[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H471-H475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           MEDICAL MARIJUANA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Gaetz) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening with a heavy 
heart, deeply concerned about my fellow Floridians and my fellow 
Americans who have seen benefits as a consequence of medical marijuana.
  Throughout this great country, there have been circumstances where 
States have chosen to experiment and afford their citizens the 
opportunity to receive medical marijuana treatments, and that 
opportunity flourished as a consequence of a series of actions, one of 
which was the Cole memo.
  The Cole memo was direction from the Attorney General of the United 
States in the last administration not to prioritize the arrest and 
prosecution of people who were using medical marijuana legally under 
their State laws, not to punish the doctors or prescribers or 
dispensing organizations that were assisting in the logistics for that 
care but, instead, to focus our precious Federal resources where they 
could do the most good: to stop drug trafficking, human trafficking, 
illegal illicit activity that surrounds the drug trade, to

[[Page H472]]

ensure that there wasn't access for minors or cartels or people who 
would drive a medical practice deeper into the black market.

  It is deeply unfortunate that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has 
recently rescinded the Cole memo, placing into question the very 
channels of medicine that have helped so many of my constituents and so 
many fellow Americans.
  This evening, I am going spend some time speaking about this issue, 
but I wanted to take the opportunity first and yield to my good friend, 
my colleague from the State of Florida, who has been a leader not only 
on this issue, but on so many of the critically important 
bipartisanship reforms that we should be working on here in the 
Congress.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague Mr. Gaetz 
for this special hour to shine a light on this issue, on the Federal 
Government's overreach and unjust treatment of legally operating 
businesses all across our country.
  Businesses that operate legally and in compliance with their State's 
laws and regulations deserve a Federal Government that respects the 
10th Amendment of the Constitution.
  Like my colleagues, I have been disappointed that, when it comes to 
the treatment of these legal marijuana businesses, the current 
administration, which supposedly respects the federalist model of our 
government, continues to take such drastic steps to ignore States' 
rights and the decisions of voters and State legislatures across the 
country.
  In the 2016 elections, over 70 percent of Florida citizens voted to 
legalize the use of medical marijuana. The two counties that make up my 
own congressional district in south Florida, Monroe and Miami-Dade, 
voted in favor of the measure 80.3 percent and 68.3 percent, 
respectively. The voices and the votes of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, 
matter.
  The 10th Amendment of the Constitution matters, and for those who 
like to call themselves constitutionalists, the entire Constitution has 
to matter, not just the parts that are convenient at a given time.
  In addition to the witch hunt opened up by the Attorney General's 
actions last week, current Federal law also prohibits these businesses 
from deducting the common expenses associated with running a small 
business when they file their taxes, expenses necessary to running a 
business like rent, most utilities, and payroll. Simply put, this rule 
places legitimate enterprises which have been established under State 
law at a major competitive disadvantage where legal employers are 
paying exorbitantly higher effective tax rates.
  That is why I introduced H.R. 1810, the Small Business Tax Equity 
Act, last year. This bipartisan bill amends the Tax Code to allow 
legally operating marijuana businesses to utilize common tax deductions 
and credits, thus providing them with tax parity.
  The Federal Government should not be ignoring States' rights and the 
decisions of voters and State legislatures across the country. We must 
work to afford all businesses selling legal products the opportunity to 
make appropriate deductions and contribute to our economy and create 
jobs.
  Another important point, Mr. Speaker--and again I thank my colleague 
for taking this time and bringing us together to talk about this issue 
in a bipartisan manner--the best ally of those who are operating 
illegally, the drug cartels, the drug traffickers who do not pay any 
taxes, who target children, the best ally they have are the policies 
that the Attorney General has embraced. Because what happens, Mr. 
Speaker, is that these legally operating businesses can no longer 
compete and people turn to the black market.
  So, hopefully inadvertently--I hope inadvertently--the Attorney 
General has actually done a great favor to those who operate outside 
the law and is punishing those who are actually trying to control this 
substance, to keep it away from young people, to make sure that only 
those who have permission from their States, prescriptions from their 
doctors, can access this substance.
  I am, again, so grateful to join my colleagues tonight to call on the 
Attorney General, on this administration, on this President, who, when 
he campaigned said, ``I will defer to the States; I will respect the 
States,'' and, in this case, a State like Florida, which voted for the 
President, also voted 71 percent to allow medical marijuana in our 
State, all the way from Key West to the panhandle.
  The residents of Florida deserve to be respected. I will continue 
working with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, across the aisle, 
to make sure that our government respects States' rights, to make sure 
that our government is on the side of those who want to operate within 
the law, those who want to pay taxes, those who want to be compliant, 
not the gangs and the illegal drug traffickers who are celebrating 
today as a result of this dangerous policy change.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Curbelo) for joining me this evening. Each and every point that Mr. 
Curbelo made wasn't partisan. It didn't lend itself to a conservative 
or a liberal ideology. It just made sense: just adhere to our 
constitutional principles in a way that we can help people without 
getting the government in the way.
  I am particularly grateful that the movement criticizing Attorney 
General Sessions for this very poor judgment exercised is not a 
Republican movement or a Democratic movement. It is bipartisan.
  In that bipartisan spirit, I yield to my friend Mr. Correa from 
California. I want to thank the many Californians who have been a part 
of this effort going forward, and I yield to him.
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I also am honored to join my colleagues from 
across the aisle tonight to talk about Attorney General Sessions' 
decision to rescind the Cole memo, which has guided the State of 
California as well as other States in pursuing reasonable cannabis 
regulation.
  As a California State senator, we relied on the Cole memo to help 
craft California's cannabis industry regulatory framework.

