FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE (March 26, 2019 – Hagåtña)

Please see the transcript of Senator Therese Terlaje’s session remarks regarding Bill No. 32-35 (COR).

“It has been an almost surreal experience, the past few days since last Friday we have been in this legislative hall and over the weekend as well with constituents discussing nothing but gambling and marijuana. A part of me felt a little sad. It’s as if we had no other dreams for our children on our beautiful island or pursuit of any other priorities or industries.

I have reviewed carefully the testimony and the comments to the petition submitted in favor of this new bill and it is my assessment that many, maybe even up to 75% of those asking us to pass this bill today are really after cannabis for their medical or psychological health purposes and frustrated that the medicinal marijuana program is delayed. I have been in full support of Guam’s current laws authorizing medicinal cannabis for our cancer patients and others suffering from illness, and the Legislature has passed legislation for work-arounds to implemented medicinal cannabis which improved the law that was passed by referendum.

The new Director of DPHSS, who was confirmed less than a month ago at our first legislative session, held a briefing on March 18, just 8 days ago, on the medicinal marijuana law, and she promised that DPHSS would focus and finally do its part after years of inaction to get the program in place asap. She proposed a budget of approximately $800,000 to begin to shore up the medicinal cannabis program and she made a concrete recommendation that the Legislature remove the residency restrictions on lab owners so that Guam can attract an off-island investor for the required lab. A lab or cannabis testing facility was found necessary by the people of Guam for the protection of patients. I would think that it is also necessary to protect recreational users as well.

But today in this bill we are asked to take a huge departure from the medicinal cannabis approach and legalize cannabis for all purposes for anyone over 21. I support decriminalizing marijuana. I support the current government of Guam policy that already allows the possession of marijuana, that de-prioritizes the prosecution of marijuana offenses, that expands treatment courts instead of jail time for drug offenses. This is what other states like Vermont have done in legalizing marijuana. But way beyond legalizing it, we are asked in a very short time period to pass this bill to stand up a retail marijuana industry, including cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution, at the same time protection of our children from access to this substance, protection of our roads from further tragedy due to impaired driving, protection of our people from pesticides, poison, dependency and other harm from the use. This is a much bigger task than agreeing that precious government resources will not be used for prosecution of marijuana cases, or that our prisons and court system would not be overcrowded due to marijuana infractions. Changing course to a retail marijuana industry is a task that involves a myriad of public policy decisions along the way, and a lot of work in advance of implementation. Most importantly, it requires and necessitates the consensus of the community for its success, and it requires dedication by our government agencies, the enforcement agencies whom we will be leaning and relying on even more than we do today. We as a community can and must determine the best ways to do this given the restrictions we face under federal law, our unique political status, what we have learned from other jurisdictions, and by keeping focus on what we hope for our children along the way. The key for me, however, is that this switch to a retail industry is something that in every other jurisdiction in the U.S. except for Vermont and the CNMI, was done with consensus of the residents, as evidenced by a referendum. I do not necessarily think we need a referendum if a consensus is readily apparent, but it does appear as it stands today that a consensus is not readily apparent in our community.

The fact is that this bill is opposed by many, some are veterans, some are older, some who have committed their lives to law enforcement, the judicial system, public health, behavioral health. Some are nonprofit advocates against disease and abuse. Some from the generation who built Guam from rubble, who built our economy to what it is today while resisting fast cash of gambling, and other industry, and who have sacrificed and persevered through hardship and preserved for us the beauty of what Guam is today.

The author of the bill, when motioning for its adoption on Friday, stated that any legislator who wants a referendum or to refer the bill back to committee to flush out the details is a coward, not a problem-solver. I have heard on talk shows hosts say that anyone who doesn’t vote in favor of this bill as is, is an obstructionist, and would not get his support. I have been sent emails from my some of my closest younger friends, partners in the promotion of CHamoru culture and the arts, advocates in the change of status for Guam, protectors of ancient villages and our beautiful natural resources, fighters for justice and the cleanup of past contamination, who claim that they do not have a debilitating or painful illness, but marijuana is so important and necessary in their lives on a daily basis and they did not want to feel like criminals for using it, that if I did not vote for this bill as is I was simply not a leader, and they and their friends would never support me again. This line-drawing, the pitting of our community against each other, and a division over a simple substance not even native to Guam, in the face of destruction of thousands of acres of limestone forest and native medicinal plants, in the big picture, is, to me very perplexing.

