TEXT OF HOUSE DEBATE ON HINCHEY-ROHRABACHER

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

[Page: H4735] GPO's PDF Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I have two
amendments at the desk having to do with the medicinal use of
marijuana. I understand that the first one has been allocated 10
minutes and the second one has been allocated 20 minutes, is that correct?

The Acting CHAIRMAN. That is correct.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may used by
the Department of Justice to prevent the States of Alaska,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Nevada,
Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from implementing State laws
authorizing the use of medical marijuana, and the Attorney General
shall transfer from available appropriations for the current fiscal
year for the Department of Justice any amounts that would have been
used for such purpose but for this section to ``Drug Enforcement
Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', for the Drug Enforcement
Administration to assist State and local law enforcement with proper
removal and disposal of hazardous materials from illegal
methamphetamine labs, including funding for training, technical
assistance, a container program, and purchase of equipment to
adequately remove and store hazardous material.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's
amendment.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.

Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment was to reallocate funding
in this bill away from the prosecution of the use of marijuana for
medicinal purposes in those 11 States where either the legislature or
the people of those States by referenda have decided that they would
like to have marijuana use for medicinal purposes under the
supervision of a licensed physician in those 11 States, to have it
moved from there to the enforcement of methamphetamine violations.

My understanding is that the chairman is going to insist on a point
of order, saying that this is legislating on an appropriations bill.
Am I correct about that?

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has reserved a point of order.

Mr. WOLF. I reserved the point of order.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't know why there would be a point of
order against this amendment, because it seems to me that we have the
ability to make these kinds of decisions now. This is not legislating
on an appropriations bill. It is simply moving one appropriation for
one particular purpose to a better purpose.

[Begin Insert]

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, regardless of how you have voted in the
past, there are two critical developments since the last vote that
make compelling arguments for a ``no'' vote on the Hinchey Amendment
to the SSJC Appropriations bill. The Hinchey Amendment would deny law
enforcement agencies Federal funds to enforce the Controlled
Substances Act in those States where `medicinal' marijuana is legal
under State law.

First, the FDA in April of this year confirmed that there is no
research to sustain the supposed ``medicinal value'' in smoked
marijuana. On April 20, 2006, the FDA stated, ``A past evaluation by
several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies,
including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and National Institute
for Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded that no sound scientific studies
supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United
States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy
of marijuana for general medical use.'' Furthermore, the ``FDA has
not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease indication.''

Second, research from a 25-year longitudinal study by the
Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Services showed that
regular or heavy marijuana use was linked to a wide range of other
illicit drugs and to a dependence or abuse of these other illicit drugs.

The research concluded that ``following tight statistical controls,
there is a clear tendency for those using cannabis to have higher
rates of usage of other illicit drugs. This tendency is most evident
for regular users of cannabis, and is even more marked in adolescents
than in young adults.'' These researchers, using the most robust
longitudinal database in the world, show what we have long
suspected--marijuana is a gateway to even more dangerous drugs of abuse.

A handful of states have legalized smoked marijuana for medical
claims. Not only are patients being given an ineffective, unapproved,
and even harmful drug, but also one that is illegal under Federal law.

Time and time again, research has demonstrated the harmful effects of
marijuana. According to Dr. Nora Volkow, the Director of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), marijuana ``can produce adverse
physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral changes, and--contrary to
popular belief--it can be addictive. Marijuana smoke, like cigarette
smoke, can harm the lungs. The use of marijuana can impair short-term
memory, verbal skills, and judgment and distort perception. It also
may weaken the immune system and possibly increase a user's
likelihood of developing cancer. Finally, the increasing use of
marijuana by very young teens may have a profoundly negative effect
upon their development.''

It is of the utmost importance that law enforcement be able to
protect this country from dangerous drug trafficking, including
marijuana. Join us in opposing the Hinchey amendment.

[End Insert]

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in any case, I respect the chairman's
decision; and, with that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act to the
Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States of Alaska,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Nevada,
Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from implementing State laws
authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those States.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member
opposed each will control 10 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with two things: It has to do
with compassion, compassion for people who are very seriously ill
and/or dying, and the ability of States in which those people live to
provide means by which their suffering can be relieved.

It also has to do with one other point, and that is the issue of
States' rights, the ability of the States to determine how medical
care will be regulated in those States.