                              {time}  2045

  I personally introduced legislation to regulate medical cannabis that 
was sponsored by the public safety community of the State of 
California. We all relied on the Cole memo. We all relied on regulating 
medical marijuana to make sure that it was chemical free, that it was 
tested, labeled, and that cannabis was kept away from our children, our 
neighborhoods, and our schools.
  I remember working on this legislation, and one day I got a phone 
call from a Republican doctor who wanted to lecture me about my bill. I 
assumed he was opposed to the legislation, but, you know what, I wanted 
to hear him out. So I had him drive out to my district office. And 
during the meeting, he told me about his daughter, a young Miss 
Moynihan, who from birth to the age of 10--she was 10 years old--had 
had seizures. And every year, those seizures had gotten worse and 
worse. And the medication he had to use to keep the seizures under 
control had gotten stronger and stronger with terrible side effects on 
his beloved daughter.
  Finally, Dr. Moynihan fell across medical cannabis. He used it. It 
was like a miracle. His daughter was getting better with no negative 
side effects. But then he said, ``Lou, I want to make sure that my 
daughter's seizures stop, but I want to make sure she doesn't get 
high,'' meaning what he wanted me to do in my legislation was to make 
sure that my legislation carried language to make sure that medical 
cannabis was tested and properly labeled.
  All this doctor wanted was medical cannabis for his beloved daughter. 
And there are many patients like young Miss Moynihan that rely on 
medical cannabis, but she also relies on the proper regulation, and 
labeling, and manufacturing of medical cannabis.
  Attorney General Sessions' doing away with the Cole memo effectively 
says to the State of California: You can no longer regulate medical 
cannabis. This will not be available for the young Moynihans of the 
State of California. I ask Attorney General Sessions to reinstitute the 
Cole memo. Let States do what States do best. Let's respect the 
sovereignty of our States, and let's move forward, not backward.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
joining

[[Page H473]]

