H.Res. 1017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there is a war raging in Ukraine, killing thousands and thousands of innocent people.

Gasoline, diesel, and grocery prices are through the roof.

For all practical purposes, we don't have a southern border anymore, so hundreds of thousands of immigrants continue to flood into the United States, and the situation there is about to get much worse.

Rampant inflation is making short work of the hard-earned money of all Americans, but the main priority for the Democrats this week isn't Ukraine, skyrocketing gasoline prices, 8 percent inflation, or the border crisis. No. Instead, it is marijuana.

It has been obvious for years that at some point, marijuana was going to be formally legalized. What is deeply and truly disturbing, however, about this bill is its failure to address the clear consequences of legalization--such as what this drug does to children, to drivers on our highways, to the mental health of up to 30 percent of those adults who choose to use marijuana, to communities inundated with hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign cartel-operated, unlicensed, and out-of- control marijuana growers, and finally, to those who actually try to produce cannabis, marijuana, legally.

Let's take a closer look at Oregon, my State, to see what really happens when marijuana is legalized without careful and necessary thought.

The picture behind me is a hoop house. It is about 100-feet long and 50-feet wide. At current retail, it will produce about $6 million worth of marijuana a year.

The next picture is a picture of a grow consisting of 30 to 40 hoop houses. By the way, these are all in my district in southern Oregon. And if each of these hoop houses is in full production, 40 hoop houses would generate $240 million, at retail, of marijuana each year.

To put this in perspective, there are currently 180 grows like this in Jackson County, Oregon, alone, many of which are illegal. Hundreds upon hundreds of hoop houses.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a video taken from a helicopter of approximately 180 grows in Jackson County be entered into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I will move on.

These operations are, in large part, unlicensed, uncontrolled, unregulated, operated on stolen water, ignoring building codes, ignoring land use laws, ignoring labor laws, and importing thousands upon thousands of immigrants to work in squalor and in fear.

Why? Because the Federal Government has refused to help the overwhelmed local law enforcement officers meet the huge challenge these cartels present.

In fact, months ago, I directly asked Attorney General Garland and again, several weeks ago, for his assistance in getting the FBI, Homeland Security, and the DEA to help us in southern Oregon, and I have heard nothing, absolutely nothing, back from him.

This is why it is essential that any bill dealing with legalization include significant money for law enforcement. We are certainly not getting any help from the Attorney General.

This picture behind me is what the living conditions are like for the immigrants working for the cartels.

We are experiencing one of the worst droughts in the history of the western United States. Water is gold in my district. Cartels are stealing water and using it to grow marijuana.

Water regulators in southern Oregon have been threatened with death by cartel members when they have tried to stop water theft. Here is a picture of some of the stolen water.

When the crop is harvested, hoop houses are abandoned, the migrant laborers disappear, and the mess is left for someone else to clean up. Here is what that looks like.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the record the Politico article labeled ``. . . Why Legal Weed Didn't Kill Oregon's Black Market,'' dated January 14, 2022.

``Talk About Clusterf---': Why Legal Weed Didn't Kill Oregon's Black

Market

Cave Junction, Ore.--The first unlicensed cannabis grow

popped up near Gary Longnecker's remote Southern Oregon home

seven years ago. Now there are six farms surrounding the

densely-forested property. ``Last night I woke up at 12:30

with gunshots. [Then again] this morning, seven o'clock,''

Longnecker said as he and I walked his land in November.

``That's them intimidating all of us neighbors to keep out of

their face.'' A Vietnam veteran and former firefighter,

Longnecker retired to the woods of southern Oregon almost 30

years ago to get some peace and quiet, but that's not exactly

what he's found. Historically a logging community, the

residents of the Illinois Valley near Cave Junction are still

drastically outnumbered by trees--and they prefer it that

way. In most places, you could yell at the top of your lungs

from your front door without another soul hearing. Many

people in the county own a gun, and typically aim them at

deer or bears--not their neighbors. But since the cannabis

farmers moved in (none of whom appear to be licensed based on

state records), Longnecker says he's had bullets whiz by his

head when working outside, and regularly hears gunshots in

the middle of the night. Trash and toilet paper are littered

around the thin wire fence that separates his forested land

from each cannabis farm. As Longnecker gave me a tour of his

property, a few people could be seen moving around on the

property through the scattered pine trees and partially-

deconstructed hoop houses. Longnecker's partner called out to

them in broken Spanish, since she believed

most of the workers were Hispanic. No one answered. A few

moments later, shots rang out. ``So that's called

intimidation,'' Longnecker said as we hurried away. It's a

word that I heard often when I spoke with residents about

their marijuana-growing neighbors. Over the last two years,

there's been such an influx of outlaw farmers that southern

Oregon now rivals California's notorious Emerald Triangle as

a national center of illegal weed cultivation. Even though

marijuana cultivation has been legal in Oregon since 2014,

Jackson County Sheriff Nate Sickler says there could be up to

1,000 illegal operations in a region of more than 4,000

square miles. The Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission,

which oversees the state's $1.2 billion legal cannabis

industry, estimates the number of illicit operations is

double that. Local law enforcement officials believe that

people from every U.S. state and as many as 20 countries have

purchased property in Jackson or Josephine counties. Cartels

roll in and offer long-time residents as much as a million

dollars in cash for their property, and hoop houses follow

soon after the sale is complete. Residents have become

accustomed to hearing Bulgarian, Chinese, Russian and even

Hebrew spoken at the grocery store. ``Two weeks ago, we took

down a Bulgarian operation and in the same week an

Argentinian operation,'' said Josephine County Sheriff Dave

Daniel, adding that they've also recently dealt with Chinese-

and Mexican-run oufits. ``A lot of these organizations,

before the legal market came into effect, would grow in the

forest lands--they'd be up in the hills,'' explained Obie

Strickler, a licensed cannabis grower in Josephine County.

