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…
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, I reserve the balance of my time.
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.