[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

       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 illegal use of Schedule I drugs 
     are well documented, particularly with regard to physical 
     health, highway safety, and criminal activity;
       Whereas pursuant to section 401 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act, it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, or 
     dispense marijuana, heroin, LSD, and more than 100 other 
     Schedule I drugs;
       Whereas pursuant to section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug 
     and Cosmetic Act, 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 to ensure it is safe and effective;
       Whereas marijuana and other Schedule I drugs have not been 
     approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat any 
     disease or condition;
       Whereas the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act already 
     prohibits the sale of any unapproved drug, including 
     marijuana, that has not been proven safe and effective for 
     medical purposes and grants the Food and Drug Administration 
     the authority to enforce this prohibition through seizure and 
     other civil action, as well as through criminal penalties;
       Whereas marijuana use by children in grades 8 through 12 
     declined steadily from 1980 to 1992, but, from 1992 to 1996, 
     has 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 grades;
       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; and
       Whereas the rate of illegal drug use among youth is linked 
     to their perceptions of the health and safety risks of those 
     drugs, and the ambiguous cultural messages about marijuana 
     use are contributing to a growing acceptance of marijuana use 
     among children and teenagers: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That--
       (1) Congress continues 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; and
       (2) not later than 90 days after the date of the adoption 
     of this resolution--
       (A) the Attorney General shall submit to the Committees on 
     the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report on--
       (i) the total quantity of marijuana eradicated in the 
     United States during the period from 1992 through 1997; and
       (ii) the annual number of arrests and prosecutions for 
     Federal marijuana offenses during the period described in 
     clause (i); and
       (B) the Commissioner of Foods and Drugs shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate a report 
     on the specific efforts underway to enforce sections 304 and 
     505 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act with respect 
     to marijuana and other Schedule I drugs.

  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.

                          ____________________