Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, while I was glad to hear my friend express such indignation at
the large amounts of money George Soros is spending in a referendum, that
is the first support we have heard from that side for campaign finance
reform, at least in principle.

Of course we have people on that side who think spending unlimited amounts
of money is a good thing when they agree with the cause. It only becomes
bad when they disagree with the cause.

That is where we are with States' rights. The gentleman from New York who
spoke on the left said he was for States' rights, and that is true. I can
say now that I know this Republican majority very well. They are for the
right of any State to do anything they agree with. But let a State diverge,
and that State is going to be spanked.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) who spoke is a little embarrassed,
perhaps, because there is a resolution that talks about how dumb his own
State is. He said, well, there is nothing in this resolution which
criticizes the State.

That is only partially a good description. It is the case, and I will give
the majority this, they did recognize that the resolution that they put
through committee was a little too explicit in spanking the State.

The Committee on the Judiciary passed a resolution calling the States all
kinds of names in effect, and telling the States not to do this, and
wagging their finger at the States. They get a little embarrassed about it,
but I am going to put it in the Record anyway, Mr. Speaker, because I think
people ought to know what they were really trying to get at.

So then they cleaned it up some. But they did leave in this telling phrase,
``Congress opposes efforts to circumvent this process.'' They are talking
about California's referendum. What effort is that? To circumvent the
process. So this resolution does say to the States, "Naughty, naughty. How
dare you differ with us?''

The fact is it also goes on to say, and I think this is important for
Members to understand, this is not just about marijuana, Congress continues
to support the existing Federal legal process for determining the safety
and efficacy of drugs, all drugs.

I know there have been Members on both sides who have been questioning
whether the FDA ought to have the kind of control it has where efficacy is
involved. We all believe the FDA should say that is not safe.

Indeed, this Congress passed a bill, I think it was sponsored by the
gentleman from Utah and, I know, our former colleague, the gentleman from
New Mexico, recently which relaxed FDA control. There were others who
wanted to relax FDA control further.

If my colleagues have told constituents that they want to relax some FDA
rules on determining efficacy, and if they vote for this resolution, they
better write them an apology, because they have just undercut that statement.

The final thing I want to say, in addition to saying that it seems to be
that States ought to be able to make some decisions in this matter, and
this resolution is clearly an effort to stop the States from deviating from
whatever the national orthodoxy is, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) who
spoke made a very important point. People get up and they talk about how
terrible the drug problem is and then talk about the importance of
continuing our current policy approach.

There is a great inconsistency here. When we talk about poverty, public
housing, welfare, we have a tendency to have people look at the amount of
money spent, then look at the fact that the problem has, if anything,
gotten worse, and say therefore we must stop. That method of analysis has
turned on its head for drugs.

[[Page H7725]]

There is a real problem in the way we have fought drugs. Obviously trying
to diminish drug use particularly, but not only among young people, ought
to be a very high public policy goal. But this current extremely punitive
approach, this current approach of not differentiating in this between
marijuana use for medical purposes and drugs that are instantly mind
altering doesn't work. It undercuts.

One Member complained about the diminution of funds for interdiction.
Interdiction seems to me a prime example of money wasted. Given the scope
of this country, the size, the commerce, the people who come and go,
physically keeping out terribly small amounts of things is fruitless
compared to money that could go into law enforcement, that could go into
prevention, that could go into education.

So what we have here is the latest, as the previous resolution was, the
latest endorsement of more of the same, and a failed policy, a policy that
says you can shoot drugs out of existence, you can outlaw them. It did not
work for alcohol. It would not work for tobacco. This approach of being
exclusively punitive and not allowing any differentiation does not work here.

The document referred to above is as follows:

Referral to the Committee on Commerce extended for a period ending not
later than March 18, 1998.

