[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 208 (Wednesday, December 9, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H7076-H7083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     MEDICAL MARIJUANA RESEARCH ACT

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3797) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to make 
marijuana accessible for use by qualified marijuana researchers for 
medical purposes, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3797

       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 ``Medical Marijuana Research 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FACILITATING MARIJUANA RESEARCH.

       (a) Production and Supply.--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services--
       (1) until the date on which the Secretary determines that 
     manufacturers and distributors (other than the Federal 
     Government) can ensure a sufficient supply of marijuana (as 
     defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 802), as amended by section 8) intended for research 
     by qualified marijuana researchers registered pursuant to 
     paragraph (3) of section 303(f) of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 823(f)), as added by section 3, shall--
       (A) continue, through grants, contracts, or cooperative 
     agreements, to produce marijuana through the National 
     Institute on Drug Abuse Drug Supply Program;
       (B) not later than one year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, act jointly with the Attorney General of the United 
     States to establish and implement a specialized process for 
     manufacturers and distributors, notwithstanding the 
     registration requirements of section 303 of such Act (21 
     U.S.C. 823), to supply qualified marijuana researchers with 
     marijuana products--
       (i) available through State-authorized marijuana programs; 
     and
       (ii) consistent with the guidance issued under subsection 
     (c); and
       (C) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, jointly convene with the Attorney General a meeting 
     to initiate the development of the specialized process 
     described in subparagraph (B); and
       (2) beyond the date specified in paragraph (1), may, at the 
     Secretary's discretion, continue--
       (A) through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, 
     to so produce marijuana; and
       (B) to implement such specialized process.
       (b) Requirement to Verify Registration.--Before supplying 
     marijuana to any person through the National Institute on 
     Drug Abuse Drug Supply Program or through implementation of 
     the specialized process established under subsection 
     (a)(1)(B), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall--
       (1) require the person to submit documentation 
     demonstrating that the person is a qualified marijuana 
     researcher seeking to conduct research pursuant to section 
     303(f)(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, as added by 
     subsection (d) of this section, or a manufacturer duly 
     registered under section 303(l) of the Controlled Substances 
     Act, as added by section 3 of this Act; and
       (2) not later than 60 days after receipt of such 
     documentation, review such documentation and verify that the 
     marijuana will be used for such research (and for no other 
     purpose authorized pursuant to this Act or the amendments 
     made by this Act).
       (c) Guidance on Use of State-authorized Marijuana 
     Programs.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall issue guidance related to marijuana from 
     State-authorized marijuana programs for research.
       (d) Research.--Section 303(f) of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 823(f)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``(f) The Attorney General'' and inserting 
     ``(f)(1) The Attorney General'';
       (3) by striking ``Registration applications'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(2) Registration applications'';
       (4) in paragraph (2), as so designated, by striking 
     ``schedule I'' each place that term appears and inserting 
     ``schedule I, except marijuana,'';
       (5) by striking ``Article 7'' and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Article 7''; and
       (6) by inserting before paragraph (4), as so designated, 
     the following:
       ``(3)(A) The Attorney General shall register the applicant 
     to conduct research with marijuana if--
       ``(i) the applicant is authorized to dispense, or conduct 
     research with respect to, controlled substances in schedule 
     I, II, III, IV, or V;
       ``(ii) the applicant is compliant with, and authorized to 
     conduct the activities described in clause (i) under, the 
     laws of the State in which the applicant practices; and
       ``(iii) in the case of an applicant pursuing clinical 
     research, the applicant's clinical research protocol has been 
     reviewed and authorized to proceed by the Secretary under 
     section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
       ``(B) An applicant registered under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be referred to in this section as a `qualified marijuana 
     researcher'.
       ``(C)(i) Not later than 60 days after the date on which the 
     Attorney General receives a complete application for 
     registration under this paragraph, the Attorney General shall 
     approve or deny the application.

[[Page H7077]]

       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), an application shall be 
     deemed complete when the applicant has submitted 
     documentation showing that the requirements under 
     subparagraph (A) are satisfied.
       ``(iii) In the case of a denial under clause (i), the 
     Attorney General shall provide a written explanation of the 
     basis for the denial.
       ``(D) The Attorney General shall grant an application for 
     registration under this paragraph unless the Attorney General 
     determines that the issuance of the registration would be 
     inconsistent with the public interest. In determining the 
     public interest, the following factors shall be considered:
       ``(i) The applicant's experience in dispensing, or 
     conducting research with respect to, controlled substances.
       ``(ii) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or 
     State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or 
     dispensing of controlled substances.
       ``(iii) Compliance with applicable State or local laws 
     relating to controlled substance misuse or diversion.
       ``(iv) Such other conduct which may threaten the public 
     health and safety.
       ``(E)(i) A qualified marijuana researcher shall store 
     marijuana to be used in research in a securely locked, 
     substantially constructed cabinet.
       ``(ii) Except as provided in clause (i), any security 
     measures required by the Attorney General for applicants 
     conducting research with marijuana pursuant to a registration 
     under this paragraph shall be consistent with the security 
     measures for applicants conducting research on other 
     controlled substances in schedule II that have a similar risk 
     of diversion and abuse.
       ``(F)(i) If the Attorney General grants an application for 
     registration under this paragraph, the applicant may amend or 
     supplement the research protocol and proceed with the 
     research under such amended or supplemented protocol, without 
     additional review or approval by the Attorney General or the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services if the applicant does 
     not change the type of marijuana, the source of the 
     marijuana, or the conditions under which the marijuana is 
     stored, tracked, or administered.
       ``(ii) If an applicant amends or supplements the research 
     protocol or initiates research on a new research protocol 
     under clause (i), the applicant shall, in order to renew the 
     registration under this paragraph, provide notice to the 
     Attorney General of the amended or supplemented research 
     protocol or any new research protocol in the applicant's 
     renewal materials.
       ``(iii)(I) If an applicant amends or supplements a research 
     protocol and the amendment or supplement involves a change to 
     the type of marijuana, the source of the marijuana, or 
     conditions under which the marijuana is stored, tracked, or 
     administered, the applicant shall provide notice to the 
     Attorney General not later than 30 days before proceeding on 
     such amended or supplemental research or new research 
     protocol, as the case may be.
       ``(II) If the Attorney General does not object during the 
     30-day period following a notification under subclause (I), 
     the applicant may proceed with the amended or supplemental 
     research or new research protocol.
       ``(iv) The Attorney General may object to an amended or 
     supplemental protocol or a new research protocol under clause 
     (i) or (iii) only if additional security measures are needed 
     to safeguard against diversion or abuse.
       ``(G) If marijuana is listed on a schedule other than 
     schedule I, the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) 
     that apply to research with a controlled substance in the 
     applicable schedule shall apply to research with marijuana or 
     that compound, as applicable, in lieu of the provisions of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (F) of this paragraph.
       ``(H) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as 
     limiting the authority of the Secretary under section 505(i) 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or over 
     requirements related to research protocols, including changes 
     in--
       ``(i) the method of administration of marijuana;
       ``(ii) the dosing of marijuana; and
       ``(iii) the number of individuals or patients involved in 
     research.''.

