan. Our report didn't look specifically at
distribution, but what I can say is this. Based on just a
survey, a general survey of the number of, for example,
distribution crimes in an area like District Seven of the
Metropolitan Police Department, which is a largely African
American section of the District versus District Two, we did
find that in District Seven, for example, there were 276
arrests for distribution in a given year. In District Two there
were approximately between 20 and 30 arrests. Yet the yield for
marijuana was much, much higher in District Two than in
District Seven.
Mr. Massie. What I am trying to find out is do you
anticipate--so there are still going to be arrests for intent
to distribute, that really hasn't changed in the D.C. law--do
you anticipate a racial disparity continuing in the enforcement
of this law?
Ms. Sadanandan. We anticipate that there will be less
arrests, but, yes, the disparity will continue. It just won't
continue on the scale that we are seeing now.
Mr. Massie. Mr. Newsham, two of the witnesses have
testified that there is a racial disparity in the application
of this law. In your opinion, why are blacks arrested at a
higher rate than whites for marijuana and what are you doing
about that? I mean, it is not up to you to set the laws, but
the enforcement of it is. What can you do and what have you
done to address that disparity?
Mr. Newsham. I don't know if I heard folks say that it was
the enforcement of the law that was causing the disparity. I
think that when you take a look at something like this, if you
are looking at race for a particular crime where arrests are
being made, I think other factors have to be considered before
you draw any conclusions as to what the cause is. One of the
things that we looked at as a department, because we're very
sensitive to the allegation that laws are being biasedly
enforced, obviously----
Mr. Massie. Understood. So I wanted to give you a chance to
answer that.
Mr. Newsham. Yeah. So we looked at calls for service. And
if you talk about that study where they talked about two
separate areas of the city, we call them patrol service areas,
one was in the Second District and one was in the Seventh
District, and this just is one of the things that we saw, is
that in PSA 204, which is in the Second District, which is a
predominantly white neighborhood, there were 12 drug calls for
service and we had 12 marijuana arrests. Then in PSA, I believe
it was 602, which is in Anacostia, which is a predominantly
black neighborhood, we had 518 calls for service and we had 249
marijuana arrests.
So the calls for service are drawing the police to these
areas, and the calls for service are the community. It is the
community that calls the police to come and take enforcement
action. So I guess I say all that to say is I don't want
anybody here to leave with the impression that the Metropolitan
Police Department or any law enforcement agency in the city
is--it is law enforcement tactics that are causing that. I
think we need to take a closer look at the causes.
Mr. Massie. Thank you.
Mr. O'Neil, who determines the prosecution priorities at
the Department of Justice?
Mr. O'Neil. Ultimately the Attorney General and the Deputy
Attorney General, and then in each of the districts----
Mr. Massie. So it is the Attorney General, Eric Holder, who
determines ultimately the priorities?
Mr. O'Neil. Yes, the Attorney General, though as I said in
any particular district the U.S. Attorney also has discretion
about how to enforce the law based on the particular
circumstances of that area.
Mr. Massie. So have you had any directive. I heard you say
earlier that you would enforce the laws in D.C. on Federal
property the same way you would in Colorado or Washington, but
are you going to be any more or less diligent about prosecuting
arrests on Federal property in States that have more lenient
marijuana laws than in other States?
Mr. O'Neil. No. We are going to approach it--that was
really the point of the August 2013 guidance, is that this is
the enforcement priorities of the Department across the entire
country regardless of what the State law is.
Mr. Massie. So there would be no deference to State law on
Federal property in those States?
Mr. O'Neil. I think our enforcement of marijuana laws on
Federal property will be the same regardless of what the
applicable State law is.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Massie. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I need to recognize Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the chairman.
Mr. O'Neil, tomorrow, May 10th, will mark 1 year since Lois
Lerner went to a bar association here in town and disclosed
that the Internal Revenue Service was targeting conservative
groups. Four days later the Attorney General announced, after
saying that this activity was outrageous and unacceptable,
announced that there would be a criminal investigation.
A month into that investigation we had then FBI Director
Mueller in front of the committee. He was asked three
questions: Who is the lead agent on the investigation? How many
agents have you assigned? And have you interviewed any of the
victims groups? Mr. Mueller's responses to those questions were
I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. But what he also said
was I will get back with you, implying that we were able to--we
should in fact know some of that basic information.
So I would like to know a couple things. We know Ms.
Bosserman is involved. She has interviewed many of the
witnesses because those same witnesses we have interviewed and
they told us she has been interviewing them. She is in the
Civil Rights Division. But the Attorney General has told us the
Public Integrity Section is involved, too. Is that accurate?
