REP. BETO O'ROURKE: 70% NOW BACK DRUG LEGALIZATION RESOLUTION

EL PASO -- South-West city Rep. Beto O'Rourke has been in the hot seat
since he successfully lobbied the rest of City Council to approve a
resolution that included an amendment that asked for an open and
honest debate on the legalization of narcotics.

The resolution by the Border Relations Committee called for federal
intervention to quell the crime wave in Juarez that claimed 1,600
lives in 2008. O'Rourke added the part of a debate on legalizing
narcotics, the rest of council agreed with him but Mayor John Cook
vetoed it.

After making national headlines, being on the losing end of the veto
and taking on a congressman, O'Rourke discussed the interesting
week-and-a-half he has had.

Q You praised the original resolution drafted by the Border Relations
Committee as well thought out, yet you decided to add the amendment on
the drug legalization debate. Why?

A It appropriately expressed our solidarity for our sister city and
the compassion for the people who have suffered terrible violence. It
also made some strong policy recommendations. But it just didn't go
far enough. To not say something that significantly changes the
equation, I felt, would not be responsible. And so with that I added
the famous -- or now infamous -- 12 words asking for an open and
honest debate ending the prohibition of drugs.

Q The reaction to the City Council's support of the amendment has
garnered regional and national attention. Did you know what you were
getting into?

A To a degree. We were certainly trying to draw regional and national
focus on an incredibly significant problem that affects not only
Juarez and not only El Paso but the entire country. To a degree, it
was designed to draw the attention of the country ... and to that
degree it worked.

Q All city representatives said they received a lot of calls and
e-mails on this issue. Can you share some of the feedback you received?

A Right off the bat most of my correspondence was split 50/50 pro and
con. Later on, I got more 70 percent pro and 30 percent con. Someone
at my Monday morning breakfast meeting said that when they first read
the headline he wondered what I and the rest of City Council were
doing. But that then, the more he thought about it, the more he
realized that we were right. That all options needed to be on the table.

Q Is it your belief that El Paso would have lost federal and state
funds if the veto had been reversed on Tuesday?

A The honest answer is I don't know. And part of why I don't know is
because the congressman (U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas) and his
office and the state House delegation offered no specifics or facts.
In fact, what they did offer was speculative. It's speculation. There
is no specific threat, no specific dollar amount or no specific
project that is in peril. It's just too bad that there wasn't more I
believe, is not well founded.

Q Talk about Mayor John Cook's role in this issue. You had said
earlier that you were disappointed with the way he went about his
veto. How is your relationship with him right now?

A The mayor is doing a good job. He has a really tough job. I have
80,000 constituents I hear from. He has almost 700,000. He issued his
veto based on his convictions and he stood up for that. I was
disappointed last because he said not a word during the meeting
anddidn't issue his veto until the last minute of the business day. He
also didn't have the courtesy to let me know he was vetoing it. He has
apologized publically and privately, which I think says a lot of about
him and the kind of character he has. He was very tactful and didn't
pressure council to change their votes. We're lucky to have him as our
mayor.