     SEC. 3. MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA FOR USE IN 
                   LEGITIMATE RESEARCH.

       Section 303 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     823), as amended by section 2, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(l) Registration of Persons to Manufacture and Distribute 
     Marijuana for Use in Legitimate Research.--
       ``(1) Registration of manufacturers.--
       ``(A) In general.--Beginning not later than the day that is 
     1 year after the date of enactment of the Medical Marijuana 
     Research Act, the Attorney General, pursuant to subsection 
     (f)(3) and subject to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, 
     shall register an applicant to manufacture marijuana 
     (including any derivative, extract, preparation, and compound 
     thereof) that is intended for--
       ``(i) the ultimate and exclusive use by qualified marijuana 
     researchers for research pursuant to subsection (f)(3); or
       ``(ii) subsequent downstream manufacture by a duly 
     registered manufacturer for the ultimate and exclusive use by 
     qualified marijuana researchers for research pursuant to 
     subsection (f)(3).
       ``(B) Public interest.--The Attorney General shall register 
     an applicant under subparagraph (A) unless the Attorney 
     General determines that the issuance of such registration is 
     inconsistent with the public interest. In determining the 
     public interest, the Attorney General shall take into 
     consideration--
       ``(i) maintenance of effective controls against diversion 
     of marijuana and any controlled substance compounded 
     therefrom into other than legitimate medical, scientific, or 
     research channels;
       ``(ii) compliance with applicable State and local laws 
     relating to controlled substance misuse and diversion;
       ``(iii) prior conviction record of the applicant under 
     Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, 
     distribution, or dispensing of such substances; and
       ``(iv) such other conduct which may threaten the public 
     health and safety.
       ``(2) Registration of distributors.--
       ``(A) In general.--Beginning not later than the day that is 
     1 year after the date of enactment of the Medical Marijuana 
     Research Act, the Attorney General shall register an 
     applicant to distribute marijuana (including any derivative, 
     extract, preparation, and compound thereof) that is intended 
     for the ultimate and exclusive use by qualified marijuana 
     researchers for research pursuant to subsection (f)(3) or 
     intended for subsequent downstream manufacture by a duly 
     registered manufacturer for use by qualified marijuana 
     researchers for research pursuant to such subsection, unless 
     the Attorney General determines that the issuance of such 
     registration is inconsistent with the public interest.
       ``(B) Public interest.--In determining the public interest 
     under subparagraph (A), the Attorney General shall take into 
     consideration--
       ``(i) the factors specified in clauses (i), (ii), (iii), 
     and (iv) of paragraph (1)(B); and
       ``(ii) past experience in the distribution of controlled 
     substances, and the existence of effective controls against 
     diversion.
       ``(3) No limit on number of manufacturers and 
     distributors.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Attorney General shall not impose or implement any limit 
     on the number of persons eligible to be registered to 
     manufacture or distribute marijuana pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     or (2).
       ``(4) Requirement to verify use for legitimate research.--
     As a condition of registration under this section to 
     manufacture or distribute marijuana, the Attorney General 
     shall require the registrant--
       ``(A) to require any person to whom the marijuana will be 
     supplied to submit documentation demonstrating that the 
     marijuana (including any derivative, extract, preparation, 
     and compound thereof) will be ultimately used exclusively by 
     qualified marijuana researchers for research pursuant to 
     subsection (f)(3) or for subsequent downstream manufacture by 
     a duly registered manufacturer for use by qualified marijuana 
     researchers for research pursuant to such subsection;
       ``(B) in the case of distribution, to complete, with 
     respect to that distribution, the appropriate order form in 
     accordance with section 308 and to upload such forms to the 
     system used by the Drug Enforcement Administration for such 
     distribution;
       ``(C) to include in the labeling of any marijuana so 
     manufactured or distributed--
       ``(i) the following statement: `This material is for 
     biomedical and scientific research purposes only.'; and
       ``(ii) the name of the requestor of the marijuana;
       ``(D) to limit the transfer and sale of any marijuana under 
     this subsection--
       ``(i) to researchers who are registered under this Act to 
     conduct research with marijuana or to manufacturers duly 
     registered under this subsection; and
       ``(ii) for purposes of use in preclinical research or in a 
     clinical investigation pursuant to an investigational new 
     drug exemption under 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act or for the purposes of further manufacturing of 
     marijuana; and
       ``(E) to transfer or sell any marijuana manufactured under 
     this subsection only with prior, written consent for the 
     transfer or sale by the Attorney General.
       ``(5) Timing.--Not later than 60 days after receipt of a 
     request for registration under this subsection to manufacture 
     or distribute marijuana, the Attorney General shall--
       ``(A) grant or deny the request; and
       ``(B) in the case of a denial, provide a written 
     explanation of the basis for the denial.
       ``(6) Deemed approval.--If the Attorney General fails to 
     grant or deny a request for registration under this 
     subsection to manufacture or distribute marijuana within the 
     60-day period referred to in paragraph (5), such request is 
     deemed approved.''.

     SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEW PROCESS FOR 
                   NON-NIH-FUNDED QUALIFIED MARIJUANA RESEARCHERS.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services may not--
       (1) reinstate the Public Health Service interdisciplinary 
     review process described in the guidance entitled ``Guidance 
     on Procedures for the Provision of Marijuana for Medical 
     Research'' (issued on May 21, 1999); or
       (2) create an additional review of scientific protocols 
     that is only conducted for research on marijuana other than 
     the review of research protocols performed at the request of 
     a qualified marijuana researcher conducting

[[Page H7078]]

     nonhuman research that is not federally funded, in accordance 
     with section 303(f)(3)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act, 
     as added by section 2 of this Act.

     SEC. 5. CONSIDERATION OF RESULTS OF RESEARCH.

       Immediately upon the approval by the Food and Drug 
     Administration of an application for a drug that contains 
     marijuana (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802), as amended by section 8 of 
     this Act) under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355), and (irrespective of whether 
     any such approval is granted) not later than the date that is 
     5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall--
       (1) conduct a review of existing medical and other research 
     with respect to marijuana;
       (2) submit a report to the Congress on the results of such 
     review; and
       (3) include in such report whether, taking into 
     consideration the factors listed in section 201(c) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811(c)), as well as any 
     potential for medical benefits, any gaps in research, and any 
     impacts of Federal restrictions and policy on research, 
     marijuana should be transferred to a schedule other than 
     schedule I (if marijuana has not been so transferred 
     already).

     SEC. 6. PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR MARIJUANA GROWN FOR LEGITIMATE, 
                   SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

       Section 306 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     826) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) The Attorney General may only establish a quota for 
     production of marijuana that is manufactured and distributed 
     in accordance with the Medical Marijuana Research Act that 
     meets the changing medical, scientific, and industrial needs 
     for marijuana.''.

     SEC. 7. ARTICLE 28 OF THE SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC 
                   DRUGS.

       Article 28 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs shall 
     not be construed to prohibit, or impose additional 
     restrictions upon, research involving marijuana, or the 
     manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of marijuana, that 
     is conducted in accordance with the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this Act, and the amendments made by 
     this Act.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Qualified Marijuana Researcher.--In this Act, the term 
     ``qualified marijuana researcher'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 303(f)(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, 
     as added by section 2(d) of this Act.
       (b) Updating Term.--Section 102(16) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the term `marihuana' 
     means'' and inserting ``the terms `marihuana' and `marijuana' 
     mean''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``The term `marihuana' 
     does not'' and inserting ``The terms `marihuana' and 
     `marijuana' do not''.

     SEC. 9. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3797.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3797, the Medical 
Marijuana Research Act. In recent years, including in this most recent 
election cycle, many States have taken action to allow cannabis use. 
While States are moving ahead with this action, there is a significant 
need for more research about the use of cannabis products in these 
States and the safety of products on the shelves.
  According to the National Conference of State Legislators, 36 States, 
as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District 
of Columbia have approved medical cannabis programs, while 15 States, 
the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands have 
approved adult-use cannabis. This is a major shift in cannabis policy, 
and the United States is not the only one making these changes.
  Just last week, in a vote by the United Nations Commission on 
Narcotic Drugs, the body acknowledged the medicinal and therapeutic 
potential of cannabis and removed it from the most restrictive 
classification category. While still voicing a need for control, the 
United States voted in favor of this move, stating that the legitimate 
medical use of cannabis has been established through scientific 
research.
  Unfortunately, American researchers seeking to study the products 
widely available and used by consumers in these States and territories 
face restrictions and numerous hurdles created by U.S. Federal policy. 
It is time we break through this catch-22. This bipartisan bill begins 
to address this issue by reducing barriers to cannabis research.
  In January, the Committee on Energy and Commerce heard from Federal 
officials about the difficulty researchers face when it comes to 
conducting research with cannabis. As an example, for years, there has 
been only one source of marijuana made available by the University of 
Mississippi that can be used in the U.S. for research purposes. Another 
difficulty is that the current Federal registration requirements can be 
time-consuming and add unique and additional responsibilities than what 
is required for other types of medical research.
  The Council on Governmental Relations, an association of research 
universities and other entities, says that this more cumbersome process 
often requires 6 to 12 months to complete.
  In testimony before our committee on this bill, Dr. Nora Volkow, who 
is the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, underscored 
this point. She testified that barriers in the current process 
``present challenges to advancing cannabis research.'' As a result, she 
said, we have a gap in our understanding of cannabis products on 
health.
  Mr. Speaker, now this bill, H.R. 3797, addresses some of these 
barriers by streamlining the registration process for those who want to 
advance cannabis research. The bill does this while still maintaining 
appropriate oversight from both the Department of Health and Human 
Services and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
  This bill also requires HHS and DEA to act within specified time 
periods to ensure timely registration for researchers, and it 
encourages additional manufacturers and distributors to supply cannabis 
for purposes of research. This will diversify the range of products and 
make it easier for legitimate researchers to obtain products that 
better reflect the changing cannabis landscape.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, the bill would also promote research on 
cannabis products available through State-authorized programs. This 
additional research is critical if we are to better understand the 
benefits and risks of cannabis products available in State markets 
today and most frequently used by consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the lead sponsors of this bipartisan 
legislation, Representatives Blumenauer, Harris, Lofgren, Griffith, 
Bishop, and Dingell, and their staffs, for their tireless work. I also 
thank the committee staff for their hard work, as well as the staff for 
both HHS and DEA for their technical assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I hope 
the Senate will act on it swiftly, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                 Washington, DC, December 7, 2020.
     Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Pallone: This is to advise you that the 
     Committee on the Judiciary has now had an opportunity to 
     review the provisions in H.R. 3797, the ``Medical Marijuana 
     Research Act of 2019,'' that fall within our Rule X 
     jurisdiction. I appreciate your consulting with us on those 
     provisions. The Judiciary Committee has no objection to your 
     including them in the bill for consideration on the House 
     floor, and to expedite that consideration is willing to forgo 
     action on H.R. 3797, with the understanding that we do not 
     thereby waive any future jurisdictional claim over those 
     provisions or their subject matters.
       In the event a House-Senate conference on this or similar 
     legislation is convened, the Judiciary Committee reserves the 
     right to request an appropriate number of conferees to 
     address any concerns with these or similar provisions that 
     may arise in conference.