Mr. O'Neil. Both the Civil Rights Division and the Criminal
Division of the Department of Justice are involved, as are
career agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Treasury Inspector General.
Mr. Jordan. Can you tell me some of the basic information
about the questions I asked Mr. Mueller almost a year ago? Who
in fact is the lead agent on this investigation?
Mr. O'Neil. I am sure that we can provide that information
to you.
Mr. Jordan. Well, we have asked you seven times. We have
sent seven different inquiries to the Department of Justice and
each time they can't tell us anything. They just say it is an
ongoing investigation.
Now, Mr. Mueller didn't say that. He told us he would get
back with us and give us the information.
Now, Mr. O'Neil, you're Acting Assistant AG for the
Criminal Division, so you manage the Public Integrity Section?
Mr. O'Neil. I oversee the Public Integrity Section.
Mr. Jordan. Are you involved in the investigation of
targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue
Service?
Mr. O'Neil. I would disagree with the characterization. I
don't----
Mr. Jordan. Are you involved?
Mr. O'Neil. Am I involved in the investigation?
Mr. Jordan. The investigation.
Mr. O'Neil. I oversee the Public Integrity Section, so,
yes.
Mr. Jordan. Do you know an attorney named J.P. Cooney?
Mr. O'Neil. I am not familiar with that name.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Cooney is in the Public Integrity Section.
We understand he is involved in the investigation. Do you know
if he is lead agent?
Mr. O'Neil. As I said, I am not familiar with the names.
Mr. Jordan. Can you tell me who is leading the
investigation? There has got to be someone in charge. Who is
the point person on the investigation in the targeting of the
Internal Revenue Service of conservative groups?
Mr. O'Neil. Congressman, obviously this is far afield of
the subject of the hearing that we are----
Mr. Jordan. But you oversee the Public Integrity Section,
the Criminal Division that is involved. I just want to know
who--you don't know who--this is one of the biggest cases you
got. You don't know who is leading the investigation?
Mr. O'Neil. There are numerous career Federal prosecutors
that are on that investigation.
Mr. Jordan. Can you tell me how many? I have been trying to
get this answer now for 11 months.
Mr. O'Neil. How many prosecutors in total? I can't tell you
that answer sitting here today.
Mr. Jordan. Is this an important case for the Justice
Department, finding out how people's First Amendment rights
were violated and they were targeted by the Internal Revenue
Service. Is this an important case?
Mr. O'Neil. Again, I would disagree with the
characterization of the investigation. But, yes, this is an
important case to the Department.
Mr. Jordan. And you don't know how many agents are
involved. You don't even know how many agents are involved from
your division?
Mr. O'Neil. Well, agents would be involved from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation----
Mr. Jordan. How many attorneys from your division?
Mr. O'Neil. I can't give you a precise number.
Mr. Jordan. Let me ask you this.
Mr. O'Neil. I don't want to give you a precise number and
have that be incorrect.
Mr. Jordan. Let me ask you this. This week, earlier this
week, in a bipartisan majority, 26 Democrats joined
Republicans, joined every single Republican, 26 Democrats said
that we should have a special counsel take over this
investigation. So 26 Democrats joined with us saying things
like this, ``The statements and actions of the IRS and the
Department of Justice and the Obama administration in
connection with the matter have served to undermine the
Department of Justice investigation.'' That was part of the
resolution. Twenty-six Democrats agreed with that quote.
Do you think we need a special counsel to take over this
investigation, that no one seems to know how many agents are
involved, how many attorneys are involved, no one can tell me
who is leading it. FBI Director Mueller couldn't tell me, you
can't tell me, even the people, the number involved from your
division. Do you think we need a special counsel? Do you agree
with the 26 Democrats who agreed with us with that resolution?
Mr. O'Neil. You know, I think that the Attorney General,
the Deputy Attorney General, and others in the Department have
answered that question. I think the answer is that, no, a
special counsel is not warranted.
Mr. Jordan. So you not going to recommend a special
counsel?
Mr. O'Neil. No.
Mr. Jordan. You don't think the Attorney General is going
to even consider that question at all, even though 26
Democrats, a bipartisan majority in the House of
Representatives said what is going on at the Justice
Department, it is not the kind of investigation we want, we
think it is time for a special prosecutor?
Mr. O'Neil. Again, I think that that suggestion has been
made and I think that the leadership----
Mr. Jordan. It wasn't a suggestion. It wasn't a suggestion.
It was a vote of the United States House of Representatives
with 26 Democrats joining Republicans saying what is going on
in the Justice Department is not a real investigation. When the
person leading the investigation, Barbara Bosserman, gave
$6,750 to the President's campaign and the Democrat National
Committee, even 26 Democrats agree something else has to
happen, someone else should be in charge.
