Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment that is included in this en bloc. My amendment strikes section 241, which requires foster care and adoption agencies to comply with Obama-era regulations on sexual orientation and gender…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment that is included in this en bloc. My amendment strikes section 241, which requires foster care and adoption agencies to comply with Obama-era regulations on sexual orientation and gender identity and prohibits the use of funds to grant exceptions.
Section 241 is an attack on religious liberty. Similar provisions allowed the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to refuse a contract with Catholic Social Services unless they certified same-sex couples as foster parents.
My amendment ensures that faith-based adoption and foster care agencies do not have to choose between their ministry and their faith. It is tyrannical for the government to force these entities to choose between the two.
It is our job in Congress to uphold our constitutional right of religious freedom. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment strikes section 316.
Under current law, universities are already allowed to conduct research on marijuana as long as the university gets approval from the Drug Enforcement Agency and buys the marijuana from the University of Mississippi, the DEA's approved provider.
Additionally, universities are currently required to comply with the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act which prohibits universities from unlawfully manufacturing, distributing and dispensing, or possessing a controlled substance. A violation of this law would result in a loss of Federal funding.
Democrats want to change all of this. Section 316 allows universities to skirt these requirements.
If universities are allowed to engage in cannabis growing and research without any safeguards, who is to say that this provision would not permit universities to offer a class called Pot Smoking 101, dedicated to smoking pot under the false pretense of research.
Pushing for marijuana research in universities also fails to account for the fact that because marijuana is a schedule I drug, Federal law requires certain safeguards, including a limited-access room and a specific storage safe for the drug.
My amendment allows for the withholding of Federal funds if universities fail to implement these necessary safeguards. An appropriations package is, quite simply, not the place for debate on a legalization of or looser restrictions for marijuana.
My colleagues across the aisle are using this partisan package as a roundabout way of legalizing marijuana without having any meaningful debate about its classification as a schedule I drug or the effects that the drug has on Americans' health.
This appropriations package should not be an opportunity to push an agenda without meaningful debate about the consequences of legalizing a schedule I drug.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Speaker, universities are already allowed to do research on marijuana as long as they follow DEA and other safety guidelines.
The problem with inserting section 316 is it takes away those safeguards,
so I would say that there should be no concern that my amendment will stop research in universities.
In fact, universities are allowed to do it now and will continue to do it, even if my amendment passes. It just is the case that right now, there are safeguards. There has to be safeguards around a schedule I drug, and if this bill, without my amendment, is passed, the safeguards will be gone and that is the problem.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.