[[Page H7079]]

       Please place this letter into the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank 
     you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked 
     regarding this matter and others between our committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jerrold Nadler,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                 Washington, DC, December 7, 2020.
     Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Pallone: This is to advise you that the 
     Committee on the Judiciary has now had an opportunity to 
     review the provisions in H.R. 3797, the ``Medical Marijuana 
     Research Act of 2019,'' that fall within our Rule X 
     jurisdiction. I appreciate your consulting with us on those 
     provisions. The Judiciary Committee has no objection to your 
     including them in the bill for consideration on the House 
     floor, and to expedite that consideration is willing to forgo 
     action on H.R. 3797, with the understanding that we do not 
     thereby waive any future jurisdictional claim over those 
     provisions or their subject matters.
       In the event a House-Senate conference on this or similar 
     legislation is convened, the Judiciary Committee reserves the 
     right to request an appropriate number of conferees to 
     address any concerns with these or similar provisions that 
     may arise in conference.
       Please place this letter into the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank 
     you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked 
     regarding this matter and others between our committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jerrold Nadler,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of H.R. 3797, the 
Medical Marijuana Research Act introduced by my colleague and friend 
from Oregon, Representative Blumenauer, my friend from Maryland, 
Representative   Andy Harris, among others.
  I am sort of surprised we aren't taking this up at 4:20 in the 
afternoon rather than 2:10, but we will let history deal with that.
  Mr. Speaker, Federally sanctioned research on marijuana is incredibly 
challenging. It is a schedule I controlled substance under the 
Controlled Substances Act, meaning that researchers seeking to 
investigate a drug have to work with the Department of Health and Human 
Services and the Drug Enforcement Administration to meet certain 
Federal requirements in order to conduct that research.
  In addition, international obligations outlined in the United Nations 
drug control treaties impose requirements that impact the supply of 
research-grade cannabis. Currently, those conducting federally-
sanctioned research can only study marijuana that is sourced through 
the National Institute on Drug Abuse's single DEA licensee: the 
University of Mississippi.
  Unfortunately, that marijuana is chemically distinct from what is 
commercially available from State-legal dispensaries, such as in my 
home State of Oregon.
  What does that mean?
  Well, it means that we have little to no data on the actual health 
impacts of products in States that have legalized cannabis for medical 
or recreational use.
  States that have pursued marijuana legalization have largely done so 
in an information vacuum, with less understanding of what it does than 
virtually any nutritional supplement currently on the market, and with 
far less information than they have on legal substances that are easily 
abused, such as alcohol or tobacco. We don't even know at what point it 
is unsafe for marijuana users to drive. The THC levels that States have 
set for driving legal limits or for purposes of food consumption are 
simply arbitrary.
  Mr. Speaker, in Oregon, for example, cookies infused with THC are 
limited to 5 milligrams of THC per serving, or 50 milligrams per 
package. Now, you go across the Columbia River to the great State of 
Washington, and their limit is 10 milligrams or 100 milligrams. So 
there is little to no scientific evidence to support either of these 
levels. We simply don't know.
  Mr. Speaker, here is what we do know: There have been increases in 
cannabis-related poison control center calls, emergency room visits, 
and impaired driving incidents. Nationwide exposure in youth is 
increasing, with record numbers of 8th through 12th graders regularly 
vaping marijuana products.
  So we need research that reflects the reality of what is on the 
market. Products containing CBD derived from the hemp plant have become 
commonplace across the country in pharmacies and health food stores, 
and even in fast food chains since hemp was removed from the CSA in the 
2018 farm bill.
  Now, these products often contain claims that they can effectively 
treat everything from depression and inflammation to cancer or 
Alzheimer's. However, none of these claims have been evaluated or 
approved by the FDA, meaning patients may be relying on the 
unsubstantiated claims of CBD products and foregoing other proven 
medical treatments.
  Mr. Speaker, like cannabis, while there is potential for CBD to 
provide patient benefits, the research and science lag far behind the 
market and the agencies are simply struggling to catch up. Last week, 
the majority forced this Chamber to vote on the MORE Act, which 
completely removed marijuana from the list of scheduled substances 
under the Controlled Substances Act--among many other things in that 
bill--and they didn't have the data to justify this policy decision.
  Not only was this legislation incredibly premature, it could also 
potentially put the U.S. in violation of international treaty 
obligations. Any discussion of de-scheduling must be preceded by a 
fuller understanding of the potential risks associated with cannabis 
use, which we currently do not have. And the current research 
restrictions on fully studying cannabis have effectively created a 
catch-22 in the rescheduling debate.
  So evaluations by the FDA and the National Academies have both 
concluded that the lack of research is a significant factor in denying 
previous administrative rescheduling petitions. More research, better 
data, remain the critical first steps to any future policy discussions. 
Making it easier to research cannabis is common ground that I think we 
can all agree upon and pursue together.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, and especially Representatives 
Harris and Blumenauer, for working tirelessly to bring us this 
bipartisan, commonsense legislation. This bill will help improve the 
marijuana research landscape and give consumers the information they 
need.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this measure, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon. 
He has really been out front in educating me, in particular, and so 
many of us, on the cannabis issue. I think without him, we would not 
see many States like my own leaning towards legalization.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer), the prime sponsor of the bill.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's kind 
comments and cooperation. Working with the ranking member, working with 
Dr. Harris, we made real progress here.
  Mr. Speaker, the cannabis laws in this country are broken, especially 
those that deal with research. It is illegal everywhere in America to 
drive under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, or any other substance. 
But we do not have a good test for impairment because we can't study 
it. Now, Dr. Harris and I don't necessarily agree on the efficacy of 
cannabis, but we agree that this is insane and that we need to change 
it.
  At a time when there are 4 million registered medical cannabis 
patients, and many more who self-medicate, when there are 91 percent of 
Americans supporting medical cannabis, it is time to change the system. 
Our bill will do precisely that. We have a broad coalition of Members 
and organizations who support the bill, including those who do have 
concerns about cannabis.
  Specifically, the bill will tackle two main issues: research 
licensing and manufacturing. For manufacturers, it requires the DEA to 
license outside of the NIDA monopoly so we can study the products 
Americans are using. For researchers, it shortens the timelines, 
reduces unnecessary security measures, and streamlines approval.