This bill is a huge policy change, a risk, and significant resource shift that requires respect for all in our community, and additional opportunity for them to be heard, and for them to hear and gain confidence in what the proponents of this bill have been convinced of, that passage of this bill will not exacerbate what they legitimately fear because of what they have lived through, the very real and devastating impacts of drug use on our families, loss of identity, lack of inspiration and role models for our youth, that the industry will spiral out of control due to the inability of our current government to regulate and plan, and react as necessary to the impacts. These elder generations are not stupid, are not cowards. It is they who have built us up, who when heroin and ice ravaged our island, dealt with the painful consequences. I believe they are entitled to be comfortable with our decision, to be fully informed, to be paid respect. It is part of our job here to bring the community along with us, to show them that they can trust us to hear them, and we CAN reassure them if we work harder at it and stick to facts instead of threats or rushing, if we actually get our agencies involved and approach this in a concerted way, step by step, instead of the politically expedient passing a bill that passes the buck and then the benefits of the industry be held in abeyance or operate in chaos for years while the agencies scramble without resources to deal with the mess.

I have read the bill over and over, and I want acknowledge that some of the best that we can learn from other jurisdictions from their adoption of recreational cannabis has been incorporated in this bill such as:

• restricting the use for only adults age 21 and older
• restrictions on the amount of marijuana and marijuana plants that can be possessed for personal use
• not allowing marijuana to be consumed in public or for the marijuana plants to be enclosed in a locked place
• not allowing driving under the influence of cannabis
• restricting the display of cannabis items visibly to the general public from a public right of way
• involving different government agencies in the Cannabis Control Board

I want to assure all the advocates in our community that have worked so hard to educate themselves and the rest of us, that I have read all the material sent in the committee report, and those sent to me by email or text message and done a lot of research on my own of course with the assistance of my staff. I don’t think it I could have done it by myself which I think is significant for us at the Legislature. However, as evidenced by the various commissions and advisory boards mandated to continuously assess the implications for their jurisdictions, I think it is fair to say that there remain many unknowns in this relatively new industry and certainly unknowns for this industry on Guam. Requiring that two agencies come up with rules and regulations for the entire government is unrealistic and I’m glad we included more on the Board. We should take the time we need and use all experts in the government and beyond to truly determine the executive branch’s collective vision and ability to implement a retail cannabis industry on Guam at this time. This bill was introduced on January 31 and had its first and only public hearing on March 7, although there were two on that day, but the bill that was reported out did not incorporate any of the suggestions made during that public hearing. Only two government agencies testified at the hearing, the Department of Revenue and Taxation who was neither in support or against but said they are up for the challenge of their role in this industry and Department of Agriculture who said they support the bill.

Since the hearing, the Guam Visitors Bureau has asked for 2 months to complete a study of potential response from their top Asian markets, instead of merely relying on the hypotheses of some of the marijuana proponents that our tourism industry will flourish, or that we should rely on Colorado tourism to predict changes in Guam tourism. Should we also rely on the changes in Colorado’s homeless populations to predict an increase in Guam’s homeless population? We have heard from the news that the Governor supports the bill, “in concept.” Yet, the committee report after the hearing is devoid of any input or review of the bill from our public health institutions and experts, our behavioral health institutions and experts who will undoubtedly bear the burden of protecting our youth from the adverse effects of marijuana on their young brains, protecting our residents and tourists from poisoning from pesticides or other harmful products, protecting our families from drivers that are impaired, and we must ensure that we do not impede or detract from the time and resources the government of Guam has already dedicated in critical fights against effects from smoking tobacco, alcohol consumption, high incidence of disease, all while dealing with federal restrictions. These agencies will no doubt be brought in to work on the rules and regulations but without advanced assurances of support from this Legislature. I have also noticed that the Social work community, normally very clear advocates for programs that they believe will help those in need in our society, has been silent on this bill.

