[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 147 (Friday, September 20, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5548-H5550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM PROCESS IN FLORIDA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fong). Under the Speaker's announced

[[Page H5549]]

policy of January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, this November, Floridians in my home 
State are going to be asked to vote on two constitutional amendments, 
State constitutional amendments. Not only am I opposed to both 
amendments, but I am vehemently against using the constitutional 
referendum process in the State of Florida to legislate. That is not 
what the referendum process was created for. It was designed to amend 
our State constitution, not to legislate.
  We have a legislature. We have a process to pass laws that do not 
involve radically changing our constitution. The referendum process 
seeks to circumvent Florida's legislative process by offering quick, 
easy, and often worse fixes to complicated problems.
  Need I remind everyone--Mr. Speaker, this is amazing--that in 
Florida's State Constitution, we have pregnant pigs discussed. I am not 
making that up.
  If you are unfamiliar, in 2002, Floridians passed a constitutional 
referendum that made it unlawful to confine a pregnant pig in an 
enclosure that would prevent her from being able to turn around safely 
in that pen. That is in our constitution. We were the laughingstock of 
the Nation.
  While Florida's Constitution is silent on the rights of cows, horses, 
chickens, or other barnyard animals, it addresses in considerable 
detail the rights of pregnant pigs. That is unbelievable. We passed 
that into Florida law.
  With referendums, voters are forced to make decisions about 
complicated issues with the little information they receive, which is 
sometimes often just from political messaging, TV and radio ads. It is 
whoever can buy the most influence through the media who gets their 
referendum passed by the people.
  For those of you who don't know, Florida's referendum process 
requires signatures in support of a proposed amendment from 8 percent 
of the total votes cast statewide in the last Presidential election 
from one-half of the 27 congressional districts in the State of 
Florida.
  Now, that is a tough challenge. It is an expensive challenge. It is a 
huge undertaking that is usually only backed by large organizations 
with immense financial capability. This is not something for the 
people. They buy and sell an idea they can't get passed through our 
State legislature. That is what this special interest money is able to 
buy.
  State constitutions should be what define the supreme law governing a 
State, the civil liberties and the rights of its people and the 
structure and power of the State's government. It is a governing 
document. What we put in should be carefully defined and agreed upon.
  Unlike writing legislation, definitions are not even required in 
these constitutional referendums as long as the amendment is ``clear to 
voters.'' That leaves so much room for interpretation, and it is up to 
the State to host a lot of unnecessary lawsuits.