[[Page H7080]]

  This bill will not only reduce barriers to medical research but all 
cannabis research. It is a narrow bill that fixes one of many broken 
cannabis laws.
  I want to hasten to add that this in no way negates the need to move 
forward with other areas of legislation, like we did with the MORE Act. 
But this is sort of a foundational question. No matter where you are, 
there is no reason the Federal Government should impede this critical 
research.
  One of the most moving moments I have had in the last 2 years working 
on this issue was in the backyard of a constituent in southeast 
Portland who brought together a half dozen families with children with 
extreme seizure disorder. The only thing that stopped those babies from 
being tortured was medical cannabis. They had to research it 
themselves. They had to formulate it themselves.
  At Oregon Health and Science University, they told me: This works. We 
know it works. We could go to the street corner and buy something, but 
we legally can't do it.
  Listening to those heartbreaking stories of the families, of what 
they had to do--they crossed their fingers. It sort of worked for them. 
But no family should have to do that.
  We ought to get the Federal obstacles out of the way of simple, 
commonsense research. It will make a difference for families across the 
country. We need to move forward, so there is no unnecessary dispute 
about cannabis, and get the job done.

               Support the Medical Marijuana Research Act

       Dear Colleague: We write to encourage you to cosponsor our 
     bill, the Medical Marijuana Research Act (H.R. 3797). 
     Regardless of your stance on marijuana, we can all agree that 
     there should not be onerous federal barriers to conduct 
     research and access objective evidence as to the medicinal 
     properties of marijuana.
       Although more than two-thirds of Americans are living in 
     states with legal marijuana programs, current federal law 
     greatly limits researchers' ability to research this drug. 
     This includes the overly burdensome registration process, 
     redundant protocol reviews, lack of adequate research 
     material and unnecessarily onerous security requirements. In 
     fact, a 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 
     Medicine report found that ``research on the health effects 
     of cannabis and cannabinoids has been limited in the United 
     States, leaving patients, health care professionals, and 
     policy makers without the evidence they need to make sound 
     decisions regarding the use of cannabis and cannabinoids. 
     This lack of evidence-based information on the health effects 
     of cannabis and cannabinoids poses a public health risk.'' We 
     could not agree more.
       The Medical Marijuana Research Act will reduce many of the 
     barriers to conducting legitimate medical marijuana research. 
     First, the bill streamlines the burdensome and often 
     duplicative licensure process for researchers seeking to 
     conduct marijuana research, while still maintaining all 
     necessary safeguards against misuse and abuse. Second, it 
     addresses the woefully inadequate, both in quantity and 
     quality, supply of medical-grade marijuana available for use 
     in such research. Finally, it requires, within five years of 
     enactment, a report by the secretary of the U.S. Department 
     of Health and Human Services on the status and results of the 
     then-available body of research on marijuana.
       Irrespective of where one falls on the ideological spectrum 
     with respect to further legalization, we can all agree that 
     the American people deserve to know what's going on with 
     marijuana. The United States leads the world in biomedical 
     research. It is therefore unconscionable that the federal 
     government stands as the chief impediment to legitimate 
     medical research that will ensure American physicians, 
     patients, purchasers, and constituents have access to the 
     information they need to make an informed decision about 
     marijuana.
           Sincerely,
     Earl Blumenauer,
       Member of Congress.
     Andy Harris, M.D.,
       Member of Congress.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Harris), who has been a real leader on this and so many 
other healthcare-related issues.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your concern about addiction 
and all the problems. This is an ancillary problem that deals with 
that. I thank you for your concern about that.
  I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member. This 
has been years in the making. I thank them for bringing this across the 
finish line.
  I thank my cosponsor from across the aisle. The gentleman from Oregon 
is absolutely right. He and I will disagree, probably the most two 
people can disagree, about recreational marijuana. We agree 100 percent 
that we need to do this research and that we need this bill.
