[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 23716-23719]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1683. A bill to make technical changes to the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                 Rural Alaska Access Rights Act of 1999

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce 
legislation to make technical amendments to the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
  This legislation is a Rural Alaska Bill of Rights.
  This legislation is the direct result of no less than six hearings I 
have held on this issue since becoming chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  During these hearings I was continuously assured by the 
administration that many of the frustrations Alaskans face because of 
the interpretation of ANILCA could be dealt with administratively. 
Unfortunately, many of the problems remain unresolved today.
  Some background on this issue is appropriate.
  Nineteen years ago Congress enacted ANILCA placing more than 100 
million acres of land out of 365 into a series of vast parks, wildlife 
refuges, and wilderness units.
  Much of the concern about the act was the impact these Federal units, 
and related management restrictions, would have on traditional 
activities and lifestyles of the Alaskan people.
  To allay these concerns, ANILCA included a series of unique 
provisions designed to ensure that traditional activities and 
lifestyles would continue, and that Alaskans would not be subjected to 
a ``Permit Lifestyle,'' as the senior Senator from Alaska has often 
said.
  It is for these reasons that ANILCA is often called ``compromise 
legislation'' and indeed it was--part of the compromise was that lands 
would be placed in CSU's and the other part was that Alaskans would be 
granted certain rights with regard to access and use in these units.
  These rights were not only granted to the individuals that live in 
Alaska but were designed to allow the State itself to play a major role 
in the planning and use of these areas.
  However, the Federal Government has not lived up to its end of the 
bargain--many of the Federal managers

[[Page 23717]]

seem to have lost sight of these important representations to the 
people of Alaska, specifically on issues such as access across these 
areas and use in them.
  Federal managers no longer recognize the crucial distinction between 
managing units surrounded by millions of people in the Lower 48 and 
vast multi-million acre units encompassing just a handful of 
individuals and communities in Alaska.
  The result is the creation of the exact ``permit lifestyle'' which we 
were promised would never happen.
  The delegation and other Members of this body warned this could be 
the case when the legislation passed.
  As one Member of this body noted in the Senate report on this bill:

       This Piece of Legislation, if enacted will prove to be the 
     most important legislation ever affecting Alaska . . . While 
     we in Congress may be reading the provisions one way . . . 
     regulatory tools are all laid out in the bill to give rise to 
     future bureaucratic nightmare for the people of Alaska . . . 
     Frankly, I am expecting the worst . . . the use of massive 
     conservation system unit designations to block exploration, 
     development, and recreation of these lands and on adjacent 
     non-federal lands.

  How prophetic!
  The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has held extensive 
hearings in Alaska on the implementation of ANILCA in Anchorage, 
Wrangell and Fairbanks.
  In these hearings we have heard from nearly 100 witnesses--
representing every possible interest group.
  Four clear themes have emerged from those hearings:
  Federal agencies have failed to honor the promises made to Alaskans 
when ANILCA was passed into law;
  Agencies are not providing prior and existing right holders with 
reasonable use and access in the exercise of their property right;
  Agency personnel manage Alaska wilderness areas and conservation 
units the same way that similar units are being managed in the Lower 
48--contrary to the intent of Congress; and
  Agencies, while stating their willingness to address complaints, fail 
to act in a reasonable and timely fashion when it comes to dealing with 
specific issues.
  Some of the specific issues identified include such absurdities as:
  Indivdiuals and corporations are asked to pay hundreds-of-thousands 
of dollars to do an EIS for access to their own properties when none is 
required by law.
  Millions of acres of public lands are closed to recreationists 
without ever having identified a resource threat.
  When a tree falls on somebody's cabin or a bear destroys it Federal 
regulators will not let a person make reasonable repairs.
  At field hearings the administration asked for time to address these 
problems--we gave them time--and little has happened.
  We have not ``jumped'' to a legislative solution, rather we have 
acknowledged that oversight has failed to produce meaningful 
administrative change.
  Does it make sense that:
  When land managers are assigned to Alaska they are not required to 
have any formal ANILCA training?
  When a tree falls on somebody's cabin or a bear destroys it that 
Federal regulators will not let a person make reasonable repairs.
  People are told they will have to pay ridiculous sums of money to 
access their inholdings?
  The answer to all these questions is clearly no. These are some of 
the problems that have to be resolved and are included in this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 1684. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to eliminate the 
consumptive demand exception relating to the importation of goods made 
with forced labor and to clarify that forced or indentured labor 
includes forced or indentured child labor; to the Committee on Finance.


            goods made with forced or indentured child labor

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1684

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

     SECTION 1. GOODS MADE WITH FORCED OR INDENTURED LABOR.

       (a) In General.--Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1307) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by striking ``; but in no 
     case'' and all that follows to the end period; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``For 
     purposes of this section, the term `forced labor or/and 
     indentured labor' includes forced or indentured child 
     labor.''.
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a)(1) 
     applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
     consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Child labor.--The amendment made by subsection (a)(2) 
     takes effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 1685. A bill to authorize the Golden Spike/Crossroads of the West 
National Heritage Area; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


 golden spike/crossrods of the west national heritage area act of 1999

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
today which authorizes the creation of the Golden Spike/Crossroads of 
the West National Heritage Area in Ogden, Utah.
  Utah has a rich railroad heritage that stems from the earliest days 
when the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads met at Promontory 
Point, Utah in 1869 and completed the transcontinental railroad. With 
the coming of the railroad, Utah's mining industry boomed and our 
economy grew and the once isolated Desert Kingdom became forever 
connected to the rest of the United States. Diverse peoples and 
cultures would come to or through Utah. Mormon immigrants from Europe, 
Chinese laborers working for the Central Pacific Railroad and Greek 
coal miners on their way to the coal fields in Central Utah. All of 
them would pass through the rail station in Ogden on their way to 
settle the Intermountain West. It truly is a heritage area for us all.
  Fire destroyed the original rail station first built in 1889. In 1924 
the current Union Station Depot was then built and remained the hub of 
transcontinental rail traffic for another 40 years. The current 
building, which is a registered historic site, has been refurbished and 
is an outstanding example of reuse and redevelopment of industrial 
areas. The facilities at Union Station also house some of the finest 
museum collections in the West including the Browning Firearms Museum 
and the Utah State Railroad Museum.
  It is the intent of this legislation to preserve the historical 
nature of the area, increase public awareness and appreciation for the 
pivotal role Ogden played in the settlement of the Intermountain West. 
By general standards, this will be a very small Heritage Area, 
encompassing just a few city blocks around the