Mr. O'Neil. Again, Congressman, I think that the
prosecution here is being led and managed by career prosecutors
in the Criminal Division, the Civil Rights Division, with
assistance from career agents in the FBI and the Treasury
Inspector General.
Mr. Jordan. I hope, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. O'Neil. And I think the Attorney General and the
Department have confidence----
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Attorney General will
listen to what 26 fellow Democrats in the United States House
of Representatives had to say earlier this week when they voted
and said we need a special counsel.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman.
Here is what is going to happen. We have less than a minute
now remaining in a vote. So I am going to recess the hearing
until 12:15. We will try to conclude it by about 12:30, 12:35.
We have at least a few more questions to be asked, though.
The subcommittee will stand in recess to 12:15.
[Recess.]
Mr. Mica. I will call the subcommittee back to order. Thank
everyone for their indulgence, a couple minutes over, and once
again, appreciate your patience in accommodating the
subcommittee. We have at least one more member who wanted to
ask questions, and we want to give everyone time to ask those
questions.
In the meantime, one of the questions that I would pose as
we wait for the other members is, looking at the effective
penalties relating to marijuana that lead to an increased rate
of drugged driving, it is my understanding we don't really have
a standard, and this is something I am going to look at
nationally, to determine the level of narcotic in the
bloodstream. And I think also that marijuana can be detected in
the bloodstream for some time after its use, but the whole
question of driving impaired is raised.
Do you see any--this is to Chief Newsham, do you see any
problem with increased use of marijuana, again, with the
lowering of the penalties and also the inability to come up
with a test that would indicate the level of intoxication by
marijuana?
Mr. Newsham. I don't think--I guess we are going to assume
that there is going to be an increase in use based on the
decriminalization. I guess there is not going to be any change
in the way that we currently enforce people who are driving
under the influence of either alcohol or----
Mr. Mica. But we don't have--we don't have a test that is
administered and we have no standard nationally or within the
District for the amount of marijuana that is tolerated, do we?
Mr. Newsham. No. The way that a driver would be tested on
the scene for law enforcement purposes would they would be
given a road test as to their ability to perform certain
functions, and if they are unable to perform those functions,
there is going to be an assumption they are impaired.
Mr. Mica. You do blood tests though, too?
Mr. Newsham. We can do blood tests if necessary.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, that is another question probably for
another hearing, because we see that issue across the United
States as far as enforcement.
Let me yield now, if I may, to Dr. Fleming.
Mr. Fleming. Well, once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
I want to welcome our panel here today.
First of all, it seems, in listening to your testimony
today, the justification for decriminalizing marijuana is made
on the basis of racial disparity. That is the only real
argument I heard. So I would like to ask our two police
professionals here today, can you give me just a rough estimate
of the white versus non-white numbers among your officers in
the field, the ones who would actually make arrests? Both of
you, if you could have any--just a range would be fine.
Mr. Newsham. I am not sure you are--how many--what is the--
--
Mr. Fleming. Your police officers who are in the field who
would be the ones making arrests.
Mr. Newsham. About 60 percent of the Metropolitan Police
Department is African American.
Mr. Fleming. Okay. So the majority of the officers making
the arrests are African American.
Mr. Newsham. In the District of Columbia.
Mr. Fleming. In the District of Columbia.
Mr. Newsham. For our department, yes.
Mr. Fleming. Right. Mr. MacLean, how about you?
Mr. MacLean. So I don't have an approximate number on the
breakdown by race.
Mr. Fleming. Okay. You would say it was evenly balanced,
perhaps, that there is certainly--you are well represented by
both African American and white police officers?
Mr. MacLean. Correct. Well, we have geographic
responsibility in D.C., New York City and in San Francisco, and
we have a very diverse workforce.
Mr. Fleming. Okay. So one would--if you accept these
numbers of 1-4 or 1-8 ratios, I don't doubt those as overall
numbers, but the implication one infers from that, Ms.
Sadanandan, is that the police officers are actually racially
biased. So how do you explain that in the case of D.C., you
have a majority of officers who are actually African American?
Certainly you don't think that they are racially biased against
their own race?
Ms. Sadanandan. I think that is an excellent question. And
I think that what we are really seeing is the phenomenon of
community-based profiling, that certain communities are treated
and policed in a certain kind of way, and those same strategies
and tactics aren't necessarily applied in other communities.