  Now, because of the discussion about COVID and the vaccines and 
therapeutics for that, Americans realize how medical research has to be 
done and how important it is to be done. They expect purity, safety, 
and efficacy for anything that has a claim of a medical product.
  Now, unfortunately, because of the public policy we have had in place 
with marijuana and its scheduling, this simply couldn't be done. The 
unfortunate consequence is that legislatures in general across the 
States, and, unfortunately, this legislature last week, took a ready-
fire-aim approach: Let's go ahead and legalize it, even for 
recreational use, without a medical basis.
  But I am only going to talk about medical marijuana. We need good 
studies. Understandably, because of current scheduling, we can't do it. 
I get it. I did research, as a physician, on drugs. You can't do it 
under the current scheduling, but we need to do the research.
  As the chairman pointed out, Dr. Volkow, who has appeared before our 
committee many times, has said that the claims of medical usefulness 
are simply greatly exaggerated because we don't have the science. Many 
claims are made; very few are proven.
  We don't tolerate that for other medications. We certainly don't 
tolerate it for COVID vaccines and therapeutics. We shouldn't tolerate 
it for medical marijuana. This research just simply hasn't been done, 
for a variety of reasons, most of which get cured by this bill.
  Now, could medical marijuana be useful for PTSD for my fellow 
veterans? Absolutely. It might be useful. We have no idea.
  What we have done is, instead, the public press has said it is useful 
for PTSD. That is not the way we treat medicine in this country. We 
actually do the research. Our veterans deserve for us to do this 
research.
  It couldn't be done, because of the scheduling, because of the 
rules--the rules, by the way, that Congress made. This is on us. We 
shouldn't have taken so long to get to this point.
  Could it be useful for non-neurogenic chronic pain? Yes, it might be, 
but I don't know. The last thing we should do to our chronic pain 
patients, as you know, Mr. Speaker, because of the problems with 
treating chronic pain, is make false promises to them about something.
  If this works for it, oh, my gosh, that is great. We have a potential 
solution for part of our addiction problem. If it doesn't work, those 
people deserve to know.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Trone). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, is it useful for that group? Is CBD useful 
for that group of pediatric patients with seizures? Yes, it sure is. Is 
it useful for people with glaucoma? Yes, it sure is. Is it useful for 
spasticity with multiple sclerosis? Yes, it sure is.
  But there are 40 or 50 other claims that we don't know about. We 
deserve to know about it. Those claims are simply not founded on 
science.
  Look, let's do the science. Let's see what medical marijuana is 
useful for. As a physician, anything it is useful for, I want to 
provide for patients. Let's do the science. Let's pass H.R. 3797.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), one of our colleagues on the committee.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Medical 
Marijuana Research Act, which would streamline outdated bureaucratic 
barriers and Federal roadblocks preventing legitimate medical research 
into the impacts of medical marijuana.
  I, too, like my colleague, thank you for your leadership. I have a 
healthy fear of drugs, having lost a sister to a drug overdose, but 
there is just too much information we do not have.
  We have seen dramatic changes in the legal status of marijuana at the 
State level. Almost 1 year ago to the day, sales of recreational 
marijuana began in my home State of Michigan.

[[Page H7081]]

Following multiple successful State ballot initiatives last month, 
medical marijuana is now legal in 36 States. However, the Federal 
framework for conducting marijuana research is decades old and has not 
kept pace with these changes.
  Currently, as has been said by my other colleagues, scientists in the 
United States looking to conduct research on marijuana must contend 
with a heavy-handed, duplicative registration and licensure process 
that doesn't work. They are limited to using marijuana grown at a 
single location overseen by the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the 
University of Mississippi.
  Collectively, this regulatory red tape greatly limits our 
understanding of the health impacts of marijuana and prevents qualified 
researchers from engaging in further study.
  We are driving cars that NHTSA can't do the research they need to do 
about people driving while smoking. We should know that.
  The Medical Marijuana Research Act will streamline this cumbersome 
process by preventing bureaucratic roadblocks on marijuana research 
registration applications. It will also direct the FDA to issue 
guidelines on the production of marijuana and ensure that adequate 
amounts are available for research.

