Madison NORML

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HINCHEY

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

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am introducing an amendment that is designed to protect States' rights and to provide people across our country in these 12 States that have passed laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes to have access to that medical use.

It is a very simple, very serious proposal. The Constitution of the United States is very clear. It authorizes States' rights in every other area that is not specifically designated to the Federal Government. One of those main areas is health care. The States have the authority to take care of their own people and to make sure that they have access to the best possible health care.

The amendment is supported by a number of other important organizations across the country, in addition to organizations in those 12 States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington that have passed laws authorizing the medicinal use of this product. Two of those States have passed it through their legislatures. The other 10 have passed it by means of referendum. In other words, the people themselves have passed this in referendum.

This is an amendment that really should be adopted. It doesn't do anything to stimulate any violations of the law. It just says those States ought to be able to determine how to take care of their own people. There are a variety of ways in which that can be done to make sure that they get proper attention.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from New York for yielding and also for his leadership and for continuing to beat the drum on this very, very important issue.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about allowing State governments to provide relief for a small, very important group of people who are suffering from chronic pain or terminal illness. This amendment does not encourage or make legal the recreational use of marijuana. Eleven States, including my home State of California, have legalized medical marijuana, with clear guidelines for doctors' approval before usage.

For example, a constituent from Oakland, Angel Raich, has been diagnosed with more than 10 serious medical conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor. Ms. Raich and others who use medical marijuana are simply trying to relieve their crushing pain while following the guidelines and laws that their doctors and the States have already established. Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be spent on sending seriously or terminally ill patients to jail. Their doctors, not Congress, should decide which drugs will work best.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and ensure that patients' rights are upheld. This is the right thing to do. This is the compassionate thing to do. This is about health care.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York again for once again offering this amendment.

[Page: H8483] GPO's PDF

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to make it clear that there are many dozens of organizations that are focused on health care and constitutional rights across the country; not just in those 12 States, but in a lot of other places, as well, who have endorsed this idea and support this amendment.

They include the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Medical societies all across this country have endorsed this amendment because they know it is in the best interests of people suffering from diseases such as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and others that can be relieved of pain and suffering and be of assistance in recovering from the debilitating aspects of these diseases.

It simply makes good common sense for us to authorize this amendment. I hope that the majority of the Members in this House of Representatives will now take this opportunity to support good health care for Americans and also support this basic provision of the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, not only does this amendment hurt law enforcement's efforts to combat drug trafficking, but it sends the wrong message. Marijuana is the most widely abused drug in the United States. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is under the jurisdiction of our committee, more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other illegal drugs combined.

This amendment does not address the problem of marijuana abuse and possibly makes it worse by sending the message to young people that there can be health benefits from smoking marijuana.

Our committee received a letter last week from John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy opposing the gentleman's amendment. He warns of the potential public health impacts of encouraging the unfounded belief that smoking marijuana is a safe and effective medicine, contrary to prevailing expert opinion.

Last year, our own FDA stated: ``Smoked cannabis has no acceptable medical use in treatment in the United States,'' and that 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.

Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York have 3 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York is recognized for 3 additional minutes.

There was no objection.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the people who are opposed to this amendment, including the gentleman who just spoke, apparently do not understand what we are doing here.

This amendment does not affect States, other than those that have passed laws with respect to medical marijuana, only those 12 States. This amendment would not require or encourage other States to adopt medical marijuana laws. This amendment would not stop law enforcement officials from prosecuting the illegal use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage drug use in children. Teen use of marijuana has declined in States that have passed medical marijuana laws, and in some of those States it has declined dramatically.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow these States to give relief to people suffering from horrific diseases without fearing Federal intervention or prosecution. At stake in this debate is who should be deciding what is best for patients: Should it be the patients themselves, the doctors, or should it be arbitrarily somebody in the Federal Government?

Support this amendment and support States' rights and compassion. Doctors in these 12 States know what is best for their patients. The Federal Government should not stand in their way.

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I had a dear friend named Oral James Mitchell, Jr. Oral James Mitchell, Jr., was a Navy SEAL. He fought in Vietnam. Oral James Mitchell, Jr., got pancreatic cancer. He lived in Bethesda, Maryland, a 210-pound strapping man that you would want on your side in a fight, and I have had on my side in a fight, and this country had on its side in a fight in the Vietnam War.

When he had pancreatic cancer, he smoked marijuana. And his 88-year-old Irish Catholic mother said to me, ``Thank God for the marijuana. It is the only thing that makes Oral smile or eat.''

I watched that man go down to 115 pounds and die. And Mrs. Mitchell was correct. As he was dying of pancreatic cancer, if he was in a State that made it legal, States' rights say they should have some authority, and Brandeis said States are the laboratories of democracy. And as laboratories of democracy, we ought to experiment and find out if it works and if it is good for people who are dying, if it gives them some relief. If it is glaucoma, if it is cancer, whatever the illness, they should have that relief.

I would ask that we not have the Federal Government and DEA infringe on the laws of the States that have had changes in their laws, oftentimes through referenda of their people, and we allow those States to be the laboratories of democracy and not interfere with people who are dying, people who might have given their lives for this country, but who are dying and get some respite and some relief.