Colorado’s recreational marijuana industry law was not enacted overnight. It came after four years of active medicinal marijuana policies and tweaking, after two years of decriminalizing the use and allowing home growing of marijuana. It incorporates studies and data to track its progress. Colorado’s electorate were asked whether to transition from medicinal to legal recreational marijuana and asked again whether to transition to retail marijuana industry. Still, a review of Colorado’s program by Public Health experts points to a lack of baseline data and suggests that any other jurisdiction thinking of similarly legalizing marijuana first conduct pre-implementation baseline studies of its residents in order to accurately assess changes caused after enactment.

Since July 1, 2018, recreational use of marijuana has been legal in Vermont. The law allows people age 21 and older to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and also two mature and four immature plants per household. Despite the revenue being generated by Colorado and Washington, Vermont did not immediately adopt retail sales. In December 2018 they finalized a report regarding moving forward with retail sales, recommending a 20% excise tax and $1M be set aside to study the effects of cannabis use, and their Governor has promised to hold off on any retail sales until highway safety measures can be agreed on because there is no clear scientific way currently to measure impairment to driving by cannabis or cannabis in conjunction with alcohol or other drugs.

We have a consensus in our community on medicinal use. It took other states years to effectively implement their programs, and we know that a lab is crucial. We can and should pursue a testing facility immediately. It took some states like Hawaii years to effectively implement their medicinal cannabis programs, and we should not be discouraged but work harder under our new agency directors and our new governor. We also have a consensus in our community to decriminalize and remove penalties for possession of marijuana, to alleviate the judicial and law enforcement systems from marijuana cases. Where we must work to gain consensus is in the details of how a retail industry will move forward, how it will be regulated effectively despite program after program on Guam that is ineffectively regulated, other taxes that are ineffectively collected, and protections for our youth that are currently not in place or not up to par. This is the hard work of this Legislature and the Executive Branch, which must include transparency and deliberation along the way.

I am very thankful that debate on this bill has I think made some excellent improvement in the bill. It is my experience that collaboration always makes things better here on the floor and out in the community. I have utmost respect for my colleagues and the hard work already put into this, however I would move that this bill be moved back to committee with all of the amendments intact for future input from GVB and executive branch agencies who will be tasked with upholding and regulating this new industry. So that we are not surprised after passage from departments like DYA and most especially that we can hear from the Department of Public Health and Social Services and Guam Behavioral Health and Wellness Center before we put it to a final vote. And so I especially ask that on this motion all the amendments be left intact because I do recognize that the bill has been improved I believe and that there has been a lot of hard work put in but GVB has asked for a mere a couple months so they can get their data back and so I would ask my colleagues to consider that motion madam Speaker.”

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE (March 21, 2019 – Hagåtña)

Senator Therese Terlaje’s Bill No. 27-35 (COR) that will require the timely publication of environmental violation notices and settlement agreements on the Guam Environmental Protection Agency’s website and require regular reporting of these notices and agreements to the GEPA Board of Directors was unanimously passed by the 35th Guam Legislature.

Bill 27-35 requires the online publication of Notices of Violations, Orders of Compliance, Notices of Defense, Voluntary Compliance Agreements, Settlement Agreements and Referrals to the Office of the Attorney General for Prosecution, allowing the public to follow the enforcement process from start to finish.

“By increasing agency transparency, we are prioritizing active participation by the public in their government and ultimately making agencies and their boards accountable for the level of enforcement that our entire community is depending on,” stated Senator Therese Terlaje.

Please see the transcript of Senator Therese Terlaje’s opening remarks and closing remarks during today’s session regarding Bill No. 27-35 (COR). 

Opening remarks on Bill No. 27-35 (COR)

