Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 122 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7719-H7726]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING MARIJUANA

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 117) expressing the sense of Congress that
marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug and should not be legalized
for medicinal use, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.J. Res. 117

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from

[[Page H7720]]

Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).

General Leave

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the joint resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today we are about to consider a medical marijuana bill. It is a bill
probably with a misnomer because there is no initiative out there in
the country that proposes truly medical marijuana, where a doctor's
prescription is required, you have to go to the drugstore and get it,
or the Food and Drug Administration has approved the smoking of
marijuana as a drug and so forth.
But there is an awful lot of confusion in the public mind out there
today. I want to call my colleagues' attention to what this resolution
actually calls for after all of the sense of Congress is expressed in
it. It resolves that the House and Senate and Congress continue to
support the existing Federal legal process for determining the safety
and efficacy of drugs and opposes efforts to circumvent this process by
legalizing marijuana and other Schedule I drugs for medicinal use
without valid scientific evidence and the approval of the Food and Drug
Administration.
I would like to point out at the beginning of this discussion that
there is a synthetic drug known as Marinol that contains the same
powerful medical ingredients found in marijuana for relieving pain and
does not cause the addiction or side effects associated with marijuana.
Everybody here today in this body is sympathetic with people who suffer
from pain in this country and the many Americans who have been told in
some cases that the smoking of marijuana will relieve that pain to
them. Nobody is unsympathetic to their cause, particularly those who
are terminally ill, but the ingredients that they need the medical
profession has already laid forth in medicine that is available and
approved and is separate and apart from the question of should we in
any way provide for the opportunity to smoke marijuana in a smoke form,
which is what is in so many resolutions around the country these days
and initiatives.
Secondly, the Food and Drug Administration, which must approve all
drugs, has never approved marijuana as a prescription or over-the-
counter drug.
Third, no doctor's prescription, under the initiatives that I have
seen in the States where this has been proposed and is being proposed
today in the 50 States, no doctor's prescription would be required to
obtain marijuana. The only thing that would be required is for the
doctor to say, ``It's okay, I think it's a good idea, I'll sign a piece
of paper.'' But you do not have to go to the drugstore to get it. In
fact, you could not get it at the drugstore because the Food and Drug
Administration has never approved it.
And fourth, there is a very important health problem that is
associated with this in terms of the body's immune system. Regularly
smoking marijuana weakens the body's immune system and doubles the
speed in which the AIDS-causing virus HIV produces AIDS symptoms.
Having made those statements, I want to discuss H.J. Res. 117 in a
little bit more detail. Congressional support, as I have said earlier,
for the current legal process is what this is all about: the process
for determining the safety and efficacy of drugs, including marijuana
and other Schedule I drugs for medicinal use.
I am pleased to say that the joint resolution we have here today is
fully supported by General Barry McCaffrey who is the head of our
Office of National Drug Control Policy, and he has a letter dated
September 9, 1998 that so states that support.
At the outset, I want also to state that we personally do not possess
the medical or scientific expertise to pass judgment on whether
marijuana is a medicine. But the Food and Drug Administration does and
so does the American Medical Association, the National Institute of
Drug Abuse, the American Cancer Society and numerous other
organizations. Each of them has concluded that marijuana is not a
medicine. It seems to me that their collective expert judgment and the
long-established FDA approval process should not be lightly set aside.
Either on the basis of scientific evidence and testing or whatever
other basis you might come to a conclusion on, marijuana is not a
medicine. It has got to be determined by a scientific basis. That is
all there is to it. So far it has not been. No opinion poll or State
initiative in any way can alter that status.
Simply put, this resolution before us today reflects the view that
science cannot be based upon opinion polls. This was the position taken
before the subcommittee by General McCaffrey and by numerous other
witnesses. Until agencies with the authority and expertise, through
established scientific testing and review process, find marijuana to
have legitimate medical applications, it should not be legalized by
States for medicinal purposes.
This resolution takes that position and provides the House of
Representatives as an institution the opportunity to weigh in on this
debate that is going on nationally. I believe such a statement is
important for a couple of reasons. First it is timely. More than 30
States and the District of Columbia have been targeted for possible
medical marijuana initiatives. They have already been passed in
California and Arizona.
I might add that the language of this resolution has been crafted in
cooperation with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and Senator
Kyl from Arizona.
The resolution is also timely because of the tragic drug crisis
engulfing our young people today. The numbers are simply shocking. From
1992 to 1997, drug use among youth from 12 to 17 years of age has more
than doubled.

