[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3388-3391]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. Paul):
  S. 683. A bill to extend the principle of federalism to State drug 
policy, provide access to medical marijuana, and enable research into 
the medicinal properties of marijuana; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I wish to introduce the Compassionate 
Access, Research Expansion, and Respect

[[Page 3389]]

States Act CARERS Act. This commonsense legislation would make our 
Federal marijuana criminal laws fairer and more in line with our values 
and ensure that medical marijuana is more accessible to the millions of 
Americans who need it for treatment purposes. I thank Senator Kirsten 
Gillibrand and Senator Rand Paul for joining me on this bill, and I 
appreciate their hard work on this legislation.
  The CARERS Act would clarify how the Federal Government handles 
medical marijuana in the States. Currently, 23 States and the District 
of Columbia have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana for qualified 
patients. But the Federal Government still bans medical marijuana and 
treats the people who use it with contempt. It is time we end this 
backward approach toward a substance that helps treat millions of 
Americans, including veterans, who suffer from debilitating diseases.
  Today, the Federal Government classifies marijuana as a schedule I 
drug, meaning it lacks a recognized medical value and it has a high 
potential for abuse. Incredibly, marijuana shares the same 
classification with such drugs as heroin or LSD-substances that no one 
disputes are incredibly dangerous and harmful. Schedule II is the next 
controlled substances category for drugs deemed to have some medical 
use, such as cocaine and methamphetamine. The view that marijuana has 
no medical use whatsoever, but the methamphetamine has some medicinal 
use is troubling and contrary to science. We can do better.
  In 2013, the Department of Justice issued guidance to Federal 
prosecutors and regulators to refrain from prosecuting individuals that 
use, purchase or sell marijuana in States where it is legal as long as 
a State regulatory framework exists that maintains certain standards, 
such as a ban on sales to minors. As a result of this guidance, more 
and more States have taken steps to legalize medical marijuana.
  Sadly, despite this guidance, the inability of Federal and State law 
to be on the same page regarding the legality of medical marijuana has 
resulted in confusion and uncertainty for State regulators and the 
public about what the law requires. This lack of clarity is only part 
of the problem. Individual users of medical marijuana in States with 
legalized medical marijuana continue to be targeted by the Drug 
Enforcement Agency. That is unacceptable and must change. Individuals 
who use medical marijuana in States where it is legal should not fear 
prosecution simply based on prosecutorial discretion. We can do better.
  I am encouraged that the winds of change are blowing at the Federal 
level on whether to prosecute medical marijuana, but confusion remains. 
While the 2013 guidance likely trumps the prior two memorandum, what 
message do these documents send? Is medical marijuana legal or not? Is 
it right that the law can be changed at a moment's notice by an 
unelected Federal prosecutor? And what protection does State law afford 
medical marijuana users when State and Federal law collide, especially 
when marijuana is classified by the Federal Government as a schedule I 
drug? This legislation brings certainty and uniformity to these issues.
  Another problem with current law is that medical marijuana operates 
largely in the shadows because financial institutions are scared to do 
business with legitimate marijuana businesses. Banks and other 
financial institutions are hesitant to do business with legitimate 
marijuana businesses because they are concerned about losing their 
Federal depository insurance or facing Federal prosecution. As a 
result, the medical marijuana industry operates largely as a cash 
business which is bad for the economy and endangers public safety. 
Dealing with high quantities of cash and having to transport it leaves 
these businesses and their operatives as easy targets for criminals.
  The current medical marijuana situation in America is untenable. It 
is unfair for the Americans that operate legitimate marijuana 
businesses. It is unfair to people with disabilities, including 
veterans with post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury or missing 
limbs who rely on medical marijuana for treatment. It is unfair to 
children with intractable epilepsy who need cannabidiol--known as CBD--
to control their seizures.
  This issue has a real impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. 
Recently, my staff met with Jennie Stormes, a woman recently forced to 
leave my home State of New Jersey because of our restrictive medical 
marijuana laws. Ms. Stormes' son Jackson suffers from Dravet syndrome, 
a severe and debilitating form of epilepsy. Without medication, Jackson 
can have multiple seizures in a day. This condition has affected 
Jackson's development and put him through a tremendous amount of pain.
  Jeannie Stormes and her family shared with my staff the hardships of 
living in a State where it is hard to gain access to the medication 
Jackson needs. Jackson has tried 23 different drugs in 60-plus 
different combinations, but nothing worked to control his seizures. She 
talked about how medical marijuana was the first drug that controlled 
his seizures and changed their lives. Unfortunately, Jennie announced 
her family was moving to Colorado because it was too difficult in New 
Jersey to access the medicine Jackson needed to stay alive.
  We need this legislation to help the Jackson Stormes of the world. No 
child in America with a debilitating disease deserves to live a life of 
pain without access to the medication that he or she needs. Jennie and 
Jackson's story pains me. It tells me that we have a long way to go. 
But their story also gives me hope. It gives me hope because despite 
all the hardships they have gone through, they remain strong and 
committed to their cause. It is people like Jennie and Jackson who make 
our country great. It is for them that we need to continue to fight to 
move our country forward.
  The CARERS Act would take significant steps towards addressing the 
situation that Jackson and Jennie went through.
  First, the bill would end the Federal prohibition of medical 
marijuana. Millions of Americans need to gain access to the medicine 
that works best for them. The Federal Government's current stance on 
medical marijuana has only created confusion and uncertainty. This bill 
would prohibit the Federal Government from prosecuting persons who are 
in compliance with State medical marijuana laws and let people, like 
Jackson, gain access to the care they need.
  The bill would reschedule marijuana as a schedule II drug. The Drug 
Enforcement Agency insists that medical marijuana is a fallacy. It 
insists that marijuana is a dangerous substance and it is properly 
classified as a schedule I drug. Doctors know that is wrong, I know 
that is wrong, Jennie and Jackson know that is wrong. It is time we 
finally properly classify marijuana.
  The bill would also allow States to import CBD. CBD is an oil 
substance made from a marijuana plant that contains virtually no THC--
meaning you experience no high from the drug. CBD is the medicine 
Jackson needs--along with thousands of other individuals with Dravet 
syndrome--to control his seizures. We must make this important drug 
more available so people can access the medication they need.
  The bill would create a safe harbor for banks and financial 
institutions that want to do business with legal medical marijuana 
businesses. It is not safe that these businesses are forced to deal 
only in cash. It is bad for our economy and it is bad for law 
enforcement. The bill would institute protections that these 
institutions need to feel comfortable doing business with medical 
marijuana establishments.
  The bill would promote research. A large problem for our Nation is 
that not enough research exists on the impact of medical marijuana. We 
know there are legitimate medical uses of the drug, but we can learn 
much more. We need to allow experts to access the drug to conduct tests 
and clinical trials to fully understand the effects of the drug and how 
it can best be utilized. This will only benefit the doctors who 
prescribe it, the lawmakers who regulate it, and the people who need 
it.

