[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 10, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1385-S1388]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
______
By Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. Paul):
S. 683. A bill to extend the principle of federalism to State drug
policy, provide access to medical marijuana, and enable research into
the medicinal properties of marijuana; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I wish to introduce the Compassionate
Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act CARERS Act. This
commonsense legislation would make our Federal marijuana criminal laws
fairer and more in line with our values and ensure that medical
marijuana is more accessible to the millions of Americans who need it
for treatment purposes. I thank Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator
Rand Paul for joining me on this bill, and I appreciate their hard work
on this legislation.
The CARERS Act would clarify how the Federal Government handles
medical marijuana in the States. Currently, 23 States and the District
of Columbia have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana for qualified
patients. But the Federal Government still bans medical marijuana and
treats the people who use it with contempt. It is time we end this
backward approach toward a substance that helps treat millions of
Americans, including veterans, who suffer from debilitating diseases.
Today, the Federal Government classifies marijuana as a schedule I
drug, meaning it lacks a recognized medical value and it has a high
potential for abuse. Incredibly, marijuana shares the same
classification with such drugs as heroin or LSD-substances that no one
disputes are incredibly dangerous and harmful. Schedule II is the next
controlled substances category for drugs deemed to have some medical
use, such as cocaine and methamphetamine. The view that marijuana has
no medical use whatsoever, but the methamphetamine has some medicinal
use is troubling and contrary to science. We can do better.
In 2013, the Department of Justice issued guidance to Federal
prosecutors and regulators to refrain from prosecuting individuals that
use, purchase or sell marijuana in States where it is legal as long as
a State regulatory framework exists that maintains certain standards,
such as a ban on sales to minors. As a result of this guidance, more
and more States have taken steps to legalize medical marijuana.
Sadly, despite this guidance, the inability of Federal and State law
to be on the same page regarding the legality of medical marijuana has
resulted in confusion and uncertainty for State regulators and the
public about what the law requires. This lack of clarity is only part
of the problem. Individual users of medical marijuana in States with
legalized medical marijuana continue to be targeted by the Drug
Enforcement Agency. That is unacceptable and must change. Individuals
who use medical marijuana in States where it is legal should not fear
prosecution simply based on prosecutorial discretion. We can do better.
I am encouraged that the winds of change are blowing at the Federal
level on whether to prosecute medical marijuana, but confusion remains.
While the 2013 guidance likely trumps the prior two memorandum, what
message do these documents send? Is medical marijuana legal or not? Is
it right that the law can be changed at a moment's notice by an
unelected Federal prosecutor? And what protection does State law afford
medical marijuana users when State and Federal law collide, especially
when marijuana is classified by the Federal Government as a schedule I
drug? This legislation brings certainty and uniformity to these issues.
Another problem with current law is that medical marijuana operates
largely in the shadows because financial institutions are scared to do
business with legitimate marijuana businesses. Banks and other
financial institutions are hesitant to do business with legitimate
marijuana businesses because they are concerned about losing their
Federal depository insurance or facing Federal prosecution. As a
result, the medical marijuana industry operates largely as a cash
business which is bad for the economy and endangers public safety.
Dealing with high quantities of cash and having to transport it leaves
these businesses and their operatives as easy targets for criminals.
The current medical marijuana situation in America is untenable. It
is unfair for the Americans that operate legitimate marijuana
businesses. It is unfair to people with disabilities, including
veterans with post-traumatic
[[Page S1386]]
stress, traumatic brain injury or missing limbs who rely on medical
marijuana for treatment. It is unfair to children with intractable
epilepsy who need cannabidiol-known as CBD-to control their seizures.
This issue has a real impact on the lives of ordinary Americans.
Recently, my staff met with Jennie Stormes, a woman recently forced to
leave my home State of New Jersey because of our restrictive medical
marijuana laws. Ms. Stormes' son Jackson suffers from Dravet syndrome,
a severe and debilitating form of epilepsy. Without medication, Jackson
can have multiple seizures in a day. This condition has affected
Jackson's development and put him through a tremendous amount of pain.
Jeannie Stormes and her family shared with my staff the hardships of
living in a State where it is hard to gain access to the medication
Jackson needs. Jackson has tried 23 different drugs in 60-plus
different combinations, but nothing worked to control his seizures. She
talked about how medical marijuana was the first drug that controlled
his seizures and changed their lives. Unfortunately, Jennie announced
her family was moving to Colorado because it was too difficult in New
Jersey to access the medicine Jackson needed to stay alive.