We have 11 States in our country, Mr. Chairman, that have determined
that it is in the interests of the people of those States that they
be allowed to use marijuana for medicinal purposes to alleviate the
suffering from such things as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and multiple
sclerosis: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana,
Rhode Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. However, the
Federal Government has decided that they are going to intervene and
prevent those States from carrying out the laws which were passed in
two cases by the State legislatures and in nine cases by referenda by
the people of those States.

We will hear from the people who oppose this amendment that marijuana
has something to do with a gateway drug. In other words, it
introduces people to other drugs. This amendment has nothing
whatsoever to do with that. This amendment has nothing to do with
drug addiction. This amendment has nothing to do with the potential
for drug addiction. This amendment simply has to do with the ability
of States to relieve the suffering of their citizens without Federal
intervention and the right of States to pass

[Page: H4736] GPO's PDFlaws regulating medical practice without
Federal intervention. It is a very simple amendment, and it ought to
be passed. Those people here who believe in small government should
support it. Those people here who believe in the issue of States'
rights ought to support it. And those people here who believe that
State governments and the people in those governments have the right
to take care of their citizens and alleviate their suffering, those
people in this House ought to support this amendment as well.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIRMAN

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind our guests in the gallery
that demonstrations of either approval or disapproval are not appropriate.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10
minutes in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Hinchey amendment.

Let's be clear: Marijuana is not harmless, as some claim. It is a
schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning it has
no accepted medical use in treatment and has a high potential for
abuse. In fact, marijuana continues to be the most widely abused drug
in the United States.

Those who anecdotally claim that marijuana has a medical benefit do
not differentiate between THC and whole marijuana. Whole marijuana
contains hundreds of chemicals, many of which are harmful to one's
health. An evaluation by several Federal agencies concluded that no
sound scientific studies supported marijuana's medical use, and
smoking marijuana is not approved as a legitimate medical use by the FDA.

The bottom line is, marijuana is an addictive substance that is
linked to cancer and respiratory ailments and problems with the
immune and reproductive system.

Let me say as a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free
America, marijuana is the drug that will tell whether or not someone
is going to get on methamphetamines. It is the precursor, the gateway
drug, for heroin use. As we continue to fight this battle against
illegal drug use, this is the drug that gets people started.

Anyone who is trying to send a message to our young people today
should be embarrassed by having an amendment like this, because this
is telling people that this is okay, that it is socially acceptable,
that you can start here and it won't hurt you. And, in fact,
medically, scientifically, that is dead wrong.

The message we are sending to our children today is very strong.
Whether we support legal use of marijuana as a precursor to
methamphetamines, to heroin, this is the message we will be sending
if we approve this. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against
this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the cosponsor of this
amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment. Our amendment would prohibit any funds
made available in this act to the Department of Justice from being
used to prevent the implementation of legally passed State laws in
those 11 States authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Our coalition of freedom-minded Republicans and Democrats on this
issue is based on compassion for those who are suffering, a
commitment to personal liberty and a firm belief in the principles of
federalism.

[Time: 16:45] The use of marijuana to relieve the pain of victims of
a wide variety of medical conditions is well known and increasingly
documented in the media and in medical journals. For many of these
people, medical science has not been able to relieve their pain.

Just recently a friend of mine and a friend of many years passed
away, Lyn Nofziger, and many of you here probably know him. He was
Ronald Reagan's first press secretary. I went to see him after he got
out of the hospital with his treatments for cancer.

He had his good days and his bad days. I saw him about a week before
he died. And I asked Lyn about it, and he said, yes, sometimes it is
bad, and other times it is not, but I could not get myself to eat,
and I had the pain no matter what they did for me.

And I said, well, did you ever try that medical marijuana that we
have been talking about and debating about? And he got a twinkle in
his eye, and he said, yes, I did. And it brought my appetite back,
and I slept like a baby. Do not tell me that we should have Federal
law enforcement people come into a State where the people have voted
to approve that if a doctor agrees and get in the way of Lyn Nofziger
or anyone else who is suffering and use Federal money and Federal
resources that should be going to fight crime in order to create that obstacle.