Committee on Commerce discharged; referred to the House

Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug and should not be legalized for
medicinal use

Whereas certain drugs are listed on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances
Act if they have a high potential for abuse, lack any currently accepted
medical use in treatment, and are unsafe, even under medical supervision;

Whereas the consequences of addiction to Schedule I drugs are well
documented, particularly with regard to physical health, highway safety,
criminal activity, and domestic violence;

Whereas marijuana--which along with crack cocaine, heroin, PCP, and more
than 100 other drugs, has long been classified as a Schedule I drug--is
both dangerous and addictive, with research clearly demonstrating that
smoked marijuana impairs normal brain functions and damages the heart,
lungs, reproductive, and immune systems;

Whereas before any drug can be approved as a medication in the United
States, it must meet extensive scientific and medical standards established
by the Food and Drug Administration, and marijuana has not been approved by
the Food and Drug Administration to treat any disease or condition;

Whereas a review by the Annals of Internal Medicine of more than 6,000
articles from the medical literature evaluating the potential medicinal
applications of marijuana concluded that marijuana is not a medicine, that
its use causes significant toxicity, and that numerous safe and effective
medicines are available, which means that the use of crude marijuana for
medicinal purposes is unnecessary and inappropriate;

Whereas on the basis of the scientific evidence and the testimony of the
American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the National
Multiple Sclerosis Association, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the
National Eye Institute, and the National Institute of Drug Abuse, marijuana
has not met the necessary standards to be approved as medicine;

Whereas the States of Arizona and California, through State initiatives in
1996, legalized the sale and use of marijuana for 'medicinal' use, while
the State of Washington in 1997 rejected an initiative to legalize the sale
and use of marijuana for 'medicinal' use;

Whereas after the initiative in Arizona, the legislature of the State of
Arizona, with the support of a majority of the citizens of the State,
passed legislation to prevent the dispensing of any substance as medicine
which had not first been approved as medicine by the Food and Drug
Administration, thereby preventing marijuana from being dispensed in the
State;

Whereas these States and a majority of States in the United States, as well
as the District of Columbia, have been targeted by out-of-State
organizations which advocate drug legalization for 'medical' marijuana
initiatives in 1998 and 1999, and these organizations have provided the
majority of the financial support for these State initiatives;

Whereas some individuals and organizations who support 'medical' marijuana
initiatives do oppose drug legalization, prominent pro-legalization
organizations have admitted their strategy is to promote drug legalization
nationally through State 'medical' marijuana initiatives, and, as such, are
seeking to exploit the public's compassion for the terminally ill to
advance their agenda;

Whereas marijuana use by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders declined steadily from
1980 to 1992, but, from 1992 to 1996, such use dramatically increased--by
253 percent among 8th graders, 151 percent among 10th graders, and 84
percent among 12th graders--and the average age of first-time use of
marijuana is now younger than it has ever been;

Whereas according to the 1997 survey by the Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 500,000 8th graders began using
marijuana in the 6th and 7th graders;

Whereas according to that same 1997 survey, youths between the ages of 12
and 17 who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those
who abstain from marijuana and 60 percent of adolescents who use marijuana
before the age of 15 will later use cocaine;

Whereas the rate of drug use among youth is linked to their perceptions of
the risks which are related to drugs and, in that regard, the glamorization
of marijuana and the ambiguous cultural messages about marijuana use are
contributing to a growing acceptance of marijuana use among adolescents and
teenagers;

Whereas surveys taken in the wake of State `medical' marijuana initiatives
indicate a more approving attitude toward marijuana use among teenagers
than prior to the initiatives; and

Whereas the evidence of the last 2 years indicates that the more the public
learns about the facts behind the `medical' marijuana campaign, the more
strongly opposed the public become to such initiatives: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) the United States House of Representatives is unequivocally opposed to
legalizing marijuana for medicinal use, and urges the defeat of State
initiatives which would seek to legalize marijuana for medicinal use; and

(2) the Attorney General of the United States should submit a report to the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives before the end
of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the adoption of this
resolution on--

(A) the total quantity of marijuana eradicated in the United States
beginning with 1992 through 1997; and

(B) the annual number of arrests and prosecutions for Federal marijuana
offenses beginning with 1992 through 1997.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has expired.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time that I may have.

Mr. Speaker, THC, the active ingredient for medicinal purposes in
marijuana, is available widely as a prescription drug known as Merinol for
pain and other purposes, that doctors can prescribe anywhere in the United
States today.

Unfortunately, smoke marijuana is dangerous to your health. The American
Medical Association believes that, the National Institutes of Health
believes that, and numerous other organizations, including the American
Cancer Society, believe that.