{time} 1330

It is up 120 percent. That is an increase of 27 percent in the last
year alone. For kids aged 12 to 17, first-time heroin use has increased
875 percent from 1991 to 1996, and from 1992 to 1996 marijuana use
increased 253 percent among eighth graders, 151 percent among tenth
graders and 84 percent among twelfth graders. Overall among kids aged
12 to 17 marijuana smoking has jumped 125 percent from 1991 to 1997 in
that 6 year period. Today in the District of Columbia 96 percent of all
youth arrested for crime test positive for marijuana. That is 96
percent of all juvenile arrests.
Marijuana users today are younger than ever before. The most recent
survey by the Partnership for Drug-free America found that among
children ages 9 to 12 who were surveyed, nearly one-fourth of them were
offered drugs during 1996 with marijuana being the most prominent. That
is up from 19 percent for the same age group in 1993. The University of
Michigan survey for 1996 reports that 23 percent of the seventh grade
students said they had tried marijuana, and 33 percent of the eighth
grade students had done so. Mr. Speaker, our kids are drowning in a sea
of drugs.
The second reason for this resolution is to send a message that
cavalier labeling of smoked marijuana as medicine sends an unmistakable
message to our youth. How harmful can it be if it is a medicine for any
ailment? The polls that have been taken before and after State
initiatives clearly demonstrate young people have a more accepting
attitude towards marijuana after the passage of those initiatives.
Kids get it. They understand it when civic and cultural institutions
and leaders are ambivalent, and I am of the view that future prospects
of our young people are too important for such a matter of ambivalence.
As a country we need to speak out, and this House needs to speak out.
Third, we need to know much more about marijuana today, and we do no
more than we did a few years ago, and the news that we do know is
sobering. The potency of marijuana has more than doubled in the last
decade through genetic manipulation and cloning. On top of that, the
typical marijuana dose is significantly larger than in past years,
laced with other

[[Page H7721]]

