[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 41 (Friday, April 15, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION PROTECTING THE RELIGIOUS USE OF PEYOTE BY 
                   INDIANS IN TRADITIONAL CEREMONIES

                                 ______


                          HON. BILL RICHARDSON

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 14, 1994

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to 
make statutory the protection now provided by Federal regulation and 
the laws of 28 States for the religious use of peyote by Indian 
practitioners. This legislation to protect the first amendment right of 
Indians to use peyote as a sacrament is made necessary by the ruling of 
the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Employment 
Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
  Peyote, the scientific name of which is Lophophora willaimsii, is a 
small, spineless cactus that grows only in the Rio Grande valley of 
Texas and northern Mexico. Native American religious use of peyote was 
discovered by Spanish explorers in the 1600's and has continued to the 
present. Such use exists today, largely through the Native American 
Church of North America [NAC], among about 50 Indian tribes in the 
United States. The NAC is the present-day embodiment of one of the 
oldest religious traditions in the Western Hemisphere. Anthropologists 
date the sacramental use of the peyote cactus among indigenous peoples 
back 10,000 years. The contemporary NAC was first incorporated in 
Oklahoma in 1918, and now has chapters in 20 States. About 250,000 
American Indians are affiliated with the NAC.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal District Court in New Mexico, in the 1986 
case of Toledo v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., held that the religious use of 
peyote was not illegal. The court found that--

       Church peyote users believe that peyote is a sacred and 
     powerful plant. Peyote is seen as a medicine, a protector, 
     and a teacher. In terms used by other religions, peyote can 
     be called a sacrament, something which when eaten gives 
     awareness of God. The use of peyote is central to the Native 
     American peyote religion. The religion teaches that those who 
     use peyote must not use alcohol. It encourages love of 
     parents and obedience to parents, fidelity to a spouse, and 
     charity towards others. The peyote religion does not prohibit 
     members from also practicing other religions.

  While the first amendment right of Indian practitioners of the peyote 
religion is endangered by the Smith decision, its religious use is 
basically noncontroversial. Attempts by the Congress to recognize and 
protect this right have a long history. When the House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 2, which became the Drug Abuse Control 
Amendments of 1965, it protected the right of Indians to use peyote in 
connection with the ceremonies of a certified religious organization. 
The Senate omitted that specific protection, preferring that substances 
be included on such a list on a case-by-case basis. Congressman Harris 
assured House members that such omissions would not prevent bona fide 
religious use because courts had already upheld peyote use as a first 
amendment right. The administration then added peyote to Schedule I by 
administrative regulation in 1966, but provided an exemption for 
nondrug use of peyote in religious ceremonies of the Native American 
Church.

  When Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, it enacted 
Schedule I into law. During hearings on the legislation, Congressman 
Satterfield expressed concern that the religious use of peyote by 
Indian practitioners be protected. The administration assured him that 
this would be taken care of by regulation. The regulations adopted in 
1971 to implement the act included such an exemption and provides, at 
21 CFR 1307.31, that--

       The listing of peyote as a controlled substance in Schedule 
     I does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide 
     religious ceremonies of the Native American Church.

Since that time, Native American Church use of peyote as a religious 
sacrament has had the limited protection of that Federal regulation. 
Also, 28 States have included some degree of protection of the 
religious use of peyote by Indians in their laws. Unfortunately, 
neither the Federal regulations nor the State laws provide the full 
range of protection needed for the unhindered religious use of peyote 
by Indians, and 22 of the States still have no laws protecting that 
right.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been some perceptions expressed about the 
religious use of peyote by Indian people as a part of the severe drug 
problems of this Nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Officials of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of 
Justice testified at a House hearing in 1993 that the religious use of 
peyote by Indians has nothing to do with the vast and violent traffic 
in illegal narcotics that plagues this country. The NAC enjoys a good, 
cooperative relationship with DEA in ensuring that peyote is lawfully 
harvested and distributed solely for American Indian religious use. The 
distribution of peyote is strictly controlled by Federal regulations, 
and by the laws and regulations of the State of Texas, the only State 
in which the sacrament grows in significant quantities. I am attaching 
to my statement a chart listing the number of States which do have 
protective laws and the nature of such laws.
  In addition, the medical evidence, based on the opinion of scientists 
and other experts, including medical doctors, former directors of the 
Indian Health Service, and anthropologists, is that peyote is not 
injurious to the Indian religious user, and, in fact, is often helpful 
in controlling that scourge which afflicts many Indian people, 
alcoholism and alcohol abuse. All courts that have made factual 
findings regarding the religious use of peyote by Indians have 
correctly concluded that such is not harmful.
  If there already exists an exemption in Federal regulations for the 
religious use of peyote by Indians, and if 28 States have some similar 
protective laws, the question could be raised as to why this 
legislation is necessary to protect this first amendment right of 
members of the Native American Church.
  First, while the church has appreciated the existence of the Federal 
and State protective laws, such laws do not provide the range of 
protection necessary to meet the standards of the first amendment. For 
instance, in some States, the legal protection for Native Americans is 
limited to the opportunity to provide the religious use of peyote is an 
affirmative defense in the context of felony prosecution. This means 
bona fide NAC members can be arrested, finger-printed, incarcerated, 
and subjected to all the indignities of a felony prosecution before 
they can hope to be vindicated and set free. Even then, they will have 
a criminal record--simply for practicing a bona fide religion that 
predates the founding of this country by some 10,000 years. Mr. 
Speaker, it is an intolerable irony that the First Americans still do 
not have the right to worship freely in our great Nation--which was 
founded in large part on the fundamental democratic principle 
guaranteeing religious liberty to all. We must rectify this inequity.

