Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Solomon).

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, as a survivor of cancer twice in my lifetime, let
me put to rest this business that marijuana is needed to take care of pain
of cancer victims. Marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug and should
not be legalized for medical use or for any other use.

Let me just tell my colleagues as a 20-year Member of this Congress, I
fought for States' rights more than any other Member on this floor.

{time} 1345

This is not a States' rights issue. The illegality of marijuana is a
national law, and State laws do not override national laws. I urge all
States' righters to come over here, as I am going to do, and vote "yes'' on
this legislation.

I find it very disappointing that medical marijuana referenda will appear
in five states this November. Nevada, Alaska, Washington, Arizona, and
Oregon all have proposals to legalize marijuana as a medicine. This is a
sham. The FDA has repeatedly rejected marijuana for medical use because it
adversely impacts concentration and memory, the lungs, motor coordination
and the immune system.

Why would you give a drug, which has been scientifically proved to weaken
the immune system, to a sick person? I think we know the answer to that
question and it has nothing to do with compassion!

The simple truth is that the organizations promoting the legalization of
this dangerous drug--NORML and the Drug Policy Foundation--are
intentionally exploiting the pain and suffering of others as part of their
backdoor attempt to legalize drugs.

I agree with Drug czar Barry McCaffrey's recent statement, "This is not the
time to use ballot-box ploys to make this drug more readily available.
Instead, it is time to pay attention to the science-based information
already available about the consequences of marijuana use.''

While the people promoting the legalization of drugs would have you believe
that this approach is a viable alternative to the war on drugs it is
nothing more than a foot in the door to the legalization of all dangerous
drugs.

Listen very carefully to what Lee Brown--the former Drug Czar and an
African-American himself--said about the effect of legalization on the
African-American community.

He said, ``When we look at the plight of many of our youth today,
especially African-American males, I do not think it is an exaggeration to
say that legalizing drugs would be the moral equivalent of genocide.'' -
The moral equivalent of genocide!

He goes on to state, "Making addictive mind altering drugs legal is an
invitation to disaster for our communities that are already under siege.
Without laws that make drug use illegal, some experts estimate that we
could easily have three times as many Americans using illegal drugs. The
proponents of legalization would have us believe that crime would go down
if drug use was legal, but an honest look at the facts belie this argument.''

Mr. Brown went on to state that ``statistics tell us that almost half of
those arrested for committing a crime test positive for the use of drugs at
the time of their arrest. Making drugs more readily available will only
propel more individuals into a life of crime and violence.

Contrary to what the legalization proponents say, profit is not the only
reason for the high rates of crime and violence that are associated with
the drug trade * * *. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful--to both
body and mind.''

The message is very, very clear. * * * Those who can least afford further
hardship in their lives would be much worse off if drugs were legalized.

Crude marijuana contains over 400 different chemicals. Safer and more
effective medications are preferred by physicians. We need to support this
resolution and reject those who make empty promises to patients with
chronic illnesses.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.

I have listened carefully to the debate and it occurs to me that those who
have been speaking against the resolution have not read it. They have been
attacking various public policy positions that some people in America might
or might not hold, but they have not been mentioning the resolution. The
resolution itself is very, very clear, it is very straightforward, and it
is indeed entirely consistent with Proposition 215 in California.

The resolution says the following. First, it declares that Congress
continues to support the existing Federal legal process for determining the
safety and efficacy of drugs. That is the law, it is the existing Federal
law, and a vote against this resolution, then, is to take the position that
Congress no longer supports the existing Federal legal process for
determining the safety and efficacy of drugs.

The second thing that the resolution says is that the Attorney General, the
Department of Justice, in other words, shall submit to the Congress a
report, a report on the efforts of the Clinton administration to enforce
existing laws. Now, perhaps the Congress does not want to know whether or
not the administration is enforcing existing laws; perhaps the minority
does not wish to know that because the administration has a pretty sorry
record on that score.

In 1992, President Bush committed $1.5 billion to drug interdiction. In
1993, President Clinton cut $200 million out of that effort and rolled back
significant other involvement by the Coast Guard, the U.S. Customs, Border
Patrol and the National Guard. He then further cut his own Anti-Drug Policy
Office from 146 persons down to 25. In 1993 and 1994, out of 2,600 speeches
and interviews, President Clinton did not speak more than 2 dozen times on
the topic. Under President Clinton's watch, marijuana use among youths has
more than doubled, more than doubled during the Clinton administration.
President Clinton and Vice President Gore and their FDA have raised a lot
of hell about tobacco smoking, and that is important, but the FDA cares
only about whether or not there is tobacco in that cigarette. Go ahead and
put marijuana in it, and that is a different score.