And with regards to drug law enforcement, I can give you a
specific example. One of the reports that we heard from across
African American communities had to do with drug interdiction
units, otherwise known as the jump-out car, the police officers
riding up on pedestrian and jumping out to stop and search
them, in which people consented to searches, which sometimes
revealed small amounts of marijuana.
Mr. Fleming. But you would concede that it is not a racial
bias, that this is not--because, again, you have got the same
African American officers who are actually arresting African-
Americans. It sounds like what you are saying is that certain
communities have a higher density of police officers or police
enforcement.
Ms. Sadanandan. No, I wouldn't concede that it is not a
racial bias. I don't think that the race of the police officer
necessarily determines whether or not there is an institutional
bias in which communities on the basis of race are policed. I
don't think that just because a police officer is black, that
that police officer doesn't carry implicit bias that is carried
throughout our society through--across all races due to a
number of different factors, which we don't have to get into
here today.
Mr. Fleming. Okay. Well, let me shift a little bit here. So
what about other crimes, grand theft auto, murder? Do you think
that we should reduce enforcement or penalties, because there
are also found to be racial disparities there. Would you would
also recommend that we reduce, or perhaps even not sentence
someone who has committed murder to prison simply because there
is a potential racial bias?
Ms. Sadanandan. I think that what we can say with certainty
about marijuana is that the criminalization of marijuana has
not had an impact on either the----
Mr. Fleming. Well, I--but that is not--that is an answer to
a different question. My question is what about other crimes?
Would you diminish those sentences and enforcement based on
racial disparity?
Ms. Sadanandan. Well, I think we definitely need to look at
whether or not our criminal justice approach to public safety
issues is, in fact, making us safer. And when we measure the
efficacy of those approaches, we need to look at more than just
how many people we arrest. We need to look at whether or not
communities----
Mr. Fleming. But just yes or no. Do you think we should
diminish enforcement and penalties for those other crimes that
are far more serious that may have racial disparities?
Ms. Sadanandan. Well, I think that if there are racial
disparities and the approach to criminal justice is found not
to be effective, then we should seriously consider examining
the types of sentences and approaches that we take to dealing
with those public safety issues.
Mr. Fleming. Okay. So I will take that as sort of a yes.
Well, again back to our police officers, do you agree that
perhaps there is some racial bias or bigotry perhaps that leads
to these rates of arrests that seem to be disparate?
Mr. Newsham. I mean, I would hope that people wouldn't draw
that conclusion based on an analysis that is just based on race
alone. I think you have to look at other factors that may be
causing that, and I brought up one of the factors that we have
considered, which are calls for service where the community
calls the police to a particular area. So if there are more
police in the area, there are likely to be more arrests.
So I think that, you know, it is something--it is
definitely an issue that needs to be looked at. I think it
needs to be looked at carefully. I have worked on the
Metropolitan Police Department for almost 25 years. The folks
that I work with in that agency would, you know, obviously be
very upset to hear that they are being accused of a biased
enforcement, and that is one of the things that we work very
hard to prevent.
Mr. Fleming. Sure. And again to reiterate a statement you
have made twice, you are saying that you are not affirmatively
going into communities seeking out criminals. You are getting
calls, you are getting a higher density, a higher frequency of
calls, and obviously your officers are responding to those
calls and certainly responding and reacting to the laws that
are in force.
Mr. Newsham. That is--that is one of the factors, I think,
that needs to be looked at.
Mr. Fleming. Right. One thing that I might also suggest in
this is a drug counselor told me back in the 1980s that if you
see a pure alcoholic, take a picture, because that is probably
the last one you will see.
Now, what he meant by that was that nowadays when it comes
to chemical addiction, it is a poly-pharmacy issue, that you
rarely see someone use just marijuana if they have an addiction
problem. I am not suggesting everyone that uses marijuana uses
other drugs. What I am saying is that those who do use drugs
frequently, those who are addicted to drugs oftentimes use many
different drugs, and so it certainly would seem to me, and I
would love to get your response to this, that while you may
find marijuana on the person of that individual, that person
could have been using other drugs to which it could have
created a behavior that generated that call to service.
Mr. Newsham. I mean, I think I would respond like this, is
that, you know, we--on the Metropolitan Police Department, we
enforce the laws that are in place, the local laws that are in
place, and, you know, to suggest that, you know, a person's
using one drug or another is really not what we do. We enforce
the laws that are in place. And I don't think anyone has said
that there isn't going to be a consequence for marijuana
possession in the District of Columbia; it is just the
consequence has changed. It has changed from a notice of
violation for less than an ounce from an arrest situation. So I
think the enforcement is still there. I think there is still--
at least the laws want there to be enforcement, enforcement
action, and we are going to continue to enforce those laws.
Mr. Fleming. Right. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank the gentleman.