  The legislation also mandates a comprehensive review of the available 
body of research on marijuana by the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services 5 years after enactment.
  I thank my colleagues--Congresspersons Blumenauer, Griffith, Lofgren, 
Harris, and Rob Bishop--for all of their work on this. This does 
matter. We need answers. And I thank my chairman, who has been great 
about this.
  I refuse to accept the fact that our Ranking Member Walden is 
leaving. He is a dear friend, and he has made so much of a difference. 
He has had very thoughtful input on this, as he does on everything.
  Mr. Speaker, it is high time we modernize our Nation's Federal 
regulations to facilitate legitimate medical research into the impacts 
of marijuana, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan for her kind comments and her 
leadership on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), an extraordinary leader on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, a gentleman I refer to as our counsel on 
the committee. He is an extraordinary lawyer and incredible public 
policy initiator.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this bill has made it to 
this level.
  You know, Congress doesn't always work well, but sometimes it does.   
Andy Harris and I were back here, about where he is sitting right now, 
having a discussion one day, because a lot of times, things get solved 
or issues come to a head because we are trying to solve problems for 
the American people.
  I believe that there are many uses for medicinal marijuana. I don't 
support recreational use, but I support medicinal use. Andy thinks that 
it goes way too far, as you heard him just say.
  But the bottom line is, as we were discussing it, neither one of us 
could cite scientific research to support our positions. So, we agreed 
at that point that we would work together on our side of the aisle. And 
obviously, the gentleman from Oregon has been leading on this for many, 
many years, and he was going to lead on the other side. We agreed we 
would try to find language that worked.
  We have tried some backdoor routes to get it through some Energy and 
Commerce bills before, schedule 1R to do research. But this is 
extremely important. And you are either for medicinal marijuana or 
against medicinal marijuana, but you can't make an argument either way 
without the proper research.
  This fine piece of legislation that was hammered out over a couple of 
years, maybe as many as 5 years, is a good piece of legislation, and it 
deserves the unanimous support of this United States House. I recommend 
it to each and every one of you.
  That being said, I would like to take another minute to speak about 
my relationship with my Ranking Member Walden, who is leaving us. It is 
with regret on my part that he is leaving. He has a life to lead, and 
that is what people sometimes forget about Members of Congress.
  There is life after Congress, and he is going to do some interesting 
things. I am anxious to learn what they are. He says he is anxious to 
learn what they are, too.
  But he has so much talent. He has led our committee and then our side 
of the aisle on the committee so well, and has allowed those of us who 
are a little different sometimes to have some interesting ideas, to 
have those ideas bubble up, to take some interesting votes sometimes in 
committee, to allow Members down dais to have significant input. I am 
greatly appreciative of that.
  I am also appreciative of his friendship and loyalty. I remember when 
we discovered that his longtime friend Ray Baum had a fatal disease, 
how he stuck with him, how Ray kept coming to work and was doing things 
all the way through, and then how he passed an important piece of 
legislation which commemorated all of Ray Baum's work.
  The bill has Ray Baum's name on it, as it should, but it was a 
tribute from his friend, and I respect that type of friendship. I 
appreciate it very much.
  I will always hold you in high regard. If I can do anything to be of 
assistance in the future, I will gladly do so.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Virginia 
for not only his very kind comments but also his incredible work ethic.
  I will tell one quick story about Morgan Griffith. I had a little 
bill, a suspension bill, that Mr. Blumenauer and I had to do a land 
exchange up on Mount Hood. It flew through here one night, first night 
of votes, and got two dissenting votes. One of them I understood, but 
his dissenting vote I didn't understand.
  I went up to him, and I said: I am going to win this. There are only 
two noes. But why did you vote no?
  He said: Well, I read the bill, and it referenced this memorandum of 
understanding between the Forest Service and Mount Hood Meadows about 
this land exchange. I tried to get a copy of that MOU, and I couldn't 
get it before I voted on the bill, so I voted no.

                              {time}  1430

  Well, the bill didn't get through that Congress. It got through the 
House, but not, of course, the other body.
  So the next Congress, we did it again, and I made sure that Mr. 
Griffith had that memorandum of understanding related to this little 
land transfer bill in an area that Mr. Blumenauer and I share, and he 
voted with us on that measure.
  I thought: He is a pretty darn good, thorough legislator if he is 
reading every suspension bill and every land transfer bill and diving 
into the weeds. Americans need to know what a great man he is.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Medical 
Marijuana Research Act.
  Cannabis has been known by humans for thousands of years, yet we 
still don't truly know if the plant is medically beneficial. Some 
preliminary findings have given cause to believe that there may be some 
medicinal benefits. In fact, the FDA has authorized use of medical-
grade CBD products for rare forms of epilepsy, but large-scale research 
has not occurred.
  Despite this, more than half of the States have legalized cannabis 
for medical purposes. Even Georgia, my home State, has acted to expand 
cannabis laws.
  As the legal status of cannabis evolves, we must prioritize making 
the plant available for medicinal research.
  In 2017, the National Academy of Medicine found that there are 
several challenges and barriers in conducting cannabis and cannabinoid 
research, including the classification of cannabis

[[Page H7082]]