What we are interested in with this resolution is where is the FDA when we
put something besides tobacco in a cigarette? The FDA went out of its way
in order to claim jurisdiction which Congress had not explicitly given it
over tobacco to determine that a cigarette is a medical device. Now, that
strains the lexicon a bit, but nonetheless, they made that determination. A
cigarette

[[Page H7723]]

is a medical device and, therefore, the FDA has jurisdiction under our FDA
statutes over tobacco. Well, surely, then, if a cigarette is a medical
device, the FDA has jurisdiction over marijuana when put in a cigarette and
smoked. But the FDA has done nothing to determine the safety and efficacy
of marijuana for medical uses.

It is already the law that doctors can prescribe marijuana to sick
patients, and that is not what we are talking about here. But what we do
wish to do is get the FDA to focus as much as they are focused on tobacco
on what happens when we put marijuana in those cigarettes.

Mr. Speaker, the last thing that the resolution does is it asks the FDA,
the Commissioner of foods and drugs, to submit to the Congress a report on
the specific efforts underway to enforce existing law. That is the entirety
of what this resolution does, and a vote against this resolution is a vote
against either 1 or all 3 of those things, a position which is untenable if
one takes as seriously smoking marijuana as one takes smoking a tobacco
cigarette.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say
there is one part of this resolution that specifically affirms the FDA's
current rules for determining not just the safety of a drug, but efficacy.

So if one votes for this and if one has told people in their district that
they think the FDA has been too restrictive on certain kinds of drugs, if
one thinks they have been too much interfering with people's rights to make
their own choices without regard to safety, understand that this resolution
contradicts it. Because one of the specific things in this resolution is an
explicit endorsement of the rules of the FDA, not just regarding safety,
but efficacy.

Now, I know Members have written in and said, oh, yeah, the FDA has been
too harsh on this drug and too harsh on that drug. I know Members have told
people that they think the FDA has been too restrictive. Understand that
this resolution is not just about marijuana; this is an explicit
endorsement of current FDA procedures for dealing not only with safety, but
efficacy, telling people that the FDA will tell them whether or not they
can take a certain substance, even if it is not going to do them any harm.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this questionable
election year resolution. I do so as one who chose personally to never
experiment with marijuana, either inhaling or not inhaling, and who shares
the professed concerns of the supporters of this resolution that we do
nothing to glamourize the recreational use of marijuana.

I think that the gentleman from California has just made 2 points that
deserve further consideration. One is he suggests that we read the
resolution. I have. Not all of the electioneering in the early ``whereas''
clauses, but what this resolution actually does. All that it does is to ask
the Attorney General for some data which a phone call or one 32-cent stamp
would probably produce.

The other thing it does is to place Congress on record in telling the
States that they ought not to pass anymore initiatives on this subject. I
suggest that is going to be about as meaningful as them getting up and
making this list of speeches this afternoon as far as the views of people
in the individual States.

The gentleman from California also makes an important comparison between
marijuana and tobacco. This House has chosen to do absolutely nothing about
a much more addictive drug, that being nicotine, that threatens the lives
of thousands of our young people each day. This House has chosen, though
there have been many statements to the contrary, including by the Speaker,
that we have chosen to avoid an opportunity to deal with the very serious
public health problem that addicts 3,000 more young people every day to
nicotine; it has chosen to avoid that. The only way it has addressed that
issue was the unsuccessful attempt last year to pass a $50 billion tax
break for the tobacco companies.

But on the specific issue of marijuana use for medicinal purposes, it seems
to me that the basic difference that we have on this issue is whether to
entrust that decision to the scientific community, to the medical
community, or repeatedly to turn to Dr. Newt. I think that if someone has a
serious cancer, a serious case of glaucoma, one of the other uses for which
medicinal use of marijuana has been recommended, I would like them to
determine whether they might be saved some serious pain and suffering that
no other kind of medication attempts to relieve, not based on my opinion,
not based on Dr. Newt's opinion, but based on their doctor and their
scientific community as to whether this is an appropriate way to reduce the
pain and the suffering that that person has.

I note that the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected
publications in the medical community in this country, and a number of
oncologists in this country seem to believe that this substance has some
benefits, and for this Congress to mingle politics into medicine is a
mistake. But perhaps it was put best by a Florida woman who successfully
uses marijuana to treat glaucoma in her eye who said, ``You cannot outlaw
compassion, self preservation, or survival.'' That is what is proposed as
we inject here on the eve of the election Dr. Newt in a medical decision.

Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The Chair would point out that
Members should not refer to other Members by their first names.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House joint
resolution 117, the sense of Congress on marijuana, and I commend the
sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for
bringing this measure to the floor at this time.

In recent years, promoting so-called medicinal uses for marijuana has taken
hold in several States. In 1996, the voters in both California and Arizona
passed referendums in defiance of the Federal law permitting the use of
marijuana as a medical device primarily for pain relief.

This resolution, a result of several committee hearings and intensive
research, expresses the sense of the Congress that marijuana contains no
plausible medicinal benefits and that it is, in fact, harmful to the smoker.