drugs. As a result in recent years there has been a dramatic increase
in the number of marijuana related emergency room episodes for 12- to
17-year-olds.
Marijuana's troubling gateway effect is now well understood.
According to Columbia University, youth between the ages of 12 and 17
who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those
who abstain from marijuana. The research clearly demonstrates smoke
marijuana impairs normal brain function and damages the, heart lungs
reproductive and immune systems. According to the National Institute of
Allergies and Infectious Diseases, HIV positive smokers of marijuana
progress to full blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers and have
increased incidences of bacterial pneumonia. In June 1997 the National
Institute of Health found that long term use of marijuana produces
changes in the brain that are similar to those seen after long term use
of other major drugs such as cocaine and heroin. It is with this
disturbing back drop that we bring forward the resolution today.
While the substance of the resolution is straightforward, I want to
highlight again a couple of points.
The resolution points out that before any drug can be approved as a
medication in the United States it must meet extensive scientific
standards established by the Food and Drug Administration to ensure its
safety and efficacy. The resolution points out that marijuana has been
extensively studied, but it has never been approved by the FDA as a
medication. In fact because of its high potential for abuse and its
lack of any accepted medical use in treatment marijuana is a schedule
one drug, which means, of course, it is illegal under federal law to
manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana, heroin, LSD and more
than 100 other schedule one drugs.
And let us be perfectly clear. This schedule one rating is not a
function of politics, it is a function of the rigorous medical
scientific evaluation process of the Food and Drug Administration. The
doctors and scientists with the greatest expertise have determined that
marijuana is simply not a medicine, however they have approved its
active ingredient, THC, in a pill form as medicine.
In light of these facts, the resolution affirms the importance of
supporting the existing Federal legal process for determining safety
and efficacy of drugs including marijuana and other schedule one drugs.
It further states opposition to efforts to circumvent this process by
legalizing marijuana and other schedule one drugs for medicinal use
without valid scientific evidence and the approval of the FDA, and it
calls on the Attorney General and the Food and Drug Administration
commissioner to report to Congress on their efforts to enforce the
Federal marijuana laws already on the books.
Again, I am as concerned and sympathetic as anyone else about
terminally-ill patients, but the scientific evidence does not support
the medicinal marijuana resolutions that are running around the country
these days, and they do not require prescriptions by doctors of these
of marijuana, there has been no approval at all to smoke marijuana by
the Food and Drug Administration as a medicine, and it is a highly
dangerous thing to do, and we need to condemn it today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) for yielding this time to me.
As my colleagues know, this is truly a resolution that can be
described as a Alice in Wonderland resolution. Up is down and down is
up. Marijuana is dangerous for folks who are suffering, who very well
may be dying, but cocaine and morphine are okay. In other words, coke
and morphine are less dangerous than marijuana. That just does not make
any sense whatsoever.
It seems to me, if we are going to ban the use of marijuana in the
face of growing medical evidence of its therapeutic value, in cases
resistant to other treatments, then we should ban morphine and cocaine
as well.
What are the arguments for treating marijuana differently from these
other and arguably far more dangerous drugs? I am sure that if we ask
anyone from the law enforcement community, they will tell us that
violent behavior is far more endemic to the use and the abuse of
cocaine and morphine and related drugs than marijuana.
Well, the first argument is that whatever benefits it may have,
marijuana is simply too dangerous for us to send a single signal that
it is okay. Yet the same signal is sent by, as I said, allowing
therapeutic access to cocaine, and yet we allow it nonetheless. If we
adopt a different policy with regard to marijuana, what we will be
saying is that we are willing to allow patients to suffer excruciating,
debilitating conditions so as not to send a signal to others who might
wish to use these drugs recreationally. With all due respect, I do not
believe that anyone who has watched an AIDS or cancer patient suffer
uncontrollable nausea for hours at a time could make such an argument.
That is not the signal that we want to send.
Proponents of the resolution are quick to point out that the
scientific community is divided over the medical benefits of marijuana.
They are less quick to acknowledge that both the benefits and dangers
of this and hundreds of other medicinal substances are subject to
scientific dispute also.
It is not our role, I would submit, to prohibit scientists and
researchers from continuing to develop sound data regarding the safety
and efficacy of marijuana as they do with any other
experimental treatment.

There is also another reason why Congress has no business legislating
in this subject. In November of 1996 Californians approved Proposition
215 which legalized the medical use of marijuana. That same year folks
from Arizona supported a measure allowing physicians to prescribe the
drug. The Californian measure was approved by a 56 percent majority,
the Arizona referendum by 65 percent. I am continually surprised and
stunned really at the capacity of some of my colleagues to preach the
gospel of States rights while doing everything they can to federalize
State prerogatives. In this Congress alone we have had legislation to
deny juvenile justice funds to States that do not comply with new
Federal mandates to preempt State authority with respect to product
liability, tort and security litigation, to curtail State court
jurisdiction over class action suits, and to override State and local
land use decisions through so-called property rights measures, to name
only a few of the more notorious examples.
But if we are determined to override State authority, to really bury
the concept of evolution, if we are determined to replace sound medical
judgment with our own, at least let us not be hypocritical. Let us take
morphine and cocaine off the market as well. Let us make it clear to
patients who depend on these drugs to control their pain that they will
simply have to suffer so that we can send the right signal about drug
abuse. I am sure they will understand.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding this time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is just another effort by the Republican
leadership to substitute slogans for substance. Time after time the
leadership has ignored the facts and slapped down the work of States
and public health experts because it serves the Republican leadership's
political interests, as they see it any way.
First, they are going to take a slap tomorrow at the State of Oregon,
and they want to ban here at the federal level, any funding or any
attempt to Oregon to have a law for assisted suicide. Yet in spite of
this ban, the Washington Post reported last April that Oregon's Death
with Dignity Act has profoundly improved the end of life care given the
terminally-ill patients.
Now the House also taken a swap at States and cities across the
country this spring by banning Federal funding of needle exchange.
Needle exchange is preventing AIDS and saving lives in dozens of
American cities in over 20 States. The Surgeon General, the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes for Health, the American
Medical Association all concluded