``Now they're . . . right out in the open.'' What is

happening in the woods of the southern Oregon represents one

of the most confounding paradoxes of the legalized marijuana

movement: States with some of the largest legal markets are

also dealing with rampant illegal production--and the problem

is getting worse. Oklahoma, where licenses to cultivate

medical marijuana are some of the easiest to get in the

nation, has conducted more than five dozen raids on illicit

grows since last April. In California, meanwhile, most of the

state continues to purchase cannabis from unlicensed

sources--straining legal operators already struggling with

the state's high taxes and fees. It wasn't supposed to be

this way. One of the underlying promises for legalizing

cannabis was that legalization would make the illegal drug

trade, with all its attendant problems of violent crime and

money laundering, disappear. But 25 years into the

legalization movement, as 36 states have adopted some form of

legalized marijuana, the black market is booming across the

country. Legal states such as Oregon and California--which

have been supplying the nation for nigh on 60 years--are

still furnishing the majority of America's illegal weed.

Oregon's weed is some of the cheapest in the nation, and

Oregonians predominantly purchase weed from licensed

dispensaries. Economist Beau Whitney estimates that 80-85

percent of the state's demand is met by the legal market. But

most of the illicit weed grown in southern Oregon is leaving

the state, heading to places where legal weed is still not

available for purchase `such as New York or Pennsylvania--or

where the legal price is still very high, like Chicago and

Los Angeles. In Illinois, which legalized medical marijuana

in 2013, only about a third of the demand for cannabis is

satisfied by legal dispensaries, according to Whitney.

Differences in tax rate and regulations plays the major role

in differences from state to state, Whitney explains.

Unlicensed growers aren't paying any fees or taxes, and they

can afford to keep their prices at least 20 percent lower

than legal weed--the benchmark Whitney says is the difference

in consumers purchasing legal versus illegal products.

``It all comes down to economics,'' said Whitney. ``If you

reduce the price, then there's no, or little, or less,

incentive [for consumers] to participate in [the] illicit

market because you're getting the price that you want . . .

that's the tipping point.'' The macro-economics of the

marijuana market are small consolation to residents of

Oregon, who say they are caught in a regulatory gap between

state law, which fully legalized cannabis in 2014, and

federal law, which still considers cannabis to be as illegal

as heroin. The one exception in federal law is for hemp, a

low-THC cannabis plant which looks virtually identical to the

naked eye. Officials say that some of Oregon's illegal farms

are masquerading as hemp producers to escape federal

oversight. There are just more than 1,000 licensed marijuana

and hemp farms in Jackson and Josephine counties, but a

recent test of the region's hemp farms found that more than

half were illegally growing marijuana--not the low-THC hemp.

``[They] easily danced into the hemp program and got

administrative protection,'' said Oregon Liquor and Cannabis

Commission Executive Director Steve Marks. ``They inundated

that program.'' On top of that, there could be a thousand or

more unlicensed grows that never bothered with a hemp

license. The impact of the booming illegal trade is being

felt by overburdened law enforcement that can't keep up with

the illegal operations that seem to sprout with abandon, but

it is also exhausting the patience of residents who were key

to making Oregon one of the first states to legalize medical

marijuana in the late 1990s. ``The danger of what's going on

and the fear and worry folks in southern Oregon are feeling

about their safety cannot be overstated,'' Sen. Ron Wyden (D-

Ore.), the influential chairman of the Finance Committee,

told POLITICO in December. ``And it's all the more reason why

federal cannabis prohibition is just not working.'' Nicole

Rensenbrink, a 62-year-old social worker, travels daily along

a curving two-lane road that weaves between groves of tall

trees and dozens of farms before finally passing the local

high school. Along her seven-minute commute to work, she

passes 14 marijuana cultivation or processing sites. She's

not an expert, but she can tell that many of them are illegal

by the lack of proper signs and the number of hoop houses

that exceed the legal limits. But it's the unforeseen

consequences--the damage to the environment, not to mention a

general fear for her safety--that most troubles her. ``I and

my husband both voted for cannabis legalization. I'm liberal,

[an] old hippie type. I don't want people to go to jail for

smoking pot or dealing a little weed.'' Rensenbrink said.

``But I regret it. At this point, I really regret it. People

have grown marijuana illegally in southern Oregon for at

least half a century. It was easy to conceal illicit activity

in private woods and national forests when the nearest human

could easily be a few miles away. But there's nothing hidden

about what's going on now. The Red Mountain Golf Course, a

24-acre plot of land just outside Grants Pass, the county

seat, sold for just over half a million dollars in June 2021.

Three months later, Josephine County Sheriffs and Oregon

State Troopers raided the former golf course and seized more

than 4,000 marijuana plants and arrested two people on

charges of felony marijuana manufacture. It wasn't an

isolated incident. Around the same time, law enforcement

seized 380 pounds of processed marijuana stuffed in a car

abandoned at the scene of a crash. Cops also seized 7,600

marijuana and hemp plants, 5,000 pounds of processed

marijuana and $210,000 in cash from two grow operations just

outside Cave Junction. Two men were arrested and held for

unlawful manufacture of a marijuana item and other

charges. While these eyepopping figures draw headlines,

the raids are just a cost of doing business for the

cartels, according to law enforcement officials. Many buy

or lease six or seven properties, knowing that some might

get shut down by the police. Like any smart entrepreneurs,

the cartels budget for those losses. ``They know that the

resources for law enforcement and our ability to combat

this issue [are such that] they can overwhelm us,'' Daniel

said. The proliferation of unlicensed cannabis farms is

scaring local residents and scarring the landscape.

Personal wells have run dry and rivers have been illegally

diverted. Piles of trash litter abandoned grow sites.

Locals report having knives pulled on them, and growers

showing up on their porches with guns to make demands

about local water use. Multiple women say they've been

followed long distances by strange vehicles. Locals

regularly end conversations with an ominous warning: ``Be

careful.'' Debbie, who retired from the Napa County

Sheriff's Department in California, has little faith in

Josephine County's law enforcement. Debbie, who requested

her last name not be used for fear of reprisal from the

drug dealers, says that officers didn't show up when ten

gun shots whizzed past her husband's head while he was

sitting on the porch, or when the neighbor's pit bulls

chased her from the mailbox back up to her own home. When

Debbie reported her neighbors to the sheriff's department,

they asked her to photograph the license plates of the

growers next door, but she was spotted taking pictures.

``[The growers] stalked me and chased me all the way down

Placer Road,'' she said.