Specifically, the resolution restates congressional commitment to keep
marijuana on the roster of Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act and
requests 2 reports, one from the Attorney General, on the amount of
marijuana seized and destroyed, as well as the number of marijuana
prosecutions from 1992 through 1997; and secondly, from the Commissioner of
the Food and Drug Administration on the efforts to enforce current laws
prohibiting the sale and use of Schedule 1 drugs.

Mr. Speaker, the number of adolescents who have used marijuana has doubled
since 1993. It has been well established that marijuana is a gateway drug,
the use of which often leads to more serious drug consumption such as
heroin and cocaine use. These trends need to be reversed.

Moreover, I believe that it is important for Congress to take a firm stand
on the issue of medicinal use of marijuana. This is a poor cover for the
larger issue of drug legalization. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to
strongly support this worthwhile resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would point out that the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. McCollum) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has 7 minutes remaining.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul), a real doctor.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am a physician, I am a parent and I am a
grandparent, and I am convinced that drugs are a very, very serious problem
in this country, not only the illegal ones, but the legal ones as well.
Just last year, 106,000 people died from the legal use of drugs. We are
drug dependent, on the illegal drugs and on the legal tranquilizers. That
is a major problem.

[[Page H7724]]

But I have also concluded that the war on drugs is a failed war and that we
should be doing something else. I might point out that the argument for the
use of marijuana in medicine is not for pain. To say that it has not
relieved pain is not what this is about. Marijuana has been used by cancer
patients who have been receiving chemotherapy who have intractable nausea.
It is the only thing they have found that has allowed them to eat, and so
many cancer patients die from malnutrition. The same is true about an AIDS
patient. So this is a debate on compassion, as well as legality.

But the way we are going about this is wrong. I am rather surprised in our
side of the aisle that champions limited government and States' rights,
that they use the FDA's ability to regulate nicotine as an excuse and the
legal loophole for the Federal Government to be involved in marijuana. I
might remind them that 80 years ago when this country decided that we
should not have alcohol, they did not come to the Congress and ask for a
law. They asked for a constitutional amendment realizing the Congress had
no authority to regulate alcohol. Today we have forgotten about that. Many
of my colleagues might not know or remember that the first attack on the
medicinal use of marijuana occurred under the hero of the left, F.D.R., in
1937. Prior to 1937, marijuana was used medicinally, and it was used with
only local control.

The Federal controls on illicit drugs has not worked and it is not working
when it comes to marijuana. Once again, we have States saying, just allow
the physician the option to give some of these people some marijuana.
Possibly it will help. I think the jury is still out about how useful it
is. But for us to close it down and say one cannot, and deny some comfort
to a dying patient, I do not think this is very compassionate one way or
the other.

The war on drugs has been going on now for several decades. We have spent
over $200 billion. There is no evidence to show that there is less drug
usage in this country.

{time} 1400

I have a program designed, which I cannot present here, that will change
our policy and attack the drugs in a much different way.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Souder).

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe, at a time when this entire
Nation is abuzz about what kind of moral leadership is coming out of
Washington, that we even have to consider this resolution.

In my hometown in Fort Wayne and throughout northeast Indiana and
throughout this country, kids are dying in the streets, they are dying in
automobile wrecks, they are getting shot down as innocent bystanders in
drug wars, most of which started in some kind of combination of cigarettes,
alcohol, and marijuana.

We have seen a lowering in attitudes about the positive usage of
cigarettes. We need to make more gains on alcohol. But we have seen a
reversal in the trends on marijuana, partly because the leaders of our
country have not spoken out as strongly.

The last thing we need in this House are Members of Congress using the word
simultaneously with medicinal use of marijuana when what they actually mean
is a component inside marijuana, THC, and giving the implication that
somehow this is a medicine, at a time when young people are becoming more
lax in their attitudes and in their usage.

Directly to make this point, in California, it is not for cancer patients.
It also can be used for such things as memory recall, writer's cramp, corn
callouses. It was a back doorway in California and Arizona and other places
where misleading commercials were run, funded predominantly by a man named
George Soros and two of his allies who have poured $15 million over 5 years
into this to oppose the war on drugs.

Among his statements in Time Magazine was, ``I do want to weaken drug laws.
I think they are unnecessarily severe. The injustice of the thing is
outrageous.''

The director of Soros' Lindesmith Center said, it is nice to think that in
another 5 to 10 years the right to possess or consume drugs may be as
powerfully and widely understood as other rights of Americans.

We are at a moral crossroads in this country. The question is, where do we
in Congress stand? Are we going to work to protect our kids in this
country, or are we going to weaken these laws that we have tried to uphold?

I am very concerned about this trend, and I hope the Members of Congress
understand the moral responsibilities of this office.

(This is part two of three parts)

Checked-by: Richard Lake