[[Page H7722]]

that needle exchanges save lives, prevent AIDS and do not encourage
drug use. But do not confuse the Republican leadership with the facts;
they are not interested. They want Americans to believe that the
government was going to install needle vending machines next to coke
machines across the country. They want everybody to know that the
greatest wisdom in the country is here in Washington, nowhere else in
the Nation. Now the House leadership wants to take a slap at
California. The voters of California supported Proposition 215. They
support doctors prescribing or recommending marijuana for medical uses.
The voters of California have spoken on this issue, and their judgment
deserves the respect from this House.
Just as importantly, the National Institutes of Health is calling for
more research on medical uses of marijuana, the National Academy of
Sciences is due to report on this issue in the next few months, and the
AMA, California Nurses Association, California Academy of Family
Physicians, the Los Angeles County AIDS Commission all support
Proposition 215. But the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the rest of the Republican
leadership do not care. They do not want to wait for a report that will
give them the facts. They want to deprive seriously ill patients of
potential therapies because they have a political agenda. They think we
should just say no to sick and dying patients because it looks like we
are getting tough on illegal drugs.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not about crime, it is not about
legalizing drugs, it is not about legalizing marijuana. This is about
letting doctors care for dying patients in the best way possible. This
is about letting scientific research proceed unhindered by politics.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I
want to put into the Record a statement from the New England Journal of
Medicine. It is an editorial endorsing the physician freedom to
determine the medical uses of marijuana.
I urge that we oppose this resolution which is strictly here for
political purposes, and it should not be dignified with our votes
because it deprives the States and the people from making a decision in
the local areas for their own determination.
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.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining
time.
Mr. Speaker, while I was glad to hear my friend express such
indignation at the large amounts of money George Soros is spending in a
referendum, that is the first support we have heard from that side for
campaign finance reform, at least in principle.
Of course we have people on that side who think spending unlimited
amounts of money is a good thing when they agree with the cause. It
only becomes bad when they disagree with the cause.
That is where we are with States' rights. The gentleman from New York
who spoke on the left said he was for States' rights, and that is true.
I can say now that I know this Republican majority very well. They are
for the right of any State to do anything they agree with. But let a
State diverge, and that State is going to be spanked.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) who spoke is a little
embarrassed, perhaps, because there is a resolution that talks about
how dumb his own State is. He said, well, there is nothing in this
resolution which criticizes the State.
That is only partially a good description. It is the case, and I will
give the majority this, they did recognize that the resolution that
they put through committee was a little too explicit in spanking the
State.
The Committee on the Judiciary passed a resolution calling the States
all kinds of names in effect, and telling the States not to do this,
and wagging their finger at the States. They get a little embarrassed
about it, but I am going to put it in the Record anyway, Mr. Speaker,
because I think people ought to know what they were really trying to
get at.
So then they cleaned it up some. But they did leave in this telling
phrase, ``Congress opposes efforts to circumvent this process.'' They
are talking about California's referendum. What effort is that? To
circumvent the process. So this resolution does say to the States,
``Naughty, naughty. How dare you differ with us?''
The fact is it also goes on to say, and I think this is important for
Members to understand, this is not just about marijuana, Congress
continues to support the existing Federal legal process for determining
the safety and efficacy of drugs, all drugs.
I know there have been Members on both sides who have been
questioning whether the FDA ought to have the kind of control it has
where efficacy is involved. We all believe the FDA should say that is
not safe.
Indeed, this Congress passed a bill, I think it was sponsored by the
gentleman from Utah and, I know, our former colleague, the gentleman
from New Mexico, recently which relaxed FDA control. There were others
who wanted to relax FDA control further.
If my colleagues have told constituents that they want to relax some
FDA rules on determining efficacy, and if they vote for this
resolution, they better write them an apology, because they have just
undercut that statement.
The final thing I want to say, in addition to saying that it seems to
be that States ought to be able to make some decisions in this matter,
and this resolution is clearly an effort to stop the States from
deviating from whatever the national orthodoxy is, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul) who spoke made a very important point. People get up
and they talk about how terrible the drug problem is and then talk
about the importance of continuing our current policy approach.
There is a great inconsistency here. When we talk about poverty,
public housing, welfare, we have a tendency to have people look at the
amount of money spent, then look at the fact that the problem has, if
anything, gotten worse, and say therefore we must stop. That method of
analysis has turned on its head for drugs.

