Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not an endorsement of marijuana. I have never used it. My wife and I raised our children never to use it. And I believe that local schools ought to assure that every American is aware of the risks and dangers that it may pose.

This amendment addresses a much larger question: whether the Federal Government has the constitutional authority to dictate a policy to States on matters that occur strictly within their own borders. I believe that it does not. But even if it does, I believe that it should not.

In 1932, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described the beauty of the 10th Amendment this way. He said: ``A State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.''

That is exactly what States like Colorado and Oregon have done with legalization and what many more have done with aspects of it. They believe that the harm that might be done by easier access to this drug is outweighed by removing the violent underground economy that is caused by prohibition.

I don't know if they are right or wrong, but I would like to find out, and their experiment will inform the rest of the country.

Now, the Federal Government has a legitimate authority to protect neighboring States by forbidding transport across State lines, which this amendment protects; but, at the same time, it protects the right of a State's citizens to make this decision within their own boundaries.

It is not necessary to become embroiled in the debate over marijuana. These States are having that debate and establishing their laws.

The question is over the right of their people to have these debates, to make these decisions, and for the rest of the Nation to observe and benefit from the outcome for good or ill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the arguments we are hearing from Mr. Fleming are the arguments that ought to be heard in the States. I would remind him this measure does not affect marijuana laws involving any conceivable Federal jurisdiction.

It does not affect Federal districts or territories. It does not affect Federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce, including the Federal Government's responsibility to interdict transport among States.

It does not affect the Federal jurisdiction over Federal land. It does not affect Federal jurisdiction over the importation of marijuana from abroad. It only affects jurisdiction that is strictly and solely the rightful province of the States as pertains to their affairs strictly and solely within their own borders.

At some point, Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves: Do we believe in the 10th Amendment or do we not? Do we believe in federalism or do we not? Do we believe in the architecture of our Constitution or do we not? Do we believe in freedom or do we not?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source