[[Page 3390]]

  Finally, the bill would allow VA doctors to prescribe medical 
marijuana to veterans in States that have legalized medical marijuana. 
Many men and women in uniform who have bravely served our Nation come 
home with invisible wounds of war and they deserve the best care 
available. This means allowing them access to the medicine they need to 
heal or control their condition. Those who have served our country 
deserve to be served by us, and that means receiving the best care 
available.
  I want to thank Senators Paul and Gillibrand for working on this 
legislation with me and I urge my colleagues to work with us to help 
ensure the CARERS Act is signed into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Inhofe, 
        Mr. Perdue, Mr. Scott, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Risch, Mr. 
        Boozman, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 686. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a limitation on certain aliens from claiming the earned income tax 
credit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with 
Senator Enzi and a few other Senators to close a tax loophole that 
could mean billions of dollars in tax benefits going to individuals 
based on work they performed illegally in the United States.
  The tax benefit I am referring to is the earned-income tax credit. 
The earned-income tax credit was established as a work incentive to 
help move more individuals from the welfare rolls to the payrolls. The 
policy behind the EITC is one I and many of my colleagues support as it 
is intended to foster betterment and personal responsibility by giving 
those on the lowest rungs of the labor pool an extra incentive to jump 
in and stay in the workforce rather than rely on welfare programs.
  It does this by providing a tax benefit to low-income individuals 
based on the amount of earned income they have.
  The earned income tax credit is refundable, so it benefits even those 
who don't earn enough money to have a Federal income tax liability by 
providing them a cash payment.
  In 1996 Congress as a matter of policy determined that the earned 
income tax credit should be ``denied to individuals not authorized to 
be employed in the United States.'' That is the exact language used in 
the title of the relevant provision that was enacted in 1996. Congress 
carried this policy out by requiring those claiming the earned income 
tax credit to provide a Social Security number for themselves, their 
spouse, and their children.
  From a policy perspective, this rule made a lot of sense to me and 
many of my colleagues, as it passed both the House and the Senate with 
broad support. Obviously, if the object of the earned income tax credit 
is to encourage work, it makes no sense to provide such an incentive to 
those who are not legally allowed to work. Why would we want to 
encourage individuals to break our immigration laws?
  What Congress didn't know at the time was that at an unknown future 
date, a President, with the stroke of a pen, would essentially grant 
millions of undocumented workers amnesty. Under the President's action, 
those previously working illegally in the United States will be 
eligible for work authorization and a Social Security number.
  Based on an IRS interpretation of the earned income tax credit 
eligibility requirements, those who obtain a Social Security number 
will be eligible to claim the earned income tax credit not only for 
future years but for previous years while they were living and working 
in the United States undocumented. Based on the statute of limitations, 
those obtaining deferred action could then go back and amend or file 
returns for up to 3 previous tax years to take advantage of a credit 
that can be worth several thousands of dollars each year.
  The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Enzi will fix 
this loophole by making it clear that those granted deferred action are 
not eligible to claim the earned income tax credit for the years they 
worked in the United States as undocumented workers. This proposal is 
simply an extension of current policy. Those granted deferred action 
will still be able to claim the earned income tax credit in years going 
forward for work they perform legally. This proposal reflects the 
commonsense proposition that American taxpayers should not subsidize 
work they performed illegally in the United States.
  This bill should be a no-brainer for any of my colleagues who agree 
that we should not reward individuals for breaking our immigration laws 
and our employment laws. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this commonsense piece of legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Heller):
  S. 691. A bill to require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to obtain 
the consent of affected State and local governments before authorizing 
the construction of a nuclear waste repository; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 691