We need this legislation to help the Jackson Stormes of the world. No
child in America with a debilitating disease deserves to live a life of
pain without access to the medication that he or she needs. Jennie and
Jackson's story pains me. It tells me that we have a long way to go.
But their story also gives me hope. It gives me hope because despite
all the hardships they have gone through, they remain strong and
committed to their cause. It is people like Jennie and Jackson who make
our country great. It is for them that we need to continue to fight to
move our country forward.
The CARERS Act would take significant steps towards addressing the
situation that Jackson and Jennie went through.
First, the bill would end the Federal prohibition of medical
marijuana. Millions of Americans need to gain access to the medicine
that works best for them. The Federal Government's current stance on
medical marijuana has only created confusion and uncertainty. This bill
would prohibit the Federal Government from prosecuting persons who are
in compliance with State medical marijuana laws and let people, like
Jackson, gain access to the care they need.
The bill would reschedule marijuana as a schedule II drug. The Drug
Enforcement Agency insists that medical marijuana is a fallacy. It
insists that marijuana is a dangerous substance and it is properly
classified as a schedule I drug. Doctors know that is wrong, I know
that is wrong, Jennie and Jackson know that is wrong. It is time we
finally properly classify marijuana.
The bill would also allow States to import CBD. CBD is an oil
substance made from a marijuana plant that contains virtually no THC-
meaning you experience no high from the drug. CBD is the medicine
Jackson needs-along with thousands of other individuals with Dravet
syndrome-to control his seizures. We must make this important drug more
available so people can access the medication they need.
The bill would create a safe harbor for banks and financial
institutions that want to do business with legal medical marijuana
businesses. It is not safe that these businesses are forced to deal
only in cash. It is bad for our economy and it is bad for law
enforcement. The bill would institute protections that these
institutions need to feel comfortable doing business with medical
marijuana establishments.
The bill would promote research. A large problem for our Nation is
that not enough research exists on the impact of medical marijuana. We
know there are legitimate medical uses of the drug, but we can learn
much more. We need to allow experts to access the drug to conduct tests
and clinical trials to fully understand the effects of the drug and how
it can best be utilized. This will only benefit the doctors who
prescribe it, the lawmakers who regulate it, and the people who need
it.
Finally, the bill would allow VA doctors to prescribe medical
marijuana to veterans in States that have legalized medical marijuana.
Many men and women in uniform who have bravely served our Nation come
home with invisible wounds of war and they deserve the best care
available. This means allowing them access to the medicine they need to
heal or control their condition. Those who have served our country
deserve to be served by us, and that means receiving the best care
available.
I want to thank Senators Paul and Gillibrand for working on this
legislation with me and I urge my colleagues to work with us to help
ensure the CARERS Act is signed into law.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Inhofe,
Mr. Perdue, Mr. Scott, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Risch, Mr.
Boozman, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 686. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a limitation on certain aliens from claiming the earned income tax
credit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with
Senator Enzi and a few other Senators to close a tax loophole that
could mean billions of dollars in tax benefits going to individuals
based on work they performed illegally in the United States.
The tax benefit I am referring to is the earned-income tax credit.
The earned-income tax credit was established as a work incentive to
help move more individuals from the welfare rolls to the payrolls. The
policy behind the EITC is one I and many of my colleagues support as it
is intended to foster betterment and personal responsibility by giving
those on the lowest rungs of the labor pool an extra incentive to jump
in and stay in the workforce rather than rely on welfare programs.
It does this by providing a tax benefit to low-income individuals
based on the amount of earned income they have.
The earned income tax credit is refundable, so it benefits even those
who don't earn enough money to have a Federal income tax liability by
providing them a cash payment.
In 1996 Congress as a matter of policy determined that the earned
income tax credit should be ``denied to individuals not authorized to
be employed in the United States.'' That is the exact language used in
the title of the relevant provision that was enacted in 1996. Congress
carried this policy out by requiring those claiming the earned income
tax credit to provide a Social Security number for themselves, their
spouse, and their children.
From a policy perspective, this rule made a lot of sense to me and
many of my colleagues, as it passed both the House and the Senate with
broad support. Obviously, if the object of the earned income tax credit
is to encourage work, it makes no sense to provide such an incentive to
those who are not legally allowed to work. Why would we want to
encourage individuals to break our immigration laws?
What Congress didn't know at the time was that at an unknown future
date, a President, with the stroke of a pen, would essentially grant
millions of undocumented workers amnesty. Under the President's action,
those previously working illegally in the United States will be
eligible for work authorization and a Social Security number.