as a schedule I substance and the difficulty for researchers to gain 
access to the quality and quantity of product necessary for research.
  I do not believe that the Federal Government should be standing in 
the way of medical research for cannabis products. Cannabis could be a 
lifesaving product. It may also not be, but we owe it to the patients 
to do the due diligence, research, and testing so that they may make 
the best medical decisions for themselves.
  While we may all have differing opinions on the decriminalization of 
recreational marijuana--and my stance on that is well-known and well-
documented that I am adamantly opposed to the recreational use of 
marijuana--I think we can all agree that we should facilitate better 
research on the plant's medicinal benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see this legislation come to the floor for 
a vote. I thank my colleague, Mr. Blumenauer, for working on this 
legislation with me. I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, before I leave, I want to pay homage, if you will, to 
Mr. Walden, who will be leaving us, you have heard other speakers 
indicate before.
  I came on this committee 4 years ago. Being the only pharmacist in 
Congress, I wanted to be on the Health Subcommittee, and I wanted to 
work in that arena. That is where Energy and Commerce was.
  I will have to be quite honest with you. I really didn't understand 
just what a great committee--the best committee in Congress--Energy and 
Commerce is, and I truly believe that. I understand that now.
  But I want to thank   Greg Walden, because when I came in 4 years 
ago, he was the chairman of this committee, and he was very encouraging 
to me. In fact, he was my mentor on this committee. He led me and gave 
me opportunities, and I appreciate that very, very much.
  His diversity, his intelligence, his fairness has been outstanding. 
His leadership has been outstanding, and it is only surpassed by his 
impeccable character.
  Mr. Speaker, as he leaves, I want him to know how much I personally 
am appreciative of all of his help and all of his leadership.
  Our committee, our Congress, our country is better off because of 
your work. Thank you and Godspeed.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend and colleague 
from Georgia (Mr. Carter) for his leadership on so many issues before 
the committee and for his very kind and generous words. I will miss 
serving with Mr. Carter. He has been a terrific member of the 
committee, and he, too, will have a great future ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, our next Member, I should call him the deputy mayor of 
Washington, D.C., because that is kind of what you are when you are the 
ranking member of the House Administration Committee. He has been a 
passionate advocate on the next bill, but because of a meeting he has 
coming up, I am going to yield to him now, so he can make that 
scheduled appointment, to talk about this bill and the next bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I do support the bill that 
we are talking about. I have been a longtime supporter of medical 
marijuana use, and I certainly believe that the bipartisan legislation 
that is being put forward today is a great idea.
  But it is also great to follow my favorite legalized drug dealer here 
at the dais, Buddy Carter, the only pharmacist in Congress. This is a 
guy who says a lot of things about   Greg Walden. All of them are true, 
but I am going to get to that in a bit.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to thank my good friend,   Donald Payne, Jr., 
for allowing me to cosponsor a bill that is very personal to me, and 
that is the Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 
2020.
  As some of you may know, my wife was diagnosed with early-onset 
colorectal cancer in 1999. She was 26 years old, and she is a 21-year 
cancer survivor today. It is a genetic form of cancer, Lynch syndrome, 
that I hope and pray that families like mine and many others don't have 
to continue to fight.
  But it is imperative that we catch cancer in its early stages, and I 
can speak from experience, with my wife constantly being misdiagnosed 
just a few short years ago, and that is exactly what this legislation 
does for our Medicare population.
  Put simply, this legislation ensures that, if a Medicare beneficiary 
receives a colonoscopy, which is covered by Medicare, he or she won't 
be billed for any subsequent tests on polyps that may be discovered 
during the screening.

  The current policy of providing colonoscopies at no cost to 
beneficiaries but then billing them for potential findings, that 
greatly disincentivizes vulnerable individuals from actually seeking 
the screening process, which could lead to worse cancer and possibly 
death.
  This is a commonsense fix that will save lives. I am proud to colead 
it, again, with my good friend, Mr. Payne. This is bipartisan.
  But before I close, I want to take a moment to thank the countless 
advocates who have visited my office to fight for increased screening, 
including those with Fight Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer 
Society. Today's vote stands as a testament to their advocacy and hard 
work.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, again, Chairman Pallone and Ranking 
Member Walden and everyone on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the 
Ways and Means Committee for working with us to move this legislation 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, now I do want to take some time--it is actually ironic 
to watch all of the well wishes to Greg Walden.
  After first meeting him on an airplane that happened to land at the 
wrong airport, I didn't have a lot of high hopes for you, Mr. Ranking 
Member. I mean, who lands at the wrong airport, except an airplane that 
Greg Walden is on?
  Unlike a lot of folks that are here touting what you have done, I 
say: Good riddance. It is about time.
  In all seriousness, my friend, this place is going to miss you. This 
place is going to miss your humor. This place is going to miss your 
leadership and your tenacity. I can't tell you how proud I am to not 
just call you my colleague, but my friend.
  Thank you for everything you have done for me and what you have done 
for this great institution. It is a better place because you served 
here, and it will not be as good a place without you here.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Illinois for his generous 
comments and his great leadership, and I wish him well in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the underlying bill, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask for support to pass this legislation, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3797, the Medical 
Marijuana Research Act. I advanced this bipartisan bill through my 
Health Subcommittee and I'm proud to support it on the Floor today.
  According to the Department of Health and Human Services National 
Survey on Drug Use, 44 million Americans reported using cannabis in the 
past year. Thirty-three states now allow the medicinal use of cannabis 
and 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for 
adult use.
  But state laws and federal policy are a thousand miles apart. As more 
states allow cannabis, the federal government still strictly controls 
and prohibits it, even restricting legitimate medical research.
  The Medical Marijuana Research Act addresses these restrictions on 
research and alleviates a burdensome, out-of-date process for 
scientific researchers. First, it creates a new, less cumbersome 
registration process specifically for marijuana, reducing approval wait 
times and costly security measures. Second, this bill makes it easier 
for researchers to obtain the cannabis they need for their studies 
through reforms in production and distribution regulations.
  Under this bill, scientists will no longer be forced to wait more 
than a year to become federally-approved to conduct cannabis research. 
They will also not be forced to use the cannabis grown by a government-
authorized farm at the University of Mississippi. This cannabis lacks 
the properties and potency of commercially-available cannabis and leads 
to inadequate research.

[[Page H7083]]

  This is a commonsense bill that will update federal policy to advance 
research on cannabis and its compounds. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3797, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________