[[Page H7725]]

There is a real problem in the way we have fought drugs. Obviously
trying to diminish drug use particularly, but not only among young
people, ought to be a very high public policy goal. But this current
extremely punitive approach, this current approach of not
differentiating in this between marijuana use for medical purposes and
drugs that are instantly mind altering doesn't work. It undercuts.
One Member complained about the diminution of funds for interdiction.
Interdiction seems to me a prime example of money wasted. Given the
scope of this country, the size, the commerce, the people who come and
go, physically keeping out terribly small amounts of things is
fruitless compared to money that could go into law enforcement, that
could go into prevention, that could go into education.
So what we have here is the latest, as the previous resolution was,
the latest endorsement of more of the same, and a failed policy, a
policy that says you can shoot drugs out of existence, you can outlaw
them. It did not work for alcohol. It would not work for tobacco. This
approach of being exclusively punitive and not allowing any
differentiation does not work here.
The document referred to above is as follows:
Referral to the Committee on Commerce extended for a period
ending not later than March 18, 1998.
Committee on Commerce discharged; referred to the House
Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug and should not be legalized
for medicinal use

Whereas certain drugs are listed on Schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act if they have a high potential for
abuse, lack any currently accepted medical use in treatment,
and are unsafe, even under medical supervision;
Whereas the consequences of addiction to Schedule I drugs
are well documented, particularly with regard to physical
health, highway safety, criminal activity, and domestic
violence;
Whereas marijuana--which along with crack cocaine, heroin,
PCP, and more than 100 other drugs, has long been classified
as a Schedule I drug--is both dangerous and addictive, with
research clearly demonstrating that smoked marijuana impairs
normal brain functions and damages the heart, lungs,
reproductive, and immune systems;
Whereas before any drug can be approved as a medication in
the United States, it must meet extensive scientific and
medical standards established by the Food and Drug
Administration, and marijuana has not been approved by the
Food and Drug Administration to treat any disease or
condition;
Whereas a review by the Annals of Internal Medicine of more
than 6,000 articles from the medical literature evaluating
the potential medicinal applications of marijuana concluded
that marijuana is not a medicine, that its use causes
significant toxicity, and that numerous safe and effective
medicines are available, which means that the use of crude
marijuana for medicinal purposes is unnecessary and
inappropriate;
Whereas on the basis of the scientific evidence and the
testimony of the American Medical Association, the American
Cancer Society, the National Multiple Sclerosis Association,
the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the National Eye
Institute, and the National Institute of Drug Abuse,
marijuana has not met the necessary standards to be approved
as medicine;
Whereas the States of Arizona and California, through State
initiatives in 1996, legalized the sale and use of marijuana
for `medicinal' use, while the State of Washington in 1997
rejected an initiative to legalize the sale and use of
marijuana for `medicinal' use;
Whereas after the initiative in Arizona, the legislature of
the State of Arizona, with the support of a majority of the
citizens of the State, passed legislation to prevent the
dispensing of any substance as medicine which had not first
been approved as medicine by the Food and Drug
Administration, thereby preventing marijuana from being
dispensed in the State;
Whereas these States and a majority of States in the United
States, as well as the District of Columbia, have been
targeted by out-of-State organizations which advocate drug
legalization for `medical' marijuana initiatives in 1998 and
1999, and these organizations have provided the majority of
the financial support for these State initiatives;
Whereas some individuals and organizations who support
`medical' marijuana initiatives do oppose drug legalization,
prominent pro-legalization organizations have admitted their
strategy is to promote drug legalization nationally through
State `medical' marijuana initiatives, and, as such, are
seeking to exploit the public's compassion for the terminally