                              {time}  1230

  That brings me to our current predicament this November. Neither 
Amendment 3 nor Amendment 4, I believe, should be voted on at the 
ballot box. These are structural State constitution issues. That is 
what referendums should be used for, not this Florida Amendment 3.
  The issue needs to be thoroughly examined and decided on by our 
Florida State Legislature and the Governor. We are a democratic 
republic for a reason. Referendums are shortcuts to hard answers. In 
order to govern well, we must leave the legislating to our State 
legislatures.
  Now, I am rising today firmly opposed to Amendment 3, which, as you 
can see, is the Marijuana Legalization Initiative, a referendum that 
Floridians are being asked to vote on this November at the ballot box.
  There are so many misunderstandings about what this referendum will 
actually do, so let's get into them.
  First, this amendment would not legalize homegrown marijuana, as you 
see in the top right here. This amendment, instead, allows only State-
licensed entities to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, 
and distribute marijuana and related accessories.
  Currently, medical marijuana treatment centers are the only State-
licensed entities. They will remain the only ones allowed to trade 
marijuana in the State of Florida, so, instantly, you create pretty 
much a monopoly.
  If someone wanted to legally grow and/or sell marijuana products, 
they would have to get approval from the State legislature first, but 
this will create a monopoly for big marijuana corporations that already 
have licenses to legally sell marijuana to anyone over 21 in the State.
  Now, this is one of the most amazing parts of this that you never 
hear talked about in the ads that they actually are producing, and that 
is the fact that these corporations that are going to have this 
monopoly also get legalized immunity.
  It will not get fentanyl-laced marijuana off our streets, as some 
have said. Supporters of this amendment claim it will better regulate 
the marijuana circulating, but the evidence tells a very different 
story.
  In States where recreational marijuana has already been legalized, we 
have seen illegal drug markets flourish. People still turn to illegal 
and unsanctioned drug dealers to purchase marijuana because it is 
cheaper or easier to purchase, no matter your age.
  According to Rutgers' Center of Alcohol and Substance Use Studies, 
California, which legalized it, produces about 40 percent of the 
Nation's marijuana, the vast majority of it grown by unlicensed 
growers. With three-quarters of the U.S. marijuana market made up of 
illegal products, that means that California is fueling a massive 
underground economy.
  Of course, with a flourishing black market comes an increase in 
crime. Again, take California for example. It was the first State in 
the Nation to legalize the medical use of the drug in 1996. The State 
would go on to legalize recreational use in 2016.
  Recent California police reports suggest that arrests for marijuana-
related crimes have increased following legalization. Among such 
reports, there was a series of police records secured by the Los 
Angeles Times in early 2019 showing that arrests actually rose 166 
percent since 1996.
  Just this year, California has reported several massive illegal 
cannabis busts, with one resulting in the confiscation of over $1 
million worth of illicit weed cultivated by unlicensed growers.
  It doesn't go away. It just stays underground.
  California's Department of Cannabis Control has raided at least 60 
alleged grow houses over the past 2 years, and they suspect well over 
100 more remain in operation. You heard me right: California actually 
had to create a separate department to go after the marijuana.
  Rutgers also suggests illegal operations have increased in States 
where it has been legalized due to lax oversight, with some sellers 
skipping the acquisition of a legal license yet still operating out of 
storefronts, presenting themselves as licensed dealers.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not want this in Florida. We do not need this in 
our community. We certainly don't need it in our own backyards.
  Legalized weed sales do not get rid of dangerous fentanyl-laced 
marijuana either, another lie that is being told on the television ads 
that are trying to procure support for the referendum on Amendment 3.
  In fact, in Missouri, a State where recreational marijuana is legal 
for people over 21 years of age, doctors are seeing more cases of 
marijuana being mixed with fentanyl--more, not less.
  According to Dr. Michael Wenzinger, a psychiatrist at the Washington 
University School of Medicine, they have seen an increase in cases of 
teenagers inadvertently consuming these deadly combinations.
  Dr. Wenzinger also suggests that people believe that since weed is 
sold in dispensaries, it is safe to consume. That is a lie. They are 
lulled into a false sense of security, thinking they are buying legal 
marijuana when, all too often, that is not the case.
  Reports also show State law enforcement has found marijuana laced 
with fentanyl in Illinois and New York, two States where recreational 
use is legal, as well as Alabama and Louisiana, States where medical 
marijuana is legal.

[[Page H5550]]

  It is clear that even in States with government-regulated 
dispensaries at the ready, people still choose to buy their marijuana 
on the black market, mainly, as we all know, because of their age.
  We have also seen the potency of marijuana increase drastically. Mr. 
Speaker, this is the part of this issue that concerns me as a 41-year 
law enforcement officer. The percentage of THC, the main psychoactive 
component in cannabis, has increased by more than 200 percent from 1995 
to 2015--more than 200 percent.
  Even more concerning, a May study in the journal of Psychological 
Medicine found that schizophrenia cases in men ages 21 to 30 may have 
been preventable by up to 30 percent without the persistent use of 
marijuana.