Based on an IRS interpretation of the earned income tax credit
eligibility requirements, those who obtain a Social Security number
will be eligible to claim the earned income tax credit not only for
future years but for previous years while they were living and working
in the United States undocumented. Based on the statute of limitations,
those obtaining deferred action could then go back and amend or file
returns for up to 3 previous tax years to take advantage of a credit
that can be worth several thousands of dollars each year.
The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Enzi will fix
this loophole by making it clear that those granted deferred action are
not eligible to claim the earned income tax credit for the years they
worked in the United States as undocumented workers. This proposal is
simply an extension of current policy. Those granted deferred action
will still be able to claim the earned income tax credit in years going
forward for work they perform legally. This proposal reflects the
commonsense proposition that American taxpayers should not subsidize
[[Page S1387]]
work they performed illegally in the United States.
This bill should be a no-brainer for any of my colleagues who agree
that we should not reward individuals for breaking our immigration laws
and our employment laws. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support this commonsense piece of legislation.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Heller):
S. 691. A bill to require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to obtain
the consent of affected State and local governments before authorizing
the construction of a nuclear waste repository; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 691
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear Waste Informed
Consent Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the terms ``affected Indian tribe'',
``Commission'', ``high-level radioactive waste'',
``repository'', and ``spent nuclear fuel'' have the meanings
given the terms in section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
SEC. 3. CONSENT BASED APPROVAL.
(a) In General.--The Commission may not authorize
construction of a repository unless the Secretary has entered
into an agreement to host the repository with--
(1) the Governor of the State in which the repository is
proposed to be located;
(2) each affected unit of local government;
(3) any unit of general local government contiguous to the
affected unit of local government if spent nuclear fuel or
high-level radioactive waste will be transported through that
unit of general local government for disposal at the
repository; and
(4) each affected Indian tribe.
(b) Conditions on Agreement.--Any agreement to host a
repository under this Act--
(1) shall be in writing and signed by all parties;
(2) shall be binding on the parties; and
(3) shall not be amended or revoked except by mutual
agreement of the parties.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION.
This Act applies to any application submitted to the
Commission for construction authorization for a repository
that--
(1) exists as of the date of enactment of this Act; or
(2) is submitted on or after the date of enactment of this
Act.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Markey):
S. 700. A bill to amend the Asbestos Information Act of 1988 to
establish a public database of asbestos-containing products, to require
public disclosure of information pertaining to the manufacture,
processing, distribution, and use of asbestos-containing products in
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 700
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing Exposure to
Asbestos Database Act of 2015'' or the ``READ Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency has classified asbestos as a category A human
carcinogen, the highest cancer hazard classification for a
substance;
(2) the International Agency for Research on Cancer has
classified asbestos as a class 1 human carcinogen;
(3) despite the enactment of the Asbestos Information Act
of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 2607 note; Public Law 100-577), which
sought to improve transparency and public awareness of the
presence of asbestos in commercial materials and products,
many people in the United States still incorrectly believe
that--
(A) asbestos has been banned in the United States; and
(B) there is no risk of exposure to asbestos through the
use of new commercial products;
(4) asbestos is still being imported and used, and is
otherwise present as a contaminant, in some consumer and
industrial products in the United States;
(5) according to the Environmental Protection Agency, the
manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution in
commerce of many asbestos-containing products are not banned
in the United States, including--
(A) cement corrugated sheet;
(B) cement flat sheet;
(C) clothing;
(D) pipeline wrap;
(E) roofing felt;
(F) vinyl floor tile;
(G) cement shingle;
(H) millboard;
(I) cement pipe;
(J) automatic transmission components;
(K) clutch facings;
(L) friction materials;
(M) disc brake pads;
(N) drum brake linings;
(O) brake blocks;
(P) gaskets;
(Q) non-roofing coatings; and
(R) roof coatings;
(6) consumers and workers are at risk of asbestos exposure,
and families of workers are also put at risk because of
asbestos brought home by the workers on the shoes, clothes,
skin, and hair of the workers;
(7) the Environmental Working Group estimates that as many
as 10,000 citizens of the United States die each year from
mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases;
(8) the National Institutes of Health reported to Congress
that mesothelioma is a difficult disease to detect, diagnose,
and treat;
(9) mesothelioma responds poorly to conventional
chemotherapy, and although new combination treatments for
mesothelioma have demonstrated some benefits--
(A) the median survival period for mesothelioma is only 1
year after diagnosis of the disease; and
(B) the majority of mesothelioma patients die within 2
years of diagnosis of the disease; and
(10) until asbestos is completely banned from being used in
or imported into the United States, transparent and
accessible information about the location and identity of
asbestos and asbestos-containing products in the United
States is necessary to better protect consumers, workers,
families, and the people of the United States.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT
DATABASE.