ill to advance their agenda;
Whereas marijuana use by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders
declined steadily from 1980 to 1992, but, from 1992 to 1996,
such use dramatically increased--by 253 percent among 8th
graders, 151 percent among 10th graders, and 84 percent among
12th graders--and the average age of first-time use of
marijuana is now younger than it has ever been;
Whereas according to the 1997 survey by the Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 500,000
8th graders began using marijuana in the 6th and 7th graders;
Whereas according to that same 1997 survey, youths between
the ages of 12 and 17 who use marijuana are 85 times more
likely to use cocaine than those who abstain from marijuana
and 60 percent of adolescents who use marijuana before the
age of 15 will later use cocaine;
Whereas the rate of drug use among youth is linked to their
perceptions of the risks which are related to drugs and, in
that regard, the glamorization of marijuana and the ambiguous
cultural messages about marijuana use are contributing to a
growing acceptance of marijuana use among adolescents and
teenagers;
Whereas surveys taken in the wake of State `medical'
marijuana initiatives indicate a more approving attitude
toward marijuana use among teenagers than prior to the
initiatives; and
Whereas the evidence of the last 2 years indicates that the
more the public learns about the facts behind the `medical'
marijuana campaign, the more strongly opposed the public
become to such initiatives: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the United States House of Representatives is
unequivocally opposed to legalizing marijuana for medicinal
use, and urges the defeat of State initiatives which would
seek to legalize marijuana for medicinal use; and
(2) the Attorney General of the United States should submit
a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives before the end of the 90-day period beginning
on the date of the adoption of this resolution on--
(A) the total quantity of marijuana eradicated in the
United States beginning with 1992 through 1997; and
(B) the annual number of arrests and prosecutions for
Federal marijuana offenses beginning with 1992 through 1997.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has expired.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time that I
may have.
Mr. Speaker, THC, the active ingredient for medicinal purposes in
marijuana, is available widely as a prescription drug known as Merinol
for pain and other purposes, that doctors can prescribe anywhere in the
United States today.
Unfortunately, smoke marijuana is dangerous to your health. The
American Medical Association believes that, the National Institutes of
Health believes that, and numerous other organizations, including the
American Cancer Society, believe that.
I do not have the scientific expertise, but I have listened to them.
I am convinced it is dangerous; that it means those who are HIV-
positive will turn AIDS-symptomatic twice as fast if they smoke
marijuana regularly than those who do not.
I do not think that any of us want to see smoke marijuana made legal
anywhere in this country for any purpose at all that is going to be
detrimental to your health, especially when the Food and Drug
Administration has never approved it as a drug and where no doctor in
this country can prescribe it in the traditional meaning of the word
``prescription'' because the FDA never approved it.
That is what prescription means. Every drug in the history of this
country today, modern times, has to be approved by the Food and Drug
Administration before a doctor is allowed to prescribe it. Marijuana
cannot be prescribed without FDA approval. FDA has refused again and
again and again to approve it in the smoke form.
I encourage my colleagues to adopt this resolution that says simply
that we oppose efforts to circumvent the process by legalizing
marijuana and other Schedule I drugs for medicinal use without valid
scientific evidence and the approval of the Food and Drug
Administration, because to do otherwise is a back doorway of legalizing
marijuana. That is all there is to it.
A vote for this resolution today is a vote for the normal process of
the Food and Drug Administration approval and doctors' prescriptions
being required before any use as medicine. A vote against this
resolution is frankly a vote to legalize marijuana for all purposes,
because that is what would happen if we were not to use the traditional
processes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, Americans take their medicine in pills,
shots, sprays, solutions,

