[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 108 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
        AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4230) to amend the American Indian Religious Freedom Act to 
provide for the traditional use of peyote by Indians for religious 
purposes, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4230

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``American Indian Religious 
     Freedom Act Amendments of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. TRADITIONAL INDIAN RELIGIOUS USE OF THE PEYOTE 
                   SACRAMENT.

       The Act of August 11, 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996), commonly 
     referred to as the ``American Indian Religious Freedom Act'', 
     is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 3. (a) The Congress finds and declares that--
       ``(1) for many Indian people, the traditional ceremonial 
     use of the peyote cactus as a religious sacrament has for 
     centuries been integral to a way of life, and significant in 
     perpetuating Indian tribes and cultures;
       ``(2) since 1965, this ceremonial use of peyote by Indians 
     has been protected by Federal regulation;
       ``(3) while at least 28 States have enacted laws which are 
     similar to, or are in conformance with, the Federal 
     regulation which protects the ceremonial use of peyote by 
     Indian religious practitioners, 22 States have not done so, 
     and this lack of uniformity has created hardship for Indian 
     people who participate in such religious ceremonies;
       ``(4) the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case 
     of Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), held 
     that the First Amendment does not protect Indian 
     practitioners who use peyote in Indian religious ceremonies, 
     and also raised uncertainty whether this religious practice 
     would be protected under the compelling State interest 
     standard; and
       ``(5) the lack of adequate and clear legal protection for 
     the religious use of peyote by Indians may serve to 
     stigmatize and marginalize Indian tribes and cultures, and 
     increase the risk that they will be exposed to discriminatory 
     treatment.
       ``(b)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for 
     bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection with 
     the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and 
     shall not be prohibited by the United States or any State. No 
     Indian shall be penalized or discriminated against on the 
     basis of such use, possession or transportation, including, 
     but not limited to, denial of otherwise applicable benefits 
     under public assistance programs.
       ``(2) This section does not prohibit such reasonable 
     regulation and registration by the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration of those persons who cultivate, harvest, 
     or distribute peyote as may be consistent with the 
     purposes of this Act.
       ``(3) This section does not prohibit application of the 
     provisions of section 481.111(a) of Vernon's Texas Health and 
     Safety Code Annotated, in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this section, insofar as those provisions pertain to the 
     cultivation, harvest, and distribution of peyote.
       ``(4) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any Federal 
     department or agency, in carrying out its statutory 
     responsibilities and functions, from promulgating regulations 
     establishing reasonable limitations on the use or ingestion 
     of peyote prior to or during the performance of duties by 
     sworn law enforcement officers or personnel directly involved 
     in public transportation or any other safety-sensitive 
     positions where the performance of such duties may be 
     adversely affected by such use or ingestion. Such regulations 
     shall be adopted only after consultation with representatives 
     of traditional Indian religions for which the sacramental use 
     of peyote is integral to their practice. Any regulation 
     promulgated pursuant to this section shall be subject to the 
     balancing test set forth in section 3 of the Religious 
     Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103-141; 42 U.S.C. 
     2000bb-1).
       ``(5) This section shall not be construed as requiring 
     prison authorities to permit, nor shall it be construed to 
     prohibit prison authorities from permitting access to peyote 
     by Indians while incarcerated within Federal or State prison 
     facilities.
       ``(6) Subject to the provisions of the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act (Public Law 103-141; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1), 
     this section shall not be construed to prohibit States from 
     enacting or enforcing reasonable traffic safety laws or 
     regulations.
       ``(7) Subject to the provisions of the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act (Public Law 103-141; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1), 
     this section does not prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
     promulgating regulations establishing reasonable limitations 
     on the use, possession, transportation, or distribution of 
     peyote to promote military readiness, safety, or compliance 
     with international law or laws of other countries. Such 
     regulations shall be adopted only after consultation with 
     representatives of traditional Indian religions for which the 
     sacramental use of peyote is integral to their practice.
       ``(c) For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `Indian' means a member of an Indian tribe;
       ``(2) the term `Indian tribe' means any tribe, band, 
     nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community of 
     Indians, including any Alaska Native village (as defined in, 
     or established pursuant to, the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)), which is recognized 
     as eligible for the special programs and services provided by 
     the United States to Indians because of their status as 
     Indians;
       ``(3) the term `Indian religion' means any religion--
       ``(A) which is practiced by Indians, and
       ``(B) the origin and interpretation of which is from within 
     a traditional Indian culture or community; and
       ``(4) the term `State' means any State of the United 
     States, and any political subdivision thereof.
       ``(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     abrogating, diminishing, or otherwise affecting--
       ``(1) the inherent rights of any Indian tribe;
       ``(2) the rights, express or implicit, of any Indian tribe 
     which exist under treaties, executive orders, and laws of the 
     United States;
       ``(3) the inherent right of Indians to practice their 
     religions; and
       ``(4) the right of Indians to practice their religions 
     under any Federal or State law.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] will be recognized for 20 
minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4230 is an amendment to the 
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. The amendment protects 
certain ceremonial, sacramental practices used primarily by the Native 
American Church. The amendment is strongly supported by native 
Americans, the administration, and it has bipartisan support.
  H.R. 4230 makes 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.
  The Federal District Court in New Mexico, in the 1986 case of Toledo 
versus 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 ceritified 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.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 regulation 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.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill was amended with the assistance of the White 
House staff. The amendments address the concerns of the Departments of 
Transportation, Defense, Justice, and the Interior. I have attached 
statements of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Office of 
Management and Budget which support the bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                              Drug Enforcement Administration,