I do not have the scientific expertise, but I have listened to them. I am
convinced it is dangerous; that it means those who are HIV- positive will
turn AIDS-symptomatic twice as fast if they smoke marijuana regularly than
those who do not.

I do not think that any of us want to see smoke marijuana made legal
anywhere in this country for any purpose at all that is going to be
detrimental to your health, especially when the Food and Drug
Administration has never approved it as a drug and where no doctor in this
country can prescribe it in the traditional meaning of the word
``prescription'' because the FDA never approved it.

That is what prescription means. Every drug in the history of this country
today, modern times, has to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration
before a doctor is allowed to prescribe it. Marijuana cannot be prescribed
without FDA approval. FDA has refused again and again and again to approve
it in the smoke form.

I encourage my colleagues to adopt this resolution that says simply that we
oppose efforts to circumvent the process by legalizing marijuana and other
Schedule I drugs for medicinal use without valid scientific evidence and
the approval of the Food and Drug Administration, because to do otherwise
is a back doorway of legalizing marijuana. That is all there is to it.

A vote for this resolution today is a vote for the normal process of the
Food and Drug Administration approval and doctors' prescriptions being
required before any use as medicine. A vote against this resolution is
frankly a vote to legalize marijuana for all purposes, because that is what
would happen if we were not to use the traditional processes.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, Americans take their medicine in pills, shots,
sprays, solutions,

[[Page H7726]]

drops, creams, and suppositories * * * but no medicine in the United States
is smoked.

Proponents of marijuana argue that our compassion for those suffering
physical ailments should override our common sense and steadfastness in
combating illegal drugs.

With regard to cancer, proponents argue that marijuana will decrease the
nausea associated with chemotherapy. The Truth is that marijuana contains
cancer-causing substances, many of which are in higher concentrations than
in tobacco. The National Cancer Institute reports that new drugs have been
shown more effective than marijuana.

With regard to AIDS, proponents argue that smoking marijuana will relieve
the physical wasting aspects of the disease. The Truth is smoking, whether
tobacco or marijuana or crack cocaine, has been shown to increase the risk
of developing bacterial pneumonia in HIV-positive immune-compromised patients.

After 30 years of research, we know that marijuana impairs learning and
memory, perception and judgement. It impairs complex motor skills and
judgement of speed and time. Among chronic users it decreases drive and
ambition.

Finally, marijuana use among our young people is increasing * * *
alarmingly so. From 1992 to 1996, marijuana use increased by 253 percent
among 8th graders, 151 percent among 10th graders, and 84 percent among
12th graders.

We should not let our compassion for the terminally ill and those in
chronic pain to deceive us into treating a dangerous drug as medicine.
Support the resolution opposing marijuana as medicine.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my
remarks.

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a non-binding resolution that would
express the sense of the Congress that because marijuana is a Schedule One
controlled substance, and therefore an illegal drug, then its use for
medicinal purposes should be prohibited. This is absurd. Medical use of
marijuana is a public health issue; it is not part of the war on drugs.
Marijuana has been proven to relieve the pain and suffering of seriously
ill patients. It is unconscionable to deny an effective medication to those
in need.

It would seem that the Speaker of the House and the distinguished Chairman
of our own Crime Subcommittee once agreed with that position. In 1981,
Representative Newt Gingrich and Representative Bill McCollum, co-sponsored
H.R. 4498, a bill introduced by the late Congressman Stuart McKinney, that
would allow the medicinal use of marijuana. In 1985, Chairman McCollum
again co-sponsored H.R. 2282, a bill reintroduced by Congressman McKinney,
which would have allowed the medicinal use of marijuana. I, along with many
others, would be very interested to learn why our colleagues changed their
minds.

Mr. Speaker, prestigious groups such as the National Academy of Sciences,
the American Public Health Association, and the British Medical Association
have endorsed the medical use of marijuana. I would like to refer my
colleagues to an article that was published by the Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA, June 21, 1995-Vol. 272, No. 23) for more
detailed information regarding the legislative and medical history
regarding the medicinal use of marijuana.