[[Page H7726]]

drops, creams, and suppositories * * * but no medicine in the United
States is smoked.
Proponents of marijuana argue that our compassion for those suffering
physical ailments should override our common sense and steadfastness in
combating illegal drugs.
With regard to cancer, proponents argue that marijuana will decrease
the nausea associated with chemotherapy. The Truth is that marijuana
contains cancer-causing substances, many of which are in higher
concentrations than in tobacco. The National Cancer Institute reports
that new drugs have been shown more effective than marijuana.
With regard to AIDS, proponents argue that smoking marijuana will
relieve the physical wasting aspects of the disease. The Truth is
smoking, whether tobacco or marijuana or crack cocaine, has been shown
to increase the risk of developing bacterial pneumonia in HIV-positive
immune-compromised patients.
After 30 years of research, we know that marijuana impairs learning
and memory, perception and judgement. It impairs complex motor skills
and judgement of speed and time. Among chronic users it decreases drive
and ambition.
Finally, marijuana use among our young people is increasing * * *
alarmingly so. From 1992 to 1996, marijuana use increased by 253
percent among 8th graders, 151 percent among 10th graders, and 84
percent among 12th graders.
We should not let our compassion for the terminally ill and those in
chronic pain to deceive us into treating a dangerous drug as medicine.
Support the resolution opposing marijuana as medicine.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker and I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a non-binding resolution that
would express the sense of the Congress that because marijuana is a
Schedule One controlled substance, and therefore an illegal drug, then
its use for medicinal purposes should be prohibited. This is absurd.
Medical use of marijuana is a public health issue; it is not part of
the war on drugs. Marijuana has been proven to relieve the pain and
suffering of seriously ill patients. It is unconscionable to deny an
effective medication to those in need.
It would seem that the Speaker of the House and the distinguished
Chairman of our own Crime Subcommittee once agreed with that position.
In 1981, Representative Newt Gingrich and Representative Bill McCollum,
co-sponsored H.R. 4498, a bill introduced by the late Congressman
Stuart McKinney, that would allow the medicinal use of marijuana. In
1985, Chairman McCollum again co-sponsored H.R. 2282, a bill
reintroduced by Congressman McKinney, which would have allowed the
medicinal use of marijuana. I, along with many others, would be very
interested to learn why our colleagues changed their minds.
Mr. Speaker, prestigious groups such as the National Academy of
Sciences, the American Public Health Association, and the British
Medical Association have endorsed the medical use of marijuana. I would
like to refer my colleagues to an article that was published by the
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA, June 21, 1995-Vol.
272, No. 23) for more detailed information regarding the legislative
and medical history regarding the medicinal use of marijuana.
Most recently, a National Institutes of Health report released in
August of 1997 urged the federal government to play an active role in
facilitating clinical evaluations of medical marijuana. More than 30
medical groups, including the ones I have previously cited, have
endorsed prescriptive access to marijuana, under a physician's
supervision. Several medical groups, including the American Medical
Association and the American Cancer Society have endorsed a physician's
right to recommend or discuss marijuana therapy with their patients.
Several published studies have found that the best established
medical use of marijuana is as an anti-nauseant for cancer
chemotherapy. In addition, these same studies have found that medicinal
use of marijuana has helped in treating patients with glaucoma, chronic
muscle pain, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, spinal cord injury, and
paraplegia. Tens of thousands of cancer and AIDS patients use medical
marijuana, and they report that it is effective in reducing the nausea
and vomiting associated with cancer and AIDS treatment. In a 1990
survey, 44 percent of oncologists said they had suggested that a
patient smoke marijuana for relief of the nausea induced by
chemotherapy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the question of a state's right