us this evening. His words are a clarion call to sympathize with, 
empathize with, and support parents who have children with refractory 
epilepsy and other diseases that lead to chronic and, at times, 
unstoppable seizures.
  There is a desperation in the voice of parents who have children who 
have these seizures. That moves me. A child's eyes can roll in the back 
of their head. They can turn blue, gasping for air. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Correa) referenced circumstances where a parent would 
reach out and ask for help.
  I yield to the gentleman to maybe further explain how it makes you 
feel as a policymaker when you have got someone who wants to cut 
through the normal discord and disruption in the policymaking process, 
and they just want their child to be able to breathe in the absence of 
these debilitating symptoms. If the gentleman wouldn't mind, I yield to 
him for that explanation.
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I just want to add, 
think about all of the progress that we made as a country, as a nation 
in regulating cannabis, medical cannabis, how so many States have 
relied on that Cole memo to be lawfully abiding citizens, lawful 
citizens, lawful businessmen, and States have also relied on that memo 
to make sure that their regulatory framework fits within Federal 
guidelines.
  Much time, energy, effort, and resources have been invested by these 
States to make sure that we are following Federal law. And overnight, 
the Cole memo is gone. All of that work these States have put together 
is out the door. How do we tell all of these citizens that want to 
follow the law, want to pay their taxes, want to do what is right under 
the law that they are now criminals? This is not right. It is 
inconsistent with our due process. And at the end of the day, again, 
these are States' rights.
  We have given effectively these powers, these abilities to the States 
to regulate medical cannabis. We cannot just turn our back and say: We 
didn't mean it. Sorry. Let's move forward.
  I don't believe we can return to those days when we would lock up 
individuals for minor sources of cannabis. We can't go around the 
streets and arrest people for cannabis anymore, and, of course, Dr. 
Moynihan has to have the ability to continue to medicate his daughter.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I wish his constituents the best of luck in 
these trying times. One may reasonably wonder: What does the repeal of 
the Cole memo really mean for a patient, or a doctor, or a dispensing 
organization? It presents a series of logistical challenges that could 
be crippling not only to this industry, but to the very vulnerable 
Americans who rely upon it for medicine.
  Today, all across America, banks do not know whether or not their 
receipt of deposits from cannabis organizations operating legally under 
the color of State law would subject that bank to some broader 
consequence, to the oppressive hand of the Federal Government coming in 
and creating all kinds of other bad consequences for the people who 
bank with that institution.
  And so the result is that dispensing organizations that want to grow, 
that want to make investments, that want to do research, that want to 
be able to deliver to fragile and vulnerable patients, won't be able to 
meet payroll, won't be able to fund the infrastructure of their 
companies, and won't be able to do the research so that we find out 
what strains of cannabis can be uniquely helpful to specific ailments.
  So this repeal of the Cole memo isn't merely a circumstance where you 
are okay, so long as you are not being arrested or prosecuted in that 
very moment. It literally erodes the framework that has allowed people 
to be able to bring medicine to the doorstep of some of our most 
vulnerable Americans.
  That is the true danger here: confusing policy and lack of clarity 
regarding the rules. In an area where innovation could do so much good 
for people, why would we not want the clearest, most predictable rules 
possible? Why wouldn't we want the highest standards for testing, 
labeling, and research? Why wouldn't we want to introduce cannabis, not 
in a context that could lead to abuse, or money laundering, or other 
illicit activity? Why would we not want it introduced in the most 
clinical setting possible, approved by researchers, prescribed by 
doctors, and then used by patients that oftentimes have seen every 
other reasonable medical remedy fail.