The problem has gotten so bad that residents and local

officials have called for the Oregon National Guard to be

called in. Democratic Gov. Kate Brown hasn't taken that step

yet, but in December she called a special session in which

lawmakers approved $25 million to address Oregon's illicit

grows. $20 million of that funding is designated for law

enforcement to increase staff and resources, while $5 million

is dedicated for oversight of water use and water theft.

Earlier in the year, the legislature passed a bill, sponsored

by Republican state Rep. Lily Morgan, that increased

penalties for growing cannabis illegally and gave state

regulators the authority to investigate hemp growers. Jackson

County Sheriff Nate Sickler says the tougher rules for hemp

cultivation and the money lawmakers funneled to local

enforcement efforts are an excellent start.

``If we're able to get our positions funded, I really think

we can make a significant impact [on] illegal marijuana,''

said Sickler. ``Are they going to go away? It's probably

never going to happen.'' The illicit market isn't just a law

enforcement problem, however; it's actually having an effect

on the environmental health of the region.

Chris Hall has spent months surveilling cannabis farms in

Josephine County's Illinois River Valley from the air. The

community organizer with the Illinois Valley Soil & Water

Conservation District is compiling a map of illicit grows

checked against state licensing information.

On a weekday afternoon in November, Hall explored the

debris-filled Q Bar X Ranch site, taking photographs for his

records. In August, it took about 250 law enforcement

officers--called in from state and federal agencies--to raid

the ranch. Officials seized 200,000 marijuana plants and

found more than 130 workers at the site, according to the

Josephine County Sheriff's department. At the main site, a

new fence with ``no trespassing'' signs warned off curious

visitors.

Behind that fence were the ruins of a massive cannabis

operation: multiple white hoop houses, now in tatters;

ramshackle buildings where workers likely lived; PVC pipes,

tarps, buckets, and empty containers of fertilizer and

pesticides.

Down the road, the second site was in an even greater state

of disarray. Huge gashes had been cut into the earth, and a

crevice was filled with bottles of fertilizer and pesticides.

The banks of a stream were laden with what seemed like the

contents of an entire convenience store snack and soda

section. ``You want to talk about clusterf---, here it is,''

Hall said, shaking his head as he saw that the creek

bisecting the grow site was lined with plastic. ``The [creek]

bed is the most sensitive natural habitat that we have,''

Hall said. ``To line it with plastic, particularly black

plastic, is to kill everything underneath it.'' Hall was

hired because the soil and water district was inundated

with complaints from local residents about the negative

impacts on their water sources. The $5 million that

Morgan's bill recently allocated for water-resource issues

is meant to address this problem.

Reclaiming land and waterways after illicit growing occurs,

though, is an expensive and complex undertaking. A U.S. House

member proposed allocating $25 million in last year's federal

budget for shuttering and reclaiming grow sites on national

forest land, though it was removed from the final bill. Even

if that funding eventually gets approved, it could only be

used to target a small sliver of the illicit grows in

Josephine and Jackson counties, since most are on private

property.

``If this was going on [closer to Eugene or Portland], you

better believe the state of Oregon would stomp this out in a

hot second,'' Hall said--but added that many of the region's

residents are famously resistant to government intervention,

especially from the state capitol four hours north. ``You

know, sometimes you get what you asked for. . . . [Southern

Oregonians] have been telling [the state government] to leave

you alone, so we're gonna just leave you alone.''

There are as many suggested solutions to southern Oregon's

weed problem as there are factors creating it. Some say

tweaks to federal and state hemp regulations--and more money

for law enforcement--will get the illicit grows under

control. Others argue that only federal decriminalization

will solve the problem, because it would reduce the market

for illicit weed.

Anti-legalization advocates, meanwhile, point to Oregon's

woes as proof that legalization doesn't live up to its

promise of eliminating the illicit market.

``Legalization exacerbates the issue of illicit growing

operations because it increases the demand for the product,''

Kevin Sabet told POLITICO. ``With more users emerging

throughout the state, more sellers--both legal and illegal--

begin working to match the supply. The state has done little

to curb demand because it has little incentive to do so.''

On the last point, John Hudak of the Brookings Institute

says that the rampant illicit operations in Oregon aren't

likely to be replicated in more densely-populated states like

Connecticut or Rhode Island. ``I don't think there's a direct

connection between legalization and this situation

happening,'' said Hudak, an expert on cannabis policy who

also volunteers as part of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy,

Education, and Regulation--a think tank funded in part by

Molson Coors and Constellation Brands (which owns Corona).

Constellation Brands has already entered the cannabis

beverage market. ``There's sort of geographic aspects to why

it thrives in certain states,'' Hudak added. ``This is more

likely to happen on a large scale in larger states with rural

spaces than it would be in smaller, urban states.'' Instead,

Hudak argues that the illicit market will continue to thrive

in legal states as long as cannabis remains federally

illegal. It isn't clear when full legalization could happen,

though--if ever. A federal decriminalization bill proposed in

2021 by Wyden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen.

Cory Booker (D-NJ) has only been seen by the general public

in draft form, and it isn't clear when it will be formally

introduced in Congress. The draft version of that

decriminalization bill would levy high taxes against the

cannabis industry, which Whitney, the economist, argues would

push prices higher and give illicit growers continued market

access.

Cautionary tales like Oregon's won't move the federal

needle, either, Hudak cautions. The lawmakers who understand

the impact of the federal-state cannabis policy gap, he says,

are the ones who already support legalization. Moreover,

there have already been many other stories about the problems

created by the policy gap--such as the impact siloed markets

have on the environment or the inability of cannabis farmers

and store owners to get reliable insurance to cover looters

or forest fires--and federal policy has remained the same.

The problem, cannabis advocates say, is not that

legalization has failed. Rather it's that the country hasn't

legalized enough. Until many more states--and the federal

government--decide to legalize cannabis, those advocates say,

the illicit weed problem is going to continue, even in legal

states. The patchwork of still-illegal states--including some

of the country's most populous--creates tootempting a

market for illicit growers.

``We don't have a [moonshine] business in the country . . .

that is challenging Budweiser or Grey Goose,'' Hudak said.

``Alcohol is widespread legal. And until we get on that same

page with cannabis, this is going to be a continuing

problem.''