to implement policy that the voters of those states have supported.
Many states have held, or are planning to hold, state referenda on the
use of medical marijuana. Two states, California and Arizona, have
successfully passed legislation to allow the prescribed use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes. The voters of these states have
spoken and in our democratic system they must be respected. Those on
the other side of the aisle seem to constantly remind us of the power
of big government over the ability of states to make their own
policies. Who is championing big government now? Where are all the
state's rights supporters on this issue?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, permitting the medical use of marijuana to
alleviate the pain and suffering of people with seriously ill
conditions does not send the wrong message to children or anyone else.
It simply says that we are compassionate and intelligent enough to
respect the rights of patients and the medical community to administer
what is medically appropriate care. It is time for this Congress to
acknowledge that a ban on the medicinal use of marijuana is
scientifically, legally, and morally wrong.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to H.J. Res.
117. The voters of California have showed their support for allowing
doctors to recommend marijuana for seriously ill patients by voting for
the state's Proposition 215 in November 1996. House Joint Resolution
117 attempts to infringe upon the decisions of California citizens by
expressing Congress' opposition to the medicinal use of marijuana.
While I did not support the California initiative, I oppose this
resolution which attempts to nullify their choice.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 117
because this bill accomplishes nothing in the war on drug abuse other
than highlight the misplaced emphasis of the country's anti-drug
efforts. The bill seeks to tell voters how to cast their votes, and
disregards the votes of over five million people in my state. It
focuses on arrests and prosecution rather than education and treatment
as the answer to drug abuse. And it seeks to make criminals of people
in pain because of serious illnesses. This is no war on drugs. It is
political grandstanding.
H.J. Res. 117 disregards the proven medicinal uses of marijuana,
including increasing the appetites of people with AIDS who have wasting
syndrome, and reducing nausea and vomiting resulting from chemotherapy.
Opponents of medicinal marijuana argue that there are other ways to
ingest the active ingredient in marijuana, including the use of
synthetic THC. However we know that the oral drug containing THC does
not work for all people. The logic of the authors of this legislation
therefore seems to be that a very ill person should be sent to jail
because he or she used the smokable form of a drug whose active
ingredient is currently licensed for oral use.
Voters in my home state passed an initiative authorizing seriously
ill patients to take marijuana upon the recommendation of a licensed
physician. Proposition 215 has provided as many as 11,000 Californians
who suffer from AIDS and other debilitating diseases with safe and
legal access to a drug that makes life a little more bearable. Fifty-
six percent of the electorate voted for Prop 215. The voters have
spoken, and there is no need for federal intrusion on this matter.
Thousands of constituents in my district struggling with AIDS and
cancer will tell you that choosing the appropriate medical treatment
should be a decision for public health officials, physicians and
patients. Congress would do well to stay out of the prescription
business.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when we can pass truly
effective measures to address drug abuse in our country. According to
the Legal Action Center, over half of federal drug control spending is
dedicated to the criminal justice system, and only 18% goes to drug
treatment. To effectively fight the war on drug abuse we must get our
priorities in order and fund treatment and education. Today's
legislation, which encourages making criminals of seriously ill people
who seek proven therapy, is not a step towards controlling America's
drug problem. I therefore oppose H.J. Res. 117.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) has expired.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. McCollum) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 117), as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________