                                                   August 8, 1994.
     Mr. Tadd Johnson,
     Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Native American Affairs, U.S. 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Johnson: It is my understanding that H.R. 4230, 
     ``American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1994'', is nearing 
     floor consideration in the House. You will recall that while 
     the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was unable to have 
     a witness at your hearing regarding this matter on June 10, 
     1994, that we did submit a statement for the record. That 
     statement succinctly puts forth the history of DEA's 
     regulation of peyote and the exemption for its use in 
     traditional Native American ceremonies. DEA has encountered 
     no problems with the use of peyote in these traditional 
     ceremonies nor has diversion of peyote been a problem.
       DEA has had a long and cooperative association with the 
     Native American Church, working with them since the early 
     1970's to assure that our mutual concerns relating to peyote 
     are met. We have worked with its representatives to assure 
     that the bill language effectively addresses these matters. 
     DEA supports the passage of H.R. 4230 as it was reported by 
     the Committee on Natural Resources with the amendments that 
     address public safety concerns.
       If I can provide you with any other information pertaining 
     to DEA's experience regarding peyote, please let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                 David A. Melocik,
                                       DEA, Congressional Affairs.
                                  ____

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                   Washington, DC, August 8, 1994.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

     Re H.R. 4230--American Indian Religious Freedom Act 
         Amendments (Richardson (D) NM).
       The Administration strongly supports H.R. 4230.
                                  ____

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1994.
     Hon. George Miller,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     reviewed H.R. 4230, the Ameican Indian Religious Freedom Act 
     Amendments of 1994, as ordered reported by the House 
     Committee on Natural Resources on July 27, 1994. We estimate 
     the implementation of the bill would have no effect on the 
     federal budget or on the budgets of state or local 
     governments. Enactment of H.R. 4230 would not affect direct 
     spending or receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures 
     would not apply to this bill.
       H.R. 4230 would amend the American Indian Religious Freedom 
     Act of 1978 by adding a new section that would permit the 
     use, possession, or transportation of peyote by Indians for 
     sacramental purposes. However, the bill would not prohibit 
     the Drug Enforcement Administration from regulating peyote 
     cultivation or distribution, nor would it prohibit federal 
     agencies from regulating peyote use by certain types of 
     federal personnel prior to performing their official duties.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel A. 
     Robertson, who can be reached at 226-2860.
           Sincerely,
                                                     James L. Blum
                                       (For Robert D. Reischauer).

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is fully supported by both the committee's 
ranking Republican member, Don Young, and the ranking Republican member 
of the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs; it was supported by the 
Bush administration; it is supported by the DEA, and the Departments of 
Defense, the Interior, Justice, and Transportation. I urge my 
colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4230, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________