  Second, as noted 22 States make no provision for the protection of 
the religious use of peyote by Indians. As a result of the diverse 
State laws governing the use of peyote, Indians in different tribes 
from different States, as well as from different tribes within some 
States, are treated differently regarding that use. NAC members who 
have lawfully acquired the sacrament in Texas can still be arrested and 
subjected to felony prosecution and imprisonment in those 22 States, 
States in which they may live or through which they must travel on 
their way home from Texas after lawfully acquiring the sacrament. 
Legislation is therefore needed to assure comprehensive equal, and 
uniform protection of the religious use of peyote by Indians throughout 
the United States, without regard to State or reservation of residence, 
or tribal affiliation.
  Finally, the legislation remains necessary despite the recent 
enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of November 16, 
1993. This act, which was supported by all of the major religious 
denominations of the United States, in effect reversed the ruling of 
the Supreme Court in the Smith case, which rejected the longstanding 
``compelling government interest'' test in determining government 
infringements on religious freedom. On behalf of the Nation's 
religions, the act reinstated this test. Ironically, however, the act 
left endangered the very religious practice, the traditional use of 
peyote by Indians, which was impaired in the Smith case. Justice 
O'Connor made clear in her concurring opinion in the Smith case that, 
even if the ``compelling government interest'' test was applied, she 
would still find that the State of Oregon had a right to abrogate 
Smith's religious right to the use of peyote. This is an unacceptable 
result to the NAC and its members, particularly in light of the fact 
that, as correctly pointed out by Justice Blackmun in his dissent, 
Oregon's position that it has an interest in protecting its citizens 
from the dangers of peyote rests on no evidentiary foundation at all, 
and is therefore entirely speculative.
  Mr. Speaker, the only remaining objection which could be made 
regarding this legislation is one of constitutional problems. That is 
easily met and answered. The granting of a religious exemption for the 
sacramental use of peyote solely by American Indians presents no equal 
protection or establishment clause problems. At the urging of the U.S. 
Department of Justice, the long-standing rationale for special Indian 
treatment by the Federal Government was recently applied by the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the religious use of peyote in the 
case of Peyote Way Church of God v. Thornburgh, 922 F.2d 1210 (1991). 
Finding that the Native American Church members were also members 
of federally recognized tribes, the court upheld the constitutionality 
of the DEA's protective regulation--

       We hold that the federal NAC exemption allowing tribal 
     Native Americans to continue their centuries-old tradition of 
     peyote use is rationally related to the legitimate 
     governmental objective of preserving Native American culture. 
     Such preservation is fundamental to the federal government's 
     trust relationship with tribal Native Americans.

  Last year, this Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
to restore religious liberty to the vast majority of this great Nation. 
Unfortunately, that law does not adequately protect American Indians 
who worship in traditional ways. As President Clinton emphasized when 
he signed the act on November 15, 1993:

       The agenda for restoration of religious freedom in American 
     will not be complete until traditional Native American 
     religious practices have received the protection they 
     deserve. My administration has been and will continue to work 
     actively with Native Americans and the Congress on 
     legislation to address these concerns.

  Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pass this legislation this 
Session to secure to these American citizens the most basic of the 
rights guaranteed by our Constitution, the right of religious workship. 
It will be my intention to schedule early hearings on this subject and 
to move expeditiously on the legislation. I invite all Members to 
cosponsor the bill.