That is a travesty. Individuals who live in the 11 States affected by
the amendment have been granted by the voters of these States the
legal right to use marijuana to alleviate their pain if a doctor
agrees. If the voters have so voted and a doctor agrees, it is a
travesty for the government to intercede, the Federal Government,
allocating our scarce resources to fighting this, getting in the way
of someone using something to alleviate their suffering.

This is something which should be left to the States as American
tradition dictates. Sandra Day O'Connor stated it best, and she
stated that States should serve as a laboratory so that people can
try certain new ideas out to see how they work.

Well, the Federal Government should not get in the way of what is
going on in these 11 States to see how this works. The most recent
decision of the Supreme Court has thrown the ball into the hands of
the U.S. Congress. Paul Stevens, Justice Paul Stevens, made it clear:
the voices of the voters may one day be heard in the Halls of
Congress on behalf of legalizing marijuana. Eleven States have already acted.

I would hope you would all join us for the principles of federalism,
compassion and individual liberty and not get in the way of the
people who are suffering.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 1
minute to the gentleman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we have people out there, not just Lyn
Nofziger but others, and my mother suffered. I remember how she lost
her appetite after suffering a debilitating disease in which she had
to go through treatments.

This is a travesty to use scarce Federal resources. Join this
coalition of people who are Republicans and Democrats who believe in
federalism, who believe in compassion and believe in personal
liberty. Let doctors prescribe these things, not Federal Government
bureaucrats.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the authors of this amendment. I simply
want to say this: If I am terminally ill, it is not anybody's
business on this floor how I handle the pain or the illness or the
sickness associated with that illness.

With all due respect to all of you, butt out. I did not enter this
world with the permission of the Justice Department, and I am
certainly not going to depart it by seeking their permission or that
of any other authority.

The Congress has no business telling people that they cannot manage
their illness or their pain any way they need to. I would trust any
doctor in the country before I trust some of the daffy ducks in this
institution to decide what I am supposed to do if I am terminally ill.

The idea that somehow this is a gateway that we are creating for a
drug like meth is a joke. I detest meth. I have seen what it does. It
is a plague on my district. It is especially horrendous in the
midwest, and it is getting worse every day. That has nothing
whatsoever to do with the management of pain and misery for people
who are sick and who are dying.

When is this Congress going to recognize that individuals in their
private lives have a right to manage their problems as they see fit
without the permission of the big guy in the White

[Page: H4737] GPO's PDFHouse or the big guy in the Justice Department
or any of the Lilliputians on this Congressional floor? Wake up. Mr.
WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me
time and for the privilege to address this issue.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the other Member from Iowa (Mr.
Latham) that the Food and Drug Administration has classified
marijuana, along with heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, hashish and a
number of other drugs, as Schedule I drugs. That is because they
carry a high potential for dangerous abuse.

And so doctors in most States even prohibit them for being prescribed
for medicinal purposes. That is a standard. That is the national
standard. The issue was raised about States' rights. But no one has
raised the issue about States' rights about the other drugs that are
Schedule I drugs.

But we do have a right, a constitutional right and an obligation to
regulate drugs in America. The question really is, is marijuana among
them? And it is. And so we would be seeking to, by this amendment,
usurp that decision and change that standard.

But with regard to the addictive nature of marijuana, I am looking at
a study here that says that if adults started at a fairly young age,
say by the time of 26 or older, they used marijuana before the age of
15, 62 percent reported a lifetime cocaine use, 9 permanent reported
lifetime heroin use, and 54 percent reported nonmedical use of
psychotherapeutics. And this does not include methamphetamines, which
is abused more than any of these drugs that I mentioned here.

So this is a high use issue. It is also something that infringes upon
or inhibits our ability and our reflexes with regard to driving. So,
for example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
reports that marijuana use has been shown to impair driving
performance. These things we know.

Then with regard to the gentleman from California's statements about
he could not, that Mr. Nofziger could not get himself to eat, if that
is our issue, then let us focus on the synthetic THC that is now
available. It is available in a drug by the name of Marinol, and it
has been proven to be effective, especially dealing with cancer
patients and with the nausea associated with the chemotherapy
treatments and also with the appetite, that might help assisting the
appetite with AIDS patients.

There is a way that we can use the THC, and there is a way also that
we can protect this country against that kind of Schedule I drug.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Four and a half minutes.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Hinchey-Rohrabacher-Paul-Farr amendment.