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear Waste Informed 
     Consent Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the terms ``affected Indian tribe'', 
     ``Commission'', ``high-level radioactive waste'', 
     ``repository'', and ``spent nuclear fuel'' have the meanings 
     given the terms in section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
     of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).

     SEC. 3. CONSENT BASED APPROVAL.

       (a) In General.--The Commission may not authorize 
     construction of a repository unless the Secretary has entered 
     into an agreement to host the repository with--
       (1) the Governor of the State in which the repository is 
     proposed to be located;
       (2) each affected unit of local government;
       (3) any unit of general local government contiguous to the 
     affected unit of local government if spent nuclear fuel or 
     high-level radioactive waste will be transported through that 
     unit of general local government for disposal at the 
     repository; and
       (4) each affected Indian tribe.
       (b) Conditions on Agreement.--Any agreement to host a 
     repository under this Act--
       (1) shall be in writing and signed by all parties;
       (2) shall be binding on the parties; and
       (3) shall not be amended or revoked except by mutual 
     agreement of the parties.

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION.

       This Act applies to any application submitted to the 
     Commission for construction authorization for a repository 
     that--
       (1) exists as of the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) is submitted on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Markey):
  S. 700. A bill to amend the Asbestos Information Act of 1988 to 
establish a public database of asbestos-containing products, to require 
public disclosure of information pertaining to the manufacture, 
processing, distribution, and use of asbestos-containing products in 
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 700

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing Exposure to 
     Asbestos Database Act of 2015'' or the ``READ Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency has classified asbestos as a category A human 
     carcinogen, the highest cancer hazard classification for a 
     substance;
       (2) the International Agency for Research on Cancer has 
     classified asbestos as a class 1 human carcinogen;
       (3) despite the enactment of the Asbestos Information Act 
     of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 2607 note; Public Law 100-577), which 
     sought to improve transparency and public awareness of the

[[Page 3391]]

     presence of asbestos in commercial materials and products, 
     many people in the United States still incorrectly believe 
     that--
       (A) asbestos has been banned in the United States; and
       (B) there is no risk of exposure to asbestos through the 
     use of new commercial products;
       (4) asbestos is still being imported and used, and is 
     otherwise present as a contaminant, in some consumer and 
     industrial products in the United States;
       (5) according to the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution in 
     commerce of many asbestos-containing products are not banned 
     in the United States, including--
       (A) cement corrugated sheet;
       (B) cement flat sheet;
       (C) clothing;
       (D) pipeline wrap;
       (E) roofing felt;
       (F) vinyl floor tile;
       (G) cement shingle;
       (H) millboard;
       (I) cement pipe;
       (J) automatic transmission components;
       (K) clutch facings;
       (L) friction materials;
       (M) disc brake pads;
       (N) drum brake linings;
       (O) brake blocks;
       (P) gaskets;
       (Q) non-roofing coatings; and
       (R) roof coatings;
       (6) consumers and workers are at risk of asbestos exposure, 
     and families of workers are also put at risk because of 
     asbestos brought home by the workers on the shoes, clothes, 
     skin, and hair of the workers;
       (7) the Environmental Working Group estimates that as many 
     as 10,000 citizens of the United States die each year from 
     mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases;
       (8) the National Institutes of Health reported to Congress 
     that mesothelioma is a difficult disease to detect, diagnose, 
     and treat;
       (9) mesothelioma responds poorly to conventional 
     chemotherapy, and although new combination treatments for 
     mesothelioma have demonstrated some benefits--
       (A) the median survival period for mesothelioma is only 1 
     year after diagnosis of the disease; and
       (B) the majority of mesothelioma patients die within 2 
     years of diagnosis of the disease; and
       (10) until asbestos is completely banned from being used in 
     or imported into the United States, transparent and 
     accessible information about the location and identity of 
     asbestos and asbestos-containing products in the United 
     States is necessary to better protect consumers, workers, 
     families, and the people of the United States.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT 
                   DATABASE.