The OLCC's Marks, though, argues that blanket legalization

won't solve all of the problems because hemp and marijuana

will still be regulated separately at the federal level--hemp

through the Department of Agriculture and marijuana through

the FDA or the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

``Frankly, the federal government has plenty of

responsibility and accountability for the regulation of legal

hemp and THC,'' Marks said. ``Making regulators bifurcate the

plan under an old federal definition of marijuana and a newer

one of hemp is creating unaccountability, craziness and a bad

market.'' Oregon tweaked its hemp rules this year to make THC

testing more enforceable. Meanwhile, the 2023 farm bill is up

for discussion in Washington, D.C. this year, but there has

not been much chatter on Capitol Hill about making hemp

oversight more stringent.

Economist Beau Whitney argues that focusing on hemp

regulations is a misplaced solution because many cartels

don't bother to hide behind hemp licenses.

``They're focusing in on small hemp farmers instead of the

real problem, which is international cartels,'' Whitney said.

``Until there's some way in which to have a coordinated

enforcement against the illicit cartels, this is going to

perpetuate.''

While experts and lawmakers in Salem and Washington, D.C.

go back and forth over the solutions, southern Oregonians

will continue to live with the impact of divergent cannabis

laws. ``The people in Salem and the people in Grants Pass

don't understand that we're living under this intimidation,''

Gary Longnecker said, talking about the Oregon state capital

and his county's seat of government. ``To sit here and be

ignored by the people who are supposed to represent you, not

even get a staff member to call you back, is so, so

frustrating,'' he said. He's glad that Oregon's legislature

adopted tougher rules for hemp growers, but doesn't think

it's nearly enough to solve the problem. ``You can't just

keep throwing a little bit of money out [here], because . . .

it's like whack a mole. Take this one out, and four more pop

up over here.''

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that any bill legalizing marijuana include significant funding for law enforcement which will be absolutely and predictably necessary to control the cartels that will flood into the farming areas such as southern Oregon.

Simply setting up a penalty, as this bill does, for failing to register will not work without the concurrent means of enforcement. Do not let the defunding-the-police thinking that currently is in this bill lead the Nation into the same ecological human and social disaster we now face in Oregon.

The bill fails to address impairment. It fails to address the ever- increasing potency of the drug. It fails to address the age at which marijuana could be legally used.

It fails to address the impact the bill's 5 percent and quickly rising to 8 percent gross receipts tax, when added to the State and local taxes, will have in driving the black market sources of marijuana. The Federal tax, when added in, will make legal marijuana almost 30 percent more expensive than that which is on the black market.

The bill fails to correctly clarify the differences between marijuana and hemp. This is essential if the hemp market is to be protected from the policies and regulations associated with marijuana.

This bill is the wrong approach.

We should be addressing the crises created by the Biden administration, not passing an incomplete, inadequate, and damaging to our children and communities stimulus marijuana bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention that I have read the bill very carefully, and there is nothing in the bill allocating money to law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention that there is about $400 million that would have been raised last year under this bill had this tax been in place, and none of that money goes to public safety. It goes to rebuild community space but not public safety.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In response to this bill helping farmers, I just want to say it does not. What it does is it puts a tax on top of their product. When added to the Oregon tax, it would be almost 30 percent. That does not encourage farmers to raise the crop because they can't compete against the black market. There has to be far more thought given to what will be an 8 percent additional cost.

By the way, it is a gross receipts tax. It is on top of the gross receipts, not that net profit that you are supposed to get.

Secondly, the bill, as written, fails to distinguish between hemp and marijuana. This must be done if the folks in each space are going to grow properly.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that it was noted that we never asked the people if they would support legalization of marijuana. That is not correct. North Dakota Measure 3 failed. Missouri Proposition C to legalize marijuana failed. Ohio Issue 3 failed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, to my friend and former law school classmate, Representative Blumenauer--he was a few years ahead of me--I just want to draw attention to the bill, page 15, where it calls out the expenditures. It says: The amounts in the trust fund shall be available, without further appropriation, only as follows. And then it reflects section 3052(a) part 00 of the Omnibus Crime Control Safe Streets Act of 1968, which I dug out and read through three times, looking unsuccessfully for an allocation of money to local law enforcement agencies, such as the ones in southern Oregon. It is not there. That money is going for very limited and very narrow purposes.

How much money? Well, if this 8 percent tax had been applied to the amount of marijuana sold last year in the United States, the total is $400 million. That is not the total sold; it is the total tax, $400 million, half of which would go to this narrow piece of work. I am not saying it is unimportant, but narrow.

There is 50 percent called out here, then 10 percent, then 25 percent, but none to police. What I am trying to say is, yes, you have taken this up--do it right. Get it right. And you have a whole bunch of work that needs to be done to get this bill right.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say again, I went down to southern Oregon and I asked the law enforcement folks what we needed to do to try to head off the cartels which are generating this huge sum of money for themselves. What could we do? And the answer was, law enforcement. If you don't have force, you can't control the cartels.

To get law enforcement it requires people and that requires money and this bill doesn't allocate any for that purpose. Since we know this bill is going to drive up the cost of legal marijuana, thus driving more people into the black market, why isn't there more money for law enforcement? Why isn't there any money for law enforcement?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure everyone that the police in Oregon are not chasing those who are using marijuana. Oregon legalized marijuana. What we are having trouble with are the consequences of that legalization. That is what I am trying to bring to the attention of folks today that if we are going to legalize on a national scale then, for goodness' sake, don't make the mistakes we made in Oregon, get it right.

Put into the bill appropriate funding for law enforcement. By the way, we should put in a lot of other things that I previously mentioned. One of the things that absolutely has to be there is funding for local police because this bill is going to drive up the demand for marijuana and up the cartels across the United States. It is bad and local law enforcement can't take care of it.

The assertion that the FBI and Homeland Security and DEA are going to do so is incorrect. I know because I have asked. We have nothing from the Attorney General helping us in that space. So what I am saying is, if you are going to do this, get it right.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention in response to the assertion that once this bill passes, if it does, that suddenly the cartels will disappear. Sadly, that is not going to be true. That is because legal marijuana will be 30 percent more expensive than that which is raised on the black market. That is why one has to be aware when one puts this kind of additional cost into this bill, 8 percent on a gross basis, that people need to understand the difference between net profit and gross.