  I am a limited government guy. I just don't understand why any 
administration, Republican or Democrat, would want to place the 
government between vulnerable people and something that could 
potentially help them. Again, recognizing the bipartisan flavor of this 
evening, I wanted to take just a moment to recognize one of my 
conservative friends, someone who has led in this institution on 
conservative causes during his tenure here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
wanted to join him just for a few moments to simply applaud the way in 
which he is raising this issue tonight.
  I think it is incredibly important because it was Jefferson who 
actually said ``that the normal course of things was for government to 
gain ground and for liberty to yield.'' And you think about the 
significance of the 10th Amendment and what it says. Its words are real 
simple: ``Those powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 
States respectively, or to the people.''
  This is a gut-check moment on the degree to which we really believe 
in the 10th Amendment, and we really believe in a limited Federal 
Government. So I would make very quickly three points: one, what you 
are talking about tonight is ultimately about this larger question of 
whether States are simply proxies, if you will, worker bees, if you 
will, for the Federal Government and nothing more than that.
  Are all decisions to be made in simply Washington, D.C., or can they 
actually be made at the local level? This issue that you are raising is 
ultimately not about marijuana, but it is about local voice and local 
control.
  For instance, we have an oil drilling issue off the coast of South 
Carolina, and a number of us have raised it, not because it was our 
idea, but because every single municipality along the coast of South 
Carolina came out in unison with different resolutions, different 
proclamations that said: We don't want offshore, not so much for 
offshore, but for its impacts in the way that we develop as a 
coastline. And so this is ultimately about simply this larger question 
of: Does Washington make all of the calls, or is there a State 
government, a local government, and an individual involvement that 
actually are involved in the way that decisions get made?
  I would, furthermore, say that this is a gut-check vote on the notion 
of federalism. Federalism is hard. The reason our Founding Fathers 
didn't want a king or a queen but wanted this massive process called a 
Republican and a Democratic voice that went with it was because, though 
it is a lot harder, it is a lot fairer--one man, one voice; not all 
voices in Washington.
  So what I think is interesting, back when I was in a different role 
at the State level, I remember different bills coming across my desk 
from different counties, for instance, for proposed tax increases. And 
staff would say: You have got to veto that. And I would say: No, the 
counties are free to make stupid decisions. I don't agree with it. I 
think it is a mistake, but counties ought to be able to have the voice 
to decide what they want to do.
  This is that exact same principle at play at the Federal level. And 
by having this quiltwork of different experiments in different States, 
and then being able to determine what works and what doesn't work, we 
are able to formulate national policy, not from on high, top down, but 
from the bottom up.
  Finally, I make this simple point: this is about saying the Federal 
Government does not decide the complexion of a local business. I think 
that what was significant about one of your earlier speakers, Carlos 
Curbelo, H.R. 1810--I am a cosponsor of his bill--it simply says, you 
have got to treat a local business as a local business. If it is legal 
locally, then you have got to treat it as such. And you can't come in 
and preempt from a Federal level and decide how local business is going 
to operate.

[[Page H474]]

  So for a lot of different reasons, I simply applaud what you have 
raised tonight. And I thank the gentleman for his voice and his very 
strong stand for liberty and conservative principles in doing so.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. It is 
worth noting that so many of the experiences that make up the people 
who serve in this body come from local government, or State 
legislatures, or governorships. I am very proud to have served in the 
Florida Legislature. I know my colleague, Mr. Sanford, served as the 
Governor of the State of South Carolina. And we have seen how States 
can function as the laboratories of democracy. And from time to time, a 
State may look at another and say there is a circumstance where they 
have done something right, or they have done something that we wouldn't 
necessarily agree with. And then we can tailor proposals that have 
withstood scrutiny and review experiences in other States and try to 
improve upon them.

  That is the great federalist system that our Founders promised us 
that remains guaranteed in our Constitution today. Federalism is not 
some quaint, little notion of how government should run. It is the 
enduring promise that we have a right to live under today. And so I 
thank my colleague for reminding the Congress that it is the States 
that are the necessary constituents of the Federal Government, not the 
other way around.
  It highlights why the decision of the Attorney General to rescind the 
Cole memo was so deeply flawed because it highlights the arrogance of a 
Federal Government that believes that its policies should always stand 
in primacy to innovation at the State level.
  Here, that innovation is helping people, and that is the point that I 
would really like to stress. I have met with hundreds of families in 
the State of Florida and throughout the country who have seen benefits 
from medical marijuana. This isn't a medical theory. It is not 
something that people are merely hopeful for. It has actually created a 
more meaningful quality of life in American families.
  Why wouldn't we be for that? Why don't we want to champion the 
opportunity for a parent to be able to hear their child speak for the 
first time?
  Why wouldn't we want to give a grandparent some respite who might be 
caring for a child that has compulsory and reflexive seizures?
  Why wouldn't we want to help a caretaker who might be caring for a 
parent of their own suffering from Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's, or 
dementia where we have seen improved research and growing opportunity 
for progress?

                              {time}  2100

  The Attorney General's decision is a step backward, but it doesn't 
have to be, because the Trump administration can step forward and 
fulfill the promise that President Trump made on the campaign trail to 
respect the rights of States and to have a noninterference policy with 
medical marijuana.
  I have called on Treasury Secretary Mnuchin to issue guidance and 
instruction to financial institutions that they will not be prosecuted 
or harmed or they will not face some adverse regulatory action if they 
continue to accept the deposits of medical marijuana companies. I am 
hopeful that Secretary Mnuchin has more foresight than we have seen 
from the Attorney General's Office and that he will provide this 
guidance.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also ask that the President personally engage. I 
know the President. I know him to be a man with a huge heart who cares 
about people. Throughout the Trump family, there is a particular focus 
on caring for the vulnerable and children who have to deal with complex 
medical issues.
  I would hope that the President and that the members of the 
administration would find it within their hearts to take action on this 
important priority. Let us not allow Attorney General Jeff Sessions to 
limit progress on American families and on an industry that is growing 
and creating jobs and developing key innovations that can help people.
  Beyond dealing with this inartful rescinding of the Cole memo, there 
is broader medical marijuana reform that needs to happen. There is no 
excuse to maintain marijuana on the list of Schedule I drugs.
  Schedule I is reserved for those drugs that have no medical value, 
that can't help anyone, and that should be subjected to the strictest 
scrutiny. Not even cocaine is a Schedule I drug. I don't even think 
that some of the drugs that are doing the most harm and causing the 
most deaths throughout the panoply of this opioid crisis are all 
Schedule I drugs. But marijuana is? It is indefensible, and it is 
indicative of a dogma of a lie that the Federal Government has told to 
the American people for a generation.
  Think of the opportunity if we could come together and make some 
progress on this issue. Throughout the 115th Congress, we have had 
robust opportunities to debate about our discord and disagreement and 
to discuss issues where perhaps we won't be able to come together as 
Republicans and Democrats, but this should not be one of those issues. 
This isn't partisan. It is not even conservative or liberal. You just 
have to believe that the role of government isn't to hurt people who 
are trying to get better or hurt people who are trying to help others 
who are trying to get better.
  We spend way too much time arresting people for marijuana in the 
first place. In the year 2015, 643,000 people were arrested for 
marijuana. That is one person every 49 seconds for a year. 574,000 of 
these arrests were for possession, not distribution or sale.
  Forty percent of all drug-related arrests are for marijuana 
possession. This is particularly discriminatory. African Americans are 
more than 2\1/2\ times more likely to be arrested for possession than 
Whites.
  Marijuana is a $20 billion industry in this country. If we allow 
Attorney General Sessions to have his way, we will drive that $20 
billion into the black markets, into the hands of the money launderers 
and the cartels, and the consequence will be fewer solutions for 
patients.
  Marijuana has shown tremendous promise in the treatment of 
Alzheimer's to slow the protein deposits on the brain. For patients 
with AIDS and HIV, medical marijuana can stimulate appetite and slow 
muscle wasting syndrome. It can function as an antinausea medicine, as 
an analgesic, and it can reduce peripheral neuropathy. For arthritis 
patients, there can be a reduction in certain types of symptoms that 
could clear people's airways suffering from debilitating arthritis.
  We have also seen very favorable results for the many millions of 
Americans dealing with chronic pain who right now are getting 
prescriptions for opioids. So many of the prescriptions written for 
opioids today in America causing deaths, taking away our children, our 
aunts and uncles and our parents, could be avoided if we weren't 
prescribing opioids in the first place and if we had a lower impact 
alternative like medical cannabis.
  People with cancer have been given new hope not only that these 
symptoms can be relieved through medical cannabis, but that the actual 
growth of tumors can be slowed. There is really great research that has 
been published by the British Journal of Pharmacology regarding the 
antitumor properties that medical cannabis can have. But, 
unfortunately, that research has to be done in Israel, in Europe, and 
in other places in the world because in this country we continue to 
maintain the indefensible policy that no research can reasonably occur 
on medical cannabis.
  As a matter of fact, this very Attorney General and this very 
Department of Justice have frustrated reasonable efforts to make more 
medical cannabis available for research, to unlock cures for the 
American people and to help American families.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this.
  I wasn't always a believer in medical cannabis, but I met a girl in 
my district who was being told by her doctor that she was going to have 
to saw her brain in half to stop the seizures from firing across. 
Today, that little girl is a medical cannabis patient. She has traded 
surgeries for softball games; she

[[Page H475]]

has traded doctors for dancing lessons; and she brings hugs, hope, and 
joy to our entire community. It is for her--it is for the millions of 
Americans benefiting from medical cannabis--that I call upon this 
administration to stop the Attorney General from harming Americans 
through his repeal of the Cole memo.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my bipartisan group of colleagues who joined 
with me this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________