       The Asbestos Information Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 2607 note; 
     Public Law 100-577) is amended--
       (1) in section 4--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (7) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (8), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Asbestos-containing product.--The term `asbestos-
     containing product' means any product (including any part) to 
     which asbestos is deliberately or knowingly added or in which 
     asbestos is deliberately used or knowingly present in any 
     concentration.'';
       (2) in section 2, by inserting ``(referred to in this Act 
     as the `Administrator')'' after ``Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 5. ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCT DATABASE.

       ``(a) In General.--Using funds otherwise made available to 
     the Administrator, the Administrator shall, in accordance 
     with this section, establish and maintain a database of 
     asbestos-containing products (referred to in this Act as the 
     `database') that is--
       ``(1) publicly available;
       ``(2) searchable; and
       ``(3) accessible through the website of the Administrator.
       ``(b) Submission of Detailed Implementation Plan to 
     Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall submit 
     to the appropriate congressional committees a detailed plan 
     for establishing and maintaining the database, including 
     plans for the operation, content, maintenance, and 
     functionality of the database.
       ``(2) Integration.--The plan described in paragraph (1) 
     shall detail the integration of the database into the overall 
     information technology improvement objectives and plans of 
     the Administrator.
       ``(3) Implementation.--The plan described in paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       ``(A) a detailed implementation schedule for the database; 
     and
       ``(B) plans for a public awareness campaign conducted by 
     the Administrator to increase awareness of the database.
       ``(c) Date of Initial Availability.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date on which the Administrator submits the 
     plan under subsection (b)(1), the Administrator shall 
     establish the database.
       ``(d) Submission of Information on Asbestos-containing 
     Products.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 270 days 
     after the date of enactment of this section, and not less 
     frequently than annually thereafter, any person who 
     manufactured, processed, distributed, sold, imported, 
     transported, or stored an asbestos-containing product in the 
     immediately preceding calendar year shall submit to the 
     Administrator a written report, in a form to be determined by 
     the Administrator, containing information sufficient to 
     identify the characteristics and location of the asbestos-
     containing products.
       ``(2) Contents.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       ``(A) the type or class of asbestos-containing product;
       ``(B) the manufacturer of the asbestos-containing product;
       ``(C) any applicable import history of the asbestos-
     containing product;
       ``(D) the name and street address of any location 
     accessible by the public in which the person has reasonable 
     knowledge that the asbestos-containing product has been 
     present within the immediately preceding calendar year; and
       ``(E) any additional information the Administrator 
     determines is appropriate to enable consumers and workers to 
     avoid exposure to asbestos-containing products.
       ``(e) Organization of Database.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(1) categorize the information available on the 
     database--
       ``(A) in a manner consistent with the public interest; and
       ``(B) in such manner as the Administrator determines will 
     facilitate easy use by consumers; and
       ``(2) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the 
     database is sortable and accessible by--
       ``(A) the date on which information is submitted for 
     inclusion in the database;
       ``(B) the name of the asbestos-containing product;
       ``(C) the model name;
       ``(D) the name of the manufacturer;
       ``(E) the name of the importer, if applicable;
       ``(F) the name of the reporting person;
       ``(G) the name and street address of any location in which 
     an asbestos-containing product is reported to have been 
     present; and
       ``(H) any other element the Administrator considers to be 
     in the public interest.

     ``SEC. 6. PENALTIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Any person who knowingly manufactured, 
     processed, distributed, sold, imported, transported, or 
     stored an asbestos-containing product in the immediately 
     preceding calendar year and who did not submit a report to 
     the Administrator under section 5 shall be liable for a civil 
     penalty of $10,000 for each day after the deadline under 
     section 5(d)(1) the report has not been submitted.
       ``(b) False or Inaccurate Information.--Any person who 
     knowingly provides false or inaccurate information in a 
     report under section 5 or who knowingly fails to provide 
     information required in a report under section 5 shall be 
     liable for a civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation of 
     this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 4. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT.

       Not later than 2 years after the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency establishes the database of 
     asbestos-containing products under section 5(a) of the 
     Asbestos Information Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 2607 note; Public 
     Law 100-577) (referred to in this section as the 
     ``database''), the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report that contains--
       (1) an analysis of the utility of the database, including--
       (A) an assessment of the extent of use of the database by 
     consumers, including--
       (i) whether the database is accessed by a broad range of 
     the public; and
       (ii) whether consumers find the database to be useful; and
       (B) efforts by the Administrator to inform the public about 
     the database;
       (2) recommendations for measures to increase use of the 
     database by consumers; and
       (3) recommendations for measures to further reduce the harm 
     caused by exposure to asbestos, including bans on the 
     importation and use of asbestos-containing products.

                          ____________________