What is going to happen is the cartels will have a 30 percent benefit advantage over privately raised marijuana. What I am trying to say is: Get this bill right. This isn't my thinking. This is people who looked into this extremely carefully and those that are trying to do this legally. I am saying this bill is incorrectly crafted on that level and many others.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1017 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1017, providing for consideration of two bills. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3617, the MORE Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Nadler, provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, makes three amendments in order, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act, under a closed rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman DeLauro, provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through April 29, 2022.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are here today to provide for consideration of Chairman Nadler's MORE Act, which would end decades of failed and unjust marijuana policy.

Today, 18 States, two territories, and the District of Columbia have laws legalizing and regulating commercial cannabis, and a total of 37 States, three territories, and the District of Columbia have laws allowing cannabis for medical purposes. An additional 11 States have low-THC medical cannabis laws.

This means a total of 47 States, four territories, and the District of Columbia have laws allowing some use of cannabis; 97.7 percent of the U.S. population live in these States and territories. It is clear Prohibition is over.

Today we have an opportunity to chart a new path forward on Federal cannabis policy that actually makes sense. The MORE Act is about justice, safety, equity, and States' rights. The bill would decriminalize cannabis at the Federal level by removing the substance from the Controlled Substances Act, but the bill does not force a State to legalize any form of cannabis. It is still up to the States to set their own policy.

The bill also contains provisions on resentencing and the expungement of criminal records. There is no reason why people should still be in prison for low-level, nonviolent cannabis convictions, or have their future predetermined by a cannabis conviction. The war on drugs has torn many families and communities apart and has had a disproportionate impact on people of color. The MORE Act would allow communities to start the healing process.

By removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, the bill also addresses the cannabis banking problem that I have been working on for nearly

10 years in the form of the SAFE Banking Act. Under current law, banks and credit unions providing services to State-licensed cannabis businesses are subject to criminal prosecution and regulatory penalties under Federal law. Therefore, businesses which legally grow, market, or sell cannabis in States where it is legal are generally locked out of the banking system, making it difficult for them to maintain a checking account, access credit, accept credit and debit cards, meet payroll, or pay tax revenue.

This has created a significant public safety risk, as these businesses are forced to operate as cash-only businesses in an industry with billions and billions of dollars in transactions. These high- volume cash businesses are being targeted by violent criminals and putting our communities at risk.

I want to share a few examples of how bad the public safety issue has become.

In November 2021, over the course of one week in Oakland, California, more than 25 cannabis businesses had their stores vandalized and robbed and lost upwards of $5 million.

A Colorado dispensary chain saw 15 burglaries during a 90-day period in mid-2021, with criminals driving vehicles into their buildings, cutting holes through rooftops and walls, and attacking the stores with pry bars and sledgehammers.

Washington State is averaging more than a robbery per day at dispensaries. In fact, recently in The Seattle Times, it was reported that there were three deaths related to robberies of dispensaries--the robber, a policeman, and owner of a store. This is just last week.

This is an untenable situation for these businesses, their employees, and their customers. If Congress fails to align Federal and State law, crimes targeting dispensaries will only get worse. The cannabis industry remains one of the fastest-growing industries and now supports more than 428,000 jobs, with nearly $25 billion in State-legal cannabis sales per year. The time to pass the MORE Act and right the injustices in our community is now.

This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act, to address skyrocketing insulin costs. Over 37 million Americans have been diagnosed with diabetes, and in Colorado there are over 300,000. The Affordable Insulin Now Act will require Medicare Part D and health insurance plans to cover insulin and cap out-of-pocket cost-sharing at $35 per month.

Prescription drugs like insulin force Coloradans to make difficult financial decisions. In a 2020 report from the Colorado Attorney General, approximately 40 percent of all survey respondents reportedly using insulin are forced to ration their use of this lifesaving product at least once a year.

I am proud of the steps Colorado has taken to ensure individuals have greater access to insulin. In 2021, Colorado became the second State in the country to limit insulin prices by enacting an insulin affordability program.

No one should have to pay more than $35 a month for insulin. The passage of this legislation will lower costs for insulin users and save money for hardworking Americans. I commend Representative Angie Craig and all of my colleagues for their work on this bill.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I remind my friend from Minnesota who was talking about party-line votes, we want to bring down the cost of prescription drugs, whether it is insulin or across the board, which we have done in the Build Back Better bill that is sitting in the Senate, and I can say I think virtually every single Republican voted against negotiating prescription drug prices.

If you want to talk about a free market, then you ought to be able to negotiate prescription drug prices so that Americans across the board get the best possible prices for their drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), a prominent and distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple points in response.

One, we are trying to bring down the price of insulin--that is one of the bills here that we are talking about--from the outrageous amounts that are required for this lifesaving drug down to $35. Yet, my Republican colleagues oppose reducing that.

They worry about inflation at the pump, which we all do, but it is Putin's price hike. We know where this came from, this increase, and the President is working to release millions of barrels of oil from our underground storage, and he wants to place a price on leases that aren't being used. We have 12 million acres that are under lease and are not being used. That will bring down the price at the pump. But we have to defeat Putin. It is his price hike.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here about reducing prices on insulin, something that so many Americans need. Yet, my colleagues want to talk about a bill that is not even before the House of Representatives today. We ought to be talking about reducing the price of prescription drugs, like insulin, for Americans who need it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my friend, and another prominent member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend, Mr. Arrington, that there are 12 million acres of nonproducing Federal land with 9,000 unused but already approved permits for production.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to wish Mr. Arrington a happy birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I just remind my friend from Wisconsin that 47 States, every territory, and the District of Columbia now allow for some level of marijuana use, and this Congress is going to have to catch up to what the States are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from Minnesota if she has any other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for joining me here today to speak on the rule, the MORE Act, and the Affordable Insulin Now Act. I especially want to thank Mr. Nadler, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Blumenauer with respect to the MORE Act.

Data is clear that patients in the United States pay more than 10 times for their insulin than what patients in other countries pay for this lifesaving drug. There are reports of people paying up to $1,000 a month just to keep themselves alive. Nobody should face these kinds of difficult decisions about affording their medication and keeping themselves healthy or putting food on the table.