The Asbestos Information Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 2607 note;
Public Law 100-577) is amended--
(1) in section 4--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (7) as
paragraphs (4) through (8), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Asbestos-containing product.--The term `asbestos-
containing product' means any product (including any part) to
which asbestos is deliberately or knowingly added or in which
asbestos is deliberately used or knowingly present in any
concentration.'';
(2) in section 2, by inserting ``(referred to in this Act
as the `Administrator')'' after ``Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 5. ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT DATABASE.
``(a) In General.--Using funds otherwise made available to
the Administrator, the Administrator shall, in accordance
with this section, establish and maintain a database of
asbestos-containing products (referred to in this Act as the
`database') that is--
``(1) publicly available;
``(2) searchable; and
``(3) accessible through the website of the Administrator.
``(b) Submission of Detailed Implementation Plan to
Congress.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall submit
to the appropriate congressional committees a detailed plan
for establishing and maintaining the database, including
plans for the operation, content, maintenance, and
functionality of the database.
``(2) Integration.--The plan described in paragraph (1)
shall detail the integration of the database into the overall
information technology improvement objectives and plans of
the Administrator.
``(3) Implementation.--The plan described in paragraph (1)
shall include--
``(A) a detailed implementation schedule for the database;
and
``(B) plans for a public awareness campaign conducted by
the Administrator to increase awareness of the database.
``(c) Date of Initial Availability.--Not later than 180
days after the date on which the Administrator submits the
plan under subsection (b)(1), the Administrator shall
establish the database.
``(d) Submission of Information on Asbestos-containing
Products.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 270 days
after the date of enactment of this section, and not less
frequently than annually thereafter, any person who
manufactured, processed, distributed, sold, imported,
transported, or stored an asbestos-containing product in the
immediately preceding calendar year shall submit to the
Administrator a written report, in a form to be determined by
the Administrator, containing information sufficient to
identify the characteristics and location of the asbestos-
containing products.
``(2) Contents.--The report under paragraph (1) shall
include--
``(A) the type or class of asbestos-containing product;
``(B) the manufacturer of the asbestos-containing product;
[[Page S1388]]
``(C) any applicable import history of the asbestos-
containing product;
``(D) the name and street address of any location
accessible by the public in which the person has reasonable
knowledge that the asbestos-containing product has been
present within the immediately preceding calendar year; and
``(E) any additional information the Administrator
determines is appropriate to enable consumers and workers to
avoid exposure to asbestos-containing products.
``(e) Organization of Database.--The Administrator shall--
``(1) categorize the information available on the
database--
``(A) in a manner consistent with the public interest; and
``(B) in such manner as the Administrator determines will
facilitate easy use by consumers; and
``(2) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the
database is sortable and accessible by--
``(A) the date on which information is submitted for
inclusion in the database;
``(B) the name of the asbestos-containing product;
``(C) the model name;
``(D) the name of the manufacturer;
``(E) the name of the importer, if applicable;
``(F) the name of the reporting person;
``(G) the name and street address of any location in which
an asbestos-containing product is reported to have been
present; and
``(H) any other element the Administrator considers to be
in the public interest.
``SEC. 6. PENALTIES.
``(a) In General.--Any person who knowingly manufactured,
processed, distributed, sold, imported, transported, or
stored an asbestos-containing product in the immediately
preceding calendar year and who did not submit a report to
the Administrator under section 5 shall be liable for a civil
penalty of $10,000 for each day after the deadline under
section 5(d)(1) the report has not been submitted.
``(b) False or Inaccurate Information.--Any person who
knowingly provides false or inaccurate information in a
report under section 5 or who knowingly fails to provide
information required in a report under section 5 shall be
liable for a civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation of
this paragraph.''.
SEC. 4. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT.
Not later than 2 years after the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency establishes the database of
asbestos-containing products under section 5(a) of the
Asbestos Information Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 2607 note; Public
Law 100-577) (referred to in this section as the
``database''), the Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report that contains--
(1) an analysis of the utility of the database, including--
(A) an assessment of the extent of use of the database by
consumers, including--
(i) whether the database is accessed by a broad range of
the public; and
(ii) whether consumers find the database to be useful; and
(B) efforts by the Administrator to inform the public about
the database;
(2) recommendations for measures to increase use of the
database by consumers; and
(3) recommendations for measures to further reduce the harm
caused by exposure to asbestos, including bans on the
importation and use of asbestos-containing products.
____________________