Most recently, a National Institutes of Health report released in August of
1997 urged the federal government to play an active role in facilitating
clinical evaluations of medical marijuana. More than 30 medical groups,
including the ones I have previously cited, have endorsed prescriptive
access to marijuana, under a physician's supervision. Several medical
groups, including the American Medical Association and the American Cancer
Society have endorsed a physician's right to recommend or discuss marijuana
therapy with their patients.

Several published studies have found that the best established medical use
of marijuana is as an anti-nauseant for cancer chemotherapy. In addition,
these same studies have found that medicinal use of marijuana has helped in
treating patients with glaucoma, chronic muscle pain, multiple sclerosis,
epilepsy, spinal cord injury, and paraplegia. Tens of thousands of cancer
and AIDS patients use medical marijuana, and they report that it is
effective in reducing the nausea and vomiting associated with cancer and
AIDS treatment. In a 1990 survey, 44 percent of oncologists said they had
suggested that a patient smoke marijuana for relief of the nausea induced
by chemotherapy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the question of a state's right to
implement policy that the voters of those states have supported. Many
states have held, or are planning to hold, state referenda on the use of
medical marijuana. Two states, California and Arizona, have successfully
passed legislation to allow the prescribed use of marijuana for medicinal
purposes. The voters of these states have spoken and in our democratic
system they must be respected. Those on the other side of the aisle seem to
constantly remind us of the power of big government over the ability of
states to make their own policies. Who is championing big government now?
Where are all the state's rights supporters on this issue?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, permitting the medical use of marijuana to alleviate
the pain and suffering of people with seriously ill conditions does not
send the wrong message to children or anyone else. It simply says that we
are compassionate and intelligent enough to respect the rights of patients
and the medical community to administer what is medically appropriate care.
It is time for this Congress to acknowledge that a ban on the medicinal use
of marijuana is scientifically, legally, and morally wrong.

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to H.J. Res. 117.
The voters of California have showed their support for allowing doctors to
recommend marijuana for seriously ill patients by voting for the state's
Proposition 215 in November 1996. House Joint Resolution 117 attempts to
infringe upon the decisions of California citizens by expressing Congress'
opposition to the medicinal use of marijuana. While I did not support the
California initiative, I oppose this resolution which attempts to nullify
their choice.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 117 because this
bill accomplishes nothing in the war on drug abuse other than highlight the
misplaced emphasis of the country's anti-drug efforts. The bill seeks to
tell voters how to cast their votes, and disregards the votes of over five
million people in my state. It focuses on arrests and prosecution rather
than education and treatment as the answer to drug abuse. And it seeks to
make criminals of people in pain because of serious illnesses. This is no
war on drugs. It is political grandstanding.

H.J. Res. 117 disregards the proven medicinal uses of marijuana, including
increasing the appetites of people with AIDS who have wasting syndrome, and
reducing nausea and vomiting resulting from chemotherapy.

Opponents of medicinal marijuana argue that there are other ways to ingest
the active ingredient in marijuana, including the use of synthetic THC.
However we know that the oral drug containing THC does not work for all
people. The logic of the authors of this legislation therefore seems to be
that a very ill person should be sent to jail because he or she used the
smokable form of a drug whose active ingredient is currently licensed for
oral use.

Voters in my home state passed an initiative authorizing seriously ill
patients to take marijuana upon the recommendation of a licensed physician.
Proposition 215 has provided as many as 11,000 Californians who suffer from
AIDS and other debilitating diseases with safe and legal access to a drug
that makes life a little more bearable. Fifty- six percent of the
electorate voted for Prop 215. The voters have spoken, and there is no need
for federal intrusion on this matter. Thousands of constituents in my
district struggling with AIDS and cancer will tell you that choosing the
appropriate medical treatment should be a decision for public health
officials, physicians and patients. Congress would do well to stay out of
the prescription business.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when we can pass truly effective
measures to address drug abuse in our country. According to the Legal
Action Center, over half of federal drug control spending is dedicated to
the criminal justice system, and only 18% goes to drug treatment. To
effectively fight the war on drug abuse we must get our priorities in order
and fund treatment and education. Today's legislation, which encourages
making criminals of seriously ill people who seek proven therapy, is not a
step towards controlling America's drug problem. I therefore oppose H.J.
Res. 117.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) has expired.

The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 117), as amended.

The question was taken.

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the Chair's
prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

Checked-by: Richard Lake