The Affordable Insulin Now Act puts a reasonable cap of $35 a month on this important drug, and I hope we can advance this bipartisan idea this week.

On marijuana, we are long past due for the reforms in the MORE Act. The MORE Act is about justice, safety, equity, and States' rights. We must decriminalize marijuana at the Federal level and take meaningful steps to address the effects the war on drugs has had, particularly in minority and disadvantaged communities.

To my friends on the other side of the aisle who claim this isn't an important issue to American families, I encourage them to talk to individuals who can't pass a background check to get a job, visit with people who spent time in prison for a low-level marijuana conviction whose lives have been changed forever, talk to a State-legal business owner or employee who faces armed robberies or threats of violence due to all the cash they have since the business can't access the banking system.

The House is acting again this week to urge the Senate to finally pass meaningful cannabis reform legislation. As this body knows, my SAFE Banking Act has passed the House six times now without any Senate action, with big bipartisan numbers. The House will pass the MORE Act this week. It is clear Congress needs to reform our broken cannabis laws to better respond to the 37 States across the country that have some level of legal marijuana use.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 6833, and I acknowledge Ms. Craig and Mrs. McBath. I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but right now people are dying because they are apportioning or putting in proportion their insulin that they need--not taking the full amount, but doing it proportionately. That is a death sentence.

Let me indicate: Native Americans, 14.7 percent diabetic; Hispanic, 12.5 percent; Black Americans, 11.7 percent. Many of them are on Medicare and many of them are on Medicaid. We can do both. I do rise to support this legislation--$35 in 2023, regardless of whether a beneficiary has reached the annual out-of-pocket spending; $35 beginning in 2024.

It is well-known that those who had diabetes suffered more with COVID-19. This is an important step. In the 18th Congressional District uninsured residents paid 23 times more for the brand of insulin, and we must begin to work on that. I join with my colleagues in making that the next step. I rise for this.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support the new response to marijuana, and to insist that we pass the MORE Act that came out of my subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee.

Public support for legalization of marijuana has surged in the past two decades. A total of 47 States have reformed their laws. We must reform the banking aspect of it. We need to open the door to research, therapeutic treatment for veterans, better banking and tax laws, and we need to help fuel the economic growth within the industry.

We need to do this by sending dollars out to help our respective communities bring down the cost of crime, be able to

help those who are in business. We must do this and spend Federal resources to end criminalization, build the economic engine, and to ensure that we are in step with 47 of our States.

Thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the Federal criminalization of marijuana with mandatory minimums, particularly Black and Brown. All these persons incarcerated need to be able to be constructive, but they are in there on the false war on drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I support both the insulin bill and the MORE Act, and I ask my colleagues to support the underlying rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Rule governing House consideration of H.R. 3617, the ``Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021,'' or the ``MORE Act of 2021.''

The Rule that is being considered is carefully crafted and provides Members of the House an opportunity to address the existing conflict between federal and state laws regarding marijuana, or cannabis, and to provide reasonable solutions to resolve this conflict.

The bill is straightforward and responds to the need to leave the question of the legality of cannabis to the individual states while attempting to restore and reinvest in communities that have been ravaged by the War on Drugs.

Specifically, the bill decriminalizes cannabis on the federal level, provides a taxation structure for the sale of cannabis that will support a community reinvestment trust fund, and provides for expungement of convictions and arrests for federal cannabis offenses.

The Rule provides for debate and full consideration of the solutions and opportunities for cannabis reform offered by H.R. 3617 by the Congress.

The subject of the bill is public knowledge and well known by members of this body.

I have worked to provide sensible reforms to our criminal justice system.

Our outdated federal laws and policies unwisely require the expenditure of scarce law enforcement resources on cannabis offenses while conflicting with many states' laws regarding cannabis.

Cannabis does not fit the definition of a Schedule One drug and federal law must be updated to reflect this reality--just as most states have already begun to do.

Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam have adopted laws allowing medical use of cannabis.

Eighteen states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have adopted laws for legalizing cannabis for adult recreational use.

As public support for the legalization of marijuana has surged in the past two decades, a total of 47 States have reformed their laws in one form or another pertaining to cannabis, despite its federal criminalization.

We need to open the door to research, therapeutic treatment for veterans, better banking and tax laws, and we need to help fuel economic growth within the industry.

We need to do this without continuing to spend federal resources on criminalization and unjust incarceration for marijuana offenses.

Thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the federal criminalization of marijuana, particularly in black and brown communities.

These individuals have borne the burden of collateral consequences that have damaged our society across generations--such as the denial of affordable housing, educational opportunities, employment, and the right to vote.

Meanwhile, the laws enacted for the purpose of perpetuating the ``War on Drugs'' have led America to imprison more people than any other country.

The Rule allows the House to address these historical wrongs by voting on H.R. 3617.

I thank the Committee on the Judiciary, on which I serve, for the work it has done to bring H.R. 3617 to the floor for a vote.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of the Rule and the underlying bill H.R. 3617.

Mr. Speaker, I rise also to speak in strong support of the Rule governing House consideration of H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act.

The Rule that is being considered is well crafted and provides Members of the House an opportunity to address an urgent need of constituents who require life saving insulin.

The bill is simple and gets to the urgent need to limit cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Specifically, the bill caps cost-sharing under private health insurance for a month's supply of selected insulin products at $35 or 25 percent of a plan's negotiated price (after any price concessions), whichever is less, beginning in 2023.

The bill caps cost-sharing under the Medicare prescription drug benefit for insulin products at: $35 in 2023 regardless of whether a beneficiary has reached the annual out-of-pocket spending threshold, and $35 beginning in 2024 for those who have not yet reached this threshold.

The Rule provides for debate and full consideration of the benefits offered by H.R. 6833 by the Congress.

The subject of the bill is public knowledge and well known by members of this body.

I have worked closely with the healthcare community that serve Houstonians to ensure that programs are receiving the appropriate level of federal support.

One of the most difficult challenges are the hurdles to healthcare created by lack of health insurance such as a lack of access to necessary medications due to the high costs of many prescription drugs.