Ms. Norton, did you have additional questions?
Ms. Norton. Just to clarify, because that was, I think, an
informative answer that you gave, Mr. Newsham, this time and
before about high crime areas. We call them high crime areas.
You said we receive a large number of calls. And here is where
I want to speak about the consequence of the law. You receive a
large number of calls before this law was passed, and marijuana
possession is, in fact, against the law, and you have reason to
believe a person is in possession of marijuana. Then whether
you are a black or a white policeman or Hispanic or an Asian
policeman, you will, in fact, enforce the law, because
possession of marijuana in the District of Columbia is against
the law. So--yes. I am----
Mr. Newsham. Yeah. I agree. I am shaking my head. I agree,
yes.
Ms. Norton. Yes. So African American policemen would not be
inclined to give a pass to African Americans if this was the
law of the land, because they enforce the law in the same way
that our white officers do. Would that not be the case?
Mr. Newsham. I think that is accurate.
Ms. Norton. So if the law changes and you get the same
number of calls, particularly in areas where there may be more
crime than others, and the officer believes that someone may
possess marijuana, that same officer, black or white, will act
the opposite of how he acts today when marijuana
decriminalization--when marijuana possession is against the
law?
Mr. Newsham. I think the action will be different. I don't
know if it is necessarily opposite.
Ms. Norton. Well, how would he behave today? For example--
--
Mr. Newsham. He would issue a notice of violation as
opposed to making an arrest. That is--so there is still an
enforcement action that will be taken.
Ms. Norton. Yes. The person still is subject to a----
Mr. Newsham. A fine.
Ms. Norton. --a fine. He does not get a record. The
council's bill says that the odor of marijuana, the smell of
marijuana is not enough. Do you believe, therefore, for mere
possession of marijuana, there would be a decrease in the
number of people arrested?
Mr. Newsham. There will certainly be a decrease in arrests,
but if you are talking about situations where enforcement
action is taken, there----
Ms. Norton. Well, for mere possession of marijuana.
Mr. Newsham. Right.
Ms. Norton. In other words, these were people arrested for
possession only. Now, I can understand you are being arrested
and you are being--you are looking for a number of different
offenses, but where the officer suspects that the person
possesses marijuana only.
Mr. Newsham. Yeah. The arrests most definitely will
decrease, absolutely. Enforcement----
Ms. Norton. And how about----
Mr. Newsham. I think enforcement action, whether
enforcement action will be taken, it is hard to say.
Ms. Norton. Yeah. Because there is some enforcement action
that is still possible.
Mr. Newsham. It is a civil----
Ms. Norton. For example, the--and it would--I suspect it
would be more likely if the person were smoking openly the
marijuana. In that case, I would expect enforcement action to
be taken. Is that not the case?
Mr. Newsham. There will be, yes. Smoking marijuana in
public will--there will still be an arrest.
Ms. Norton. And I would expect that our African American
police officers would be as likely to arrest for smoking
marijuana openly as our white officers or officers of other
backgrounds.
Mr. Newsham. I think that is fair to say, yes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you. And I want to thank each of our
witnesses for appearing today and for their testimony and
participation. As we sort through some of these issues, we are
seeking answers. No decision has been made yet whether Congress
will contest or overturn--or attempt to overturn the District
law that has been passed.
It is very clearly our responsibility, one under the
Constitution, one under the creation of the District Act in
1790, one under the Home Rule Act of 1973 that gave us
specifically 60 legislative days to review these laws. Now,
that may not be that common that this is done, but this
particular change in law does, as we have heard, affect, again,
a number, in fact, 26 Federal agencies in the District of
Columbia that are charged with the responsibility of law
enforcement. There are other factors, and we are trying to sort
through the position of the administration and the U.S.
attorney and others who will help determine policy.
We will continue this series. In our next hearing, as I
said, we will look at some of the other implications as far as
changing the status of this particular level of narcotic, which
is now a Schedule I narcotic, which has been pointed out again
in this hearing, some of the contradictions between policies as
enumerated or possible changes in policy as enumerated by the
President, conflicting statements by the Drug Enforcement
Agency, the Office of National Drug Policy, ONDCP, the office
under the President of the United States.
So it is an important issue, it is a change in society's
perception of the use and abuse of a narcotic, and we will sort
through this in an organized and focused manner and everyone
will have an opportunity to participate.
I thank the gentlelady from the District for coming to
participate both as a witness and also from the dais today.
Without objection, the record will be left open for 10 days
for additional statements or questions that may be posed to the
witnesses who are here today.
Again, I thank our witnesses.
And there being no further business before this
subcommittee, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]