  We think we have a mental health issue in this country now. Wait 
until we have had all these 21- to 25-year-old or 18- to 25-year-old 
young developing brains on high levels of THC for extended periods of 
time, and we begin to see the increase in schizophrenia, paranoia, and 
other psychotic breaks.
  Florida's Amendment 3 increases crime and illegal distribution of 
marijuana. It doesn't reduce it.
  It monopolizes the industry, creates blanket legal immunity for big 
marijuana corporations, does not legalize home growth, and promotes 
marijuana use that is linked to psychotic disorders.
  Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I am adamantly opposed to 
Florida's Amendment 3 in November.
  I also want to mention Amendment 4, as I discussed earlier, because 
Floridians are being asked to vote on Amendment 4, and this one really 
is just a travesty. If passed, this amendment would prevent any law 
from prohibiting, penalizing, delaying, or restricting abortion before 
viability, or when necessary to protect the patient's health, placing 
the decision in the hands of the healthcare provider.
  Here is what is amazing about this: Under current Florida State law, 
in order to receive an abortion, it must occur before the baby reaches 
6 weeks of gestation. However, there are exceptions built into the 
State law, including rape, incest, and human trafficking, that allow 
for the procedure up to 15 weeks of pregnancy.
  It also allows physicians--physicians, and I say that specifically--
to terminate a pregnancy if necessary to save the life, not just for 
health reasons, but to save the life of the mother or to prevent a 
serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment. Two 
physicians are required to approve such a procedure.
  Let's get this straight. First, Amendment 4 does not define what 
``viability,'' ``healthcare provider,'' or ``patient's health'' means. 
As you see in the left bottom here, it does not define any of that.
  Under current Florida statutes, ``viability'' has been defined as the 
state of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable 
outside the womb through standard medical measures, but there is no 
universal consensus.
  As science continues to advance, the age of viability of a fetus has 
become earlier. In the 1960s, infants weighing less than 1 kilogram, 
equivalent to about 27 weeks, were considered nonviable. In the 1970s, 
when Roe v. Wade was established, viability was estimated to be between 
24 to 28 weeks. Today, it is closer to 23 to 24 weeks, with some 
hospitals even successfully delivering and caring for babies at 22 
weeks.
  Not only does Amendment 4 not define ``viability,'' it doesn't define 
``healthcare provider,'' leaving it up to interpretation. This means 
anyone can decide a woman should get an abortion, and I mean really 
anyone.
  ``Patient's health'' is left up to the interpretation of these so-
called healthcare providers, whoever they are. It is not to save the 
life. It could be for any reason.
  Under current Florida State law, abortions are not allowed past 6 
weeks. With this amendment, there is really no limit to when an 
abortion can be performed. It says abortions are legal ``before 
viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health.''
  A so-called healthcare provider could decide it is best for the 
patient's health to terminate that pregnancy at 9 months, as late as 
they want, and with total disregard for the viability of the baby.
  Mr. Speaker, they are talking about taking limbs off of babies when 
they are aborted at 9 months, ripping them apart in the womb when they 
can feel pain. We know they feel that pain.

                              {time}  1245

  It is unconscionable that that is going on in America. They want it 
to go on. It is actually already happening. In Wisconsin, there are 
eight documented cases. This is essentially approving a rubber stamp 
for late-term abortions going even further than Roe v. Wade. This is 
extreme.
  With Roe v. Wade, in the first trimester, zero to 12 weeks, there was 
almost no regulation.
  In the second, 13 to 27 weeks, there were regulations to protect 
women's health when necessary.
  In the third trimester, 28 to 40 weeks, it allowed States to ban 
abortions so long as exceptions were made to protect the life and 
health of the mother, as defined by a physician, I might add.
  Amendment 4 would allow abortions without restrictions up to 
viability, which is currently believed to be 23 weeks, a time that is 
well into the second trimester. Even under Roe v. Wade it would have 
only been allowed at that time to protect the woman's health or life.
  With amendment 4 in Florida, what they are trying to do is that 
abortion could occur for whatever reason one decides whenever they 
decide.
  As you can see in the lower left here, Mr. Speaker, this removes 
parental approval, parental consent. Currently, minors have to get 
parental consent to get a tattoo, to have their ears pierced, or any 
other medical procedure. That is not Florida law.
  This amendment, however, would only require notification but not 
permission. That means parents can be notified immediately before or 
even after their 14-year-old daughter has had an abortion by one of 
these healthcare providers at any time in her pregnancy. There is no 
parental consent required.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if you watch the television ads that are being run 
in the State of Florida right now, you would not think that to be the 
case. This constitutional amendment No. 4 is the most deceptive 
amendment I have ever seen. It is not what it seems, and it has no 
place being voted on in the ballot box.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is amendment 4. This is amendment 4 
printed out. It is just this little piece at the top. It is less than 
one-quarter of a page to take the life of a baby at 9 months old, where 
we are going to rip its limbs off to abort it. It is less than one-
quarter of a page.
  This is a tax referendum, and it is eight pages. We are more clear 
about how we are going to cut taxes than we are about how we are going 
to execute a baby in the womb. Mr. Speaker, tell me that is not 
deceptive.
  The ads that they run are so misleading. They create such falsehoods. 
A referendum on taxable values of a home is far more fleshed out and 
defined than one concerning the life of a child. It is ridiculous.
  This is bad legislation. This is a bad way to legislate. In our 
Constitution, it is a bait and switch trying to fool Floridians into 
changing our constitution to include abortion without any restrictions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Floridians to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Referendums are shortcuts to hard answers. Let's leave the hard 
answers to the State legislature where they belong. That is why we are 
a democratic republic. Let them do their job. Do not allow those with 
special interest money to decide what the law is going to be in 
Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________