Mr. Chairman, every year we bring this amendment to the floor. So far
it has never passed. Some may ask, well, why are we doing this again?
Well, the answer is because of the statements that have been made
already by Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Obey about compassion for people who
are suffering.

We offer this amendment for terminal cancer patients, for AIDS
victims, for persons who suffer chronic pain. We offer this amendment
not only to protect those people; we offer this amendment to protect
these States that are progressive enough to provide alternative
medical options to those who need it.

So often this body insists on protecting the rights of States to
define marriage. So often this body insists on protecting the rights
of States to set abortion policies. So often this body insists on
protecting the rights of States to determine education curricula and standards.

But when it comes to protecting the rights of States to set medical
scope of practice, this body balks. All of a sudden States no longer
have the right to determine what is best for their citizens when it
includes medical marijuana.

The Hinchey amendment does not change Federal law. It does not change
drug policy. It does protect States' rights. For those of you who
come from States that do not have medical marijuana laws, nothing in
this amendment will affect your State. Everything in your State
remains status quo.

For those of you who come from States that do have medical marijuana
laws, very little in this amendment will impact your State. The only
difference now is that your State will be able to implement its laws
without little old ladies being busted by Federal cops. I support
this amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this
amendment. For 20 years, in State government, I worked on health
issues. I chaired the health committee for a decade. I asked leaders
and major medical groups; I asked leaders in the medical societies;
and since I have been here I have asked leaders at NIH, do we need to
legalize marijuana? And I have never had a positive answer.

They said, we have more drugs than we need. We have more things that
are out there for people that will perform better than marijuana. But
what I tell you what I do not want to do, I do not want to support
the belief that too many of our young people already have that
marijuana is a harmless drug. I know better. I had young people work
for me in my supermarket who I knew were using marijuana.

And they used it for a period of years, folks. And they are not as
sharp after years of marijuana use as they would have been. It dulls
the brain. It holds back the growth. Brains are not mature until they
are 25. And marijuana use has been proven to deter brain growth. A
close friend of mine in Harrisburg who was a prominent State
legislator was having dinner with me 25 years ago, and he was talking
about Johnnie, who was attending Penn State, the brightest of three children.

And all of a sudden, Johnnie in his junior year in college was not
doing well. He could not figure out why. He visited him two or three
weekends in a month, 3 months in a row, to try to figure out what was
wrong with Johnnie. In his senior year of high school, Johnnie had
started using marijuana.

Johnnie lost his thrust for life. Johnnie lost the keen mind that God
had given him. Marijuana stole him from the potential he had. Folks,
if I thought the American public needed legal marijuana for pain and
suffering, I would support it. We have more drugs than we need on the
marketplace.

Marijuana destroys young people's chances to have good lives. I have
close friends and even relatives who are living less of a life than
they would have if they had not spent years abusing marijuana.
Marijuana is a dangerous drug that is not adequately respected by the
young people of this country because they have been seduced by
leaders in this country advocating that it is a perfect, wonderful drug.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for
the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[Begin Insert]

Mr. Chairman, I stand to support the Hinchey/Rohrabacher Amendment,
an amendment to end federal raids on medical marijuana patients and
providers in states where medical marijuana is legal.

Despite marijuana's recognized therapeutic value, including a
National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine report
recommending its use in certain circumstances, federal law refuses to
recognize its medicinal importance and safety.

This amendment does not change the classification of marijuana as a
Schedule I narcotic. It does not legalize marijuana, or stop law
enforcement officials from prosecuting individuals for recreational
use of marijuana. It does not require that states adopt laws
protecting the medicinal use of marijuana. It simply extends the
protections already provided at the state level in ten states to the
federal level. It ensures that critically ill patients can find
relief from nausea and pain without worrying that the federal
government will prosecute them.

The federal government should use its power to help terminally ill
citizens, not arrest them. I strongly urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.

[End Insert]

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have never been an
advocate for drug testing for Members of Congress, but hearing that
marijuana use can dull the brain makes me think maybe this is
something that we ought to be checking into.

I am always heightened in my support of an activity, an amendment,
when those opposing will not argue it directly. We are not talking
about 18-year-olds getting into methamphetamines. This is a very
narrow amendment. It says, where a State has decided by its own
democratic processes to legalize marijuana according to a doctor's
prescription, we will not arrest people who try to do it federally.

[Time: 17:00]