Diabetes is a life-threatening disease that disproportionately affects communities of color.

Diabetes is associated with serious health problems, including heart disease and stroke, kidney failure, and blindness.

There are 15,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the Eighteenth Congressional District who have been diagnosed with diabetes.

These individuals are my constituents and I know that on average, each of them pays 4.8 times the cost of similar medication in Australia, 3.6 times the cost in the United Kingdom, and 2.6 times the cost in Canada.

Additionally, in the Eighteenth Congressional District, 26.7 percent of residents are uninsured.

For example, an uninsured resident of this congressional district pays 23 times more for this brand of insulin than their counterparts in Australia, 15 times more than they would in the United Kingdom, and 13 times more than they would in Canada.

The consequences of these staggering costs are not benign.

Many patients often speak of having to make heart-wrenching decisions about what to buy with the commonly fixed incomes attendant to seniors.

Many medical professionals indicate that the high prices for prescription drugs are a function of a lack of competition, and authorizing Medicare to create a program to negotiate drug prices may be an estimable way to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

All told this reflects a disturbing trend: in our country, the cost of branded drugs tends to go up, whereas in other countries, the costs tend to go down.

Before insulin the prognosis for diabetics was bleak.

Over the past two decades, manufacturers have systematically and dramatically raised the prices of their insulin products by more than tenfold--often in lockstep.

In 2017, diabetes contributed to the death of 277,000 Americans--and was the primary death for 85,000 of those individuals.

That same year diagnosed diabetes cost the United States an estimated $327 billion--including $237 billion in direct medical costs and $90 billion in productivity losses.

Diabetes drugs, including insulin and oral medications that regulate blood sugar levels, play a critical role in helping people with diabetes manage their condition and reduce the risk of diabetes-related health complications.

Although insulin is the most well-known diabetes medication, diabetes patients are often prescribed other oral drugs to use in place of or alongside insulin.

Many of these non-insulin products used to regulate blood sugar levels are brand drugs that lack generic alternatives.

In recent years, the high prices of diabetes drugs have placed a tremendous strain on diabetes patients as well as the federal government, which provides diabetes medications to more than 43 million Medicare beneficiaries.

Because Medicare lacks the authority to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers, Medicare beneficiaries pay significantly more for their drugs than patients abroad.

Patients who are uninsured or underinsured and must pay for their drugs out of pocket bear an even greater cost burden.

The Rule allows the House to address this urgent need by voting on

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are here to consider House Resolution 1017, a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6833 and H.R. 3617. This rule makes in order no Republican amendments, completely ignoring the flaws of each underlying bill and the thoughtful concerns raised by my colleagues. Not only do my colleagues not want to debate these issues, but they also don't appear to even want to acknowledge them.

First, I want to address H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would require health insurers to cover selected insulin products without applying any deductible or imposing any cost-sharing in excess of $35.

This bill is just a partisan exercise that will only reshuffle the decks for how patients pay for insulin. It is not a serious attempt to address rising prices. The price controls in this legislation would be an expansive intervention into the free market and will most likely lead to an increase in premiums for everyone.

Let's not forget, one of the reasons drug prices are rising is because of Washington and the majority's runaway spending leading to the greatest deficits in American history. Instead of admitting that their wildly expensive spending bills have caused inflation, my colleagues claim that companies have suddenly decided now is the time to raise prices arbitrarily.

Congress cannot keep dumping money into the economy and then blaming American companies for the problems it creates. We need to be focusing on getting our debt under control and stop the war on American industry so that we can reduce prices not just on drugs but on everything.

Furthermore, addressing only insulin establishes a problematic precedent and fails to take into account the high prices associated with countless other necessary drugs, like those for cancer, heart disease, and a slew of other conditions.

A sincere attempt by Congress to solve this problem would be to focus on ways to reduce pricing through market-based forces. For example, Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have offered several proposals which would improve price transparency so that Americans could see the real cost of their drugs and make choices accordingly.

Instead of working with Republicans to advance these solutions, the majority has yet again elected a go-it-alone approach that has yet to achieve any results for the American people.

Next is H.R. 3617, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, a broad bill that would remove pot from the list of scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act and eliminate criminal penalties for individuals who manufacture, distribute, or possess marijuana. This rule makes no Republican amendments in order, which is proof that the Democrats just want to push this bill as a messaging bill.

That said, there are several concerns with this bill. First, it fails to set any standards to prevent marijuana use by those most vulnerable to abuse: minors. In fact, back in September, when Mr. Fitzgerald offered an amendment to alter the definition of the term ``minor'' to align with other provisions of U.S. Code, the majority voted against it.

Without this amendment, crucial protections for our youth are left out of this bill. In committee, I even offered a motion to consider an amendment that would maintain existing penalties for selling pot to minors. It was defeated along party lines, a stunning position for Democrats to take.

But not only does this bill legalize pot; it creates a new government program to assist people in opening pot stores. Let me repeat that: This bill creates a government program to help people open pot stores.

This bill also ignores the issue of driving under the influence, even though driving under the influence of marijuana can have deadly consequences, something law enforcement officers across America have warned about.

Additionally, what happens if an illegal immigrant is arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana? This is not addressed.

Republicans on the committee sought to ensure that this bill would not impede the deportation of illegal immigrants who have been arrested for driving under the influence. That was also rejected along party lines.

There are so many issues our constituents are facing today. Yet, we are here, spending time considering legislation to legalize pot that is not only flawed, but it is also dangerous.

We could be working on lowering gas prices, tackling the snowballing Federal debt, or addressing the inflation affecting every American today. But instead, I guess the majority wants us to get as high as today's gas prices and spend tax dollars on pot stores.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bill. I ask Members to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and Congressman Westerman's American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, while the majority is continuing to prioritize things like legalizing marijuana, constituents in my district continue to send me photos of their energy bills and the prices they are paying at the gas pumps.

Since President Biden took office, gasoline prices are up by more than 50 percent, natural gas is up more than 25 percent, and diesel fuel is up more than 47 percent. These price increases are on top of crippling, record-high inflation that is a tax on the American people of every stripe, class, and creed.

When adjusted for these factors, wages and salaries are below prepandemic levels. My constituents are pleading with Congress to focus on this issue and are being ignored by the out-of-touch majority.