So I ask you to pass this and allow States to have rights and people to have some relief in their dying days.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I just want to say a few words about marijuana. First of all, it does cause cancer. I have seen it. I have seen people with lung cancer, no risk other than they were chronic marijuana smokers.

Additionally, the last time we were debating this bill, I called one of my former colleagues in my medical practice who is an oncologist, I had three oncologists, and I asked him for the latest information on cannabis, or THC. He again informed me this is available in pill form. You can actually get it in pill form. Additionally, it is not a very good antiemetic and not a good appetite stimulator. There are about 18 different products legally available that doctors can prescribe.

By and large, most of the people who want to use this want to get high and there are consequences to letting this move forward.

Saying that this State and this State allows this, we need to remember something: States govern where you practice medicine. If I want to practice medicine here, I have got to get a license in the District of Columbia. If I want to open a satellite office, I have got to get a license in Maryland or Virginia. But the Federal Government regulates prescribing, for obvious reasons. If the patient comes in to see me here and lives in Virginia, they are going to go over to a pharmacy there. So the Federal Government has always regulated this.

There are significant consequences to making this product widely available, and that is what this amendment will do. This is a very, very bad amendment. Marijuana has been implicated in railroad accidents. It has been implicated in car accidents. It is documented to have an adverse effect on memory.

Jeepers, we have people dying in this country from the effects of cigarettes. We have people dying in this country from the effects of alcohol. We have people in this body wanting to ban cigarettes and ban smoking. And now we are going to take action to allow another dangerous substance on the market? And there is an agenda of the people who are behind these kinds of amendments.

[Time: 20:45]

They want to legalize marijuana, and they want to make another dangerous product available to our society. I think that this is a bad direction for us to go in. This a bad amendment and a dangerous amendment. I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would prohibit any funds made available in this act to be used to prevent implementation of legally passed State laws in those 12 States that have authorized the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

The Founding Fathers wanted criminal law to be the domain of local and State governments. Sick and infirm people who live in the 12 States that have been granted by the voters in these States the legal right to use marijuana to alleviate their suffering if a doctor agrees, we should not make them targets of prosecution. If the voters in a State have so voted, and a doctor agrees, it is a travesty for the Federal Government to waste scarce Federal resources to harass sick people, elderly cancer patients and frail, multiple sclerosis sufferers and prevent them from getting the relief their personal doctors have recommended.

We have heard here hysterical talk about how voting for this amendment will somehow prevent the Federal Government from being able to go after narcotics traffickers. That is nonsense. The DEA would still have the power to arrest anyone selling marijuana for recreational use, as well as anyone selling cocaine or any other drugs. After all, although related to opium, yes, and even heroin, morphine is already used legally in hospitals throughout the United States. That does not mean that we are going to open up the whole country to heroin because we allow hospitals to use morphine.

Whether morphine or marijuana, the fact is that Federal resources could be better used and shouldn't be wasted on arresting sick people or their doctors. Those Federal resources, if this amendment passes, can be redirected away from these people, but to major drug traffickers or crime syndicates. That makes a lot more sense than trying to stop somebody or arrest somebody who has a doctor's prescription because they are suffering from cancer treatment. It makes more sense to focus on the drug dealers, for Pete's sake.

Here in the House there is a wide coalition of Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and this number has grown year by year, who want to promote State autonomy on this issue. This is what the Founding Fathers wanted. Criminal matters should be left up to the States.

A vote ``yes'' on Hinchey-Rohrabacher is a vote to respect the intent of our Founding Fathers and respect the rights of our people at the State level to make the criminal law under which they and their families will live. It reinforces rules surrounding the patient-doctor relationship, and it is in contrast to emotional posturing and Federal power grabs and bureaucratic arrogance, which is really at the heart of the opposition.

This is a vote for good government. This is a good vote for honest compassion. The legal, humanitarian and practical thing to do is to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Let me just note this. I have had personal experiences on this, and I certainly respect Dr. Weldon and his opinion. And I have asked him for his opinion many times for problems of my own. But I lost my mother, and I recently lost my brother, to cancer. I will tell you in both cases there was a loss of appetite and just a pessimism that came over my mother and my brother both. If marijuana would have helped them, and if a doctor would have prescribed it for them, it would have been a horrible thing to think that Federal agents would come in and try to interfere with that so they would not be able to get marijuana, if that is what their doctor felt would have helped them.

That is what we are deciding today: Is that a right use of resources, number one, to go in and interfere with this doctor-patient relationship? They already use morphine in hospitals. That doesn't interfere with people trying to get control of the sale of heroin on our streets. No, this will not interfere with that. But what this will do is prevent a terrible waste of Federal resources.

And let us note again, if people are sick, and a doctor says yes, this would be a good treatment, I don't think our Founding Fathers, who wanted the State governments to make these criminal laws, but I don't even think that they would have wanted the State governments to interfere in such a relationship.

Our Founding Fathers believed in individual freedom, and they believed in limited government. Where else but in the doctor-patient relationship should we have a limit on the government coming in and making things criminal matters? I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.

[snip]