“Bill No. 27-35 if passed into law will require the online publication of environmental violation enforcement documents and the timely reporting of these documents to the Guam EPA’s Board of Directors.  It will specifically mandate that all Notices of Violations, Orders of Compliance, Notices of Defense, Voluntary Compliance Agreements, Settlement Agreements, and Referrals to the Office of the Attorney General for prosecution will be published online no later than 15 days from service and those documents will also be reported to the Board of Directors at the next scheduled regular Board meeting. These documents are already public documents and they are subject to the FOIA requests.  The bill would also amend the EPA enabling statues to include all of their mandates so that the publication mandate would apply to all of EPA’s current enforcement duties including the Guam Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Toxic Substances Exposure Compensation Act, the Water And Wastewater Operators Mandatory Certification Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Guam Lead Ban Act, the Environmental Pollution Control Act, the Guam Oil Spill Responder Act, the  Choose to Reuse: Munga Ma Ayek I Plastek Act of 2018, the Underground Storage of Regulated Substances Act, the Above Storage of Regulated Substances Act. I would like to thank Guam EPA’s public information officer Nic Rupley for his testimony at the public hearing in support of the bill and the Administrator Leon Guerrero’s written testimony and feedback from Guam EPA and its legal counsel the during the drafting of this bill. I would also like to thank the co-sponsors Senator Sabina Perez and Senator Clynt Ridgell for their support and for the committee’s support in moving this forward. The bill is consistent with Guam EPA Board’s recently adopted policy that would put violations online. I wholeheartedly support EPA’s efforts towards transparency and open governance, and I ask that my colleagues do the same by increasing agency transparency especially in these enforcement agencies.  We are hoping to build the trust of the public and prioritize active participation by the public in protecting the environment and ultimately making agencies and their Boards accountable for the level of enforcement that our entire community is depending upon. Si Yu’os ma’åse’.”

Senator Joe San Agustin, Senator Amanda Shelton, Senator Kelly Marsh Taitano, and Vice Speaker Telena Nelson also provided remarks in support of the bill during session.

Closing remarks on Bill No. 27-35 (COR)

“I’d like to thank my colleagues for their really well-thought-out remarks on the bill.  It’s true madam Speaker that this bill was introduced because of events that had occurred in the past where the public was shocked to find out what the penalties were for violations. In looking more closely at how that could occur, we have to understand that we have given these agencies – they are regulatory agencies – we have given them great discretion, a great power, and also a great discretion to impose penalties also to enforce.  But along with that they have some discretion whether the violator responds quickly and suitably or efficiently and for different factors.  They give different penalties and so we’ve given them a range of penalties and so I agree with prior speakers that we want EPA to be harsh with their penalties because we want it to be a deterrent.  We also want the discretion to be less personally based versus actual system-based.  And I think, now, they do have factors that they evaluate in determining penalties and that’s the other reason why the Board is now going to get notice of all of these different actions promptly because the Board is there for oversight of an administrator and with changing administrators the Board should always be in the know and be able to act if they think the discretion was not to their liking.  I thank again my colleagues and the Committee Chair for their support of this bill.  Si Yu’os ma’åse’.”

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE (March 14, 2019– Hagåtña)- Senator Therese M. Terlaje introduced Legislative Resolution 71-35 (COR), which expresses the support of the 35^th Guam Legislature for the passage of H.R. 1713, the “Lonnie Kilpatrick Central Pacific Herbicide Relief Act,” introduced today by Guam Delegate Michael San Nicolas and Florida Representative Gus Bilirakis.

H.R. 1713 seeks to correct injustice, clarify the eligibility of affected veterans, and expedite the processing of veteran claims of health conditions caused by Agent Orange exposure on Guam, American Samoa, Johnston Atoll or while serving in the territorial waters thereof.

Terlaje’s Resolution 71-35 (COR) further implores Congress to correct injustice by resolving the numerous health care needs of civilians exposed to Agent Orange on Guam.

“I want to thank Guam Delegate San Nicolas and Florida Representative Bilirakis for introducing this bill in Congress on behalf of the veterans who served in Guam. I am also deeply grateful for the advocacy of the Agent Orange Survivors of Guam Veterans’ group and the Military-Veteran Advocacy, Inc., who were instrumental in getting this legislation introduced. Their pursuit of justice for Mr. Kilpatrick, our Veterans and the people of Guam is admirable and greatly appreciated.

The Department of Defense continues to deny the existence of Agent Orange on Guam, despite the overwhelming testimony from veterans and residents. However the VA and the Court of Appeals have recognized in several cases, service connection associated with Agent Orange exposure on Guam,” stated Terlaje.

The late Lonnie Kilpatrick was a Navy veteran stationed on Guam in 1971-1972, who later in life, suffered from heart disease, kidney cancer and skin conditions he believed to be connected to Agent Orange exposure on Guam. Kilpatrick, who had never been stationed in Vietnam, recalled living near a jungle area on Guam that was sprayed at night and had turned brown by the next morning. For seven (7) years, the Veterans Administration denied Kilpatrick’s claim before a reversal in April 2018, granting him service connection associated with Agent Orange exposure on Guam.