Mr. Speaker, to speak further on the previous question, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern).

Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Massachusetts and the entire body in congratulating Ms. Fields on her retirement and thank her for her service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. Speaker, the American people should be asking-- no, they should be demanding--that this body address energy independence. But the majority refuses to hear or even discuss the Republican solution that we have been talking about. Instead, we do have before us today a bill to legalize pot.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

No, I do not, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to be disappointed in the priorities of my colleagues. They have chosen to spend precious time that could be spent addressing the national debt, inflation, gas prices, or any number of serious issues facing Americans today. Instead, they chose to talk about legalizing marijuana and spending tax dollars on pot stores-- which does not take into consideration important elements like how to protect minors or how to address laws surrounding driving under the influence--and an insincere attempt to address the rising cost of insulin.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bills, I ask Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Nadler, ranking members, this is an important piece of legislation. How do I know that? Because the people have told us that.

Every time they have had the opportunity to vote in America, they have voted to do this. They know that filling our prisons and creating criminal records for people who use marijuana--and knowing full well that if they are people of color, the possibilities of adverse consequences are geometrically greater.

I tell my colleagues, I am tired of hearing this argument that, ``Oh, my goodness, we are doing this. We ought to be doing something else.''

We are all working on issues of great concern not only to us but to the global community: on the war in Ukraine; on the criminal activities that Putin is subjecting us to; on inflation, a critical problem for all of our people. We are working on that. We are having trouble getting some legislation in the Senate

that will bring down inflation and bring down costs for the American people--not on our side of the aisle.

So, when I hear this argument, ``Oh, we ought to be doing this. We ought to be doing that. We ought to be doing the other,'' this is an important, fair piece of legislation, fair for the American people.

I thank Chairman Nadler. I thank the Judiciary Committee. I thank Members on my side of the aisle. I thank Barbara Lee, who is walking down the aisle right now, who has worked so hard on this.

Why did she work so hard on it? Because she knows the extraordinary unfairness of the application of existing laws. You don't have to argue that. Just look at the statistics, and you find that to be the case.

Chairman Nadler has long been a champion of decriminalizing marijuana and addressing the systemic injustices and inequities resulting from the war on drugs. I was a supporter of the war on drugs. I have been here a long time.

The gentleman who spoke about this as a gateway drug, it is not a gateway drug. I have been convinced of that.

Marijuana has been legalized in 19 States. That is 40 percent of our States, save one, and the District of Columbia. Medical marijuana is legal in 36 States. This is not out of the ordinary. This is what the American people tell us they think is the appropriate thing to do.

Now, for some in this House, those who are treated with inequality, particularly in this area, you are on your own. Make it out for yourself. We are not going to address it because we have other issues.

Of course, we have other issues, and we pass bills on those-- unfortunately, not with much support from the other side of the aisle.

Despite the changes in State laws and social norms around the usage of marijuana, its use remains illegal under Federal law. The gentleman who is presiding over the House today comes from a State that has said that is not good policy. Now, that is not some wacko coastal State. It is Colorado.

Despite changes in State laws and social norms, as I have said, its use remains illegal under Federal law, often resulting in devastating consequences. Hear me, my colleagues: devastating consequences for Black, Latino, and Native communities.

Now, I am not any of those. I would tell you, when I was in college in the 1800s, it was alcohol. We were not the generation of drugs; it was alcohol. It devastated the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of young people. But nobody cried out to make it illegal. They tried that, of course, in the twenties.

According to the Center for American Progress, Black Americans are four times more likely than White Americans to be arrested for marijuana possession, even though they use it at similar rates.

The gentleman who spoke asked why we are dealing with this. For the same reason our Founders said that we believe in equality, that all men--and they surely would add women today--are created equal and ought to be treated fairly and equally. Four times more convictions and prosecutions for people of color--that is why we are dealing with this, because it is unfair in America.

Those criminal records can haunt people of color and impact the trajectory of their lives and careers indefinitely. I regret that there are some Members of our Congress who apparently think that is not worthy of attention.

It can result in difficulty in finding employment, difficulty in finding housing, denial of access to government benefits, denial of financial aid at colleges and universities, and denial of the right to vote. That is why we are dealing with this, because the adverse consequences to people are substantial and negative, and negative not only for them but for our country.

The legislation before us would remove marijuana from the list of scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, allowing our police departments--which we want to fund, by the way, so get off that line that we want to defund the police--allow our police departments to focus on serious crimes. The legislation before us would remove marijuana from that list.

The bill already, by the way, includes a requirement that a study will be conducted to understand the societal impacts of decriminalizing marijuana, including the impact on juveniles, education, transportation, veterans, employment, and many others.

This bill also expunges the records of individuals convicted of nonviolent--let me repeat that--nonviolent cannabis offenses and provides resources for job training, reentry services, and youth recreation and mentoring programs.

Now, if you take the position that all of these people are on their own and want no help from us or get no help from us, then perhaps you don't care.

This bill also addresses the disproportionate economic impact of the war on drugs by providing access to small-business grants, opening up the legal marketplace to communities that have been largely excluded.

This bill is a matter of justice and equal opportunity. It is about addressing systemic inequities and reforming our criminal justice system so that Americans and America can become a better, stronger, more fair, and more just America.

That is why we are spending time on this bill today.

I thank my friend one more time, Chairman Nadler, for his leadership on this bill. I also thank Mr. Neal for helping us get this bill to the floor. I also thank Barbara Lee, my dear friend.

Barbara Lee and I have been working for some years now on how to lift people out of poverty into the middle class. We talk a lot about the middle class, and the way you grow the middle class is to let people who aren't in it in it so they can contribute to making a better, stronger America.

This bill will help that because it will take the stigma away from four times as many people of color being stigmatized by our laws.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, support this bill. The people of Mississippi supported this bill when they went to the polls and voted--not on this bill, that is not accurate--but on the decriminalization of marijuana, because they knew that it was neither necessary to be criminalized, and they knew the adverse impacts.

I don't ask you to support something the people of California did or the people of New York, or even Maryland, but think about supporting the people of Mississippi, who voted on a policy that would make a fair and more just America.