Volume 161, No. 40 covering the 1st Session of the 114th Congress (2015 - 2016) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S1385-S1388 on March 10, 2015.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
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 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.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up