[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recently rescinded the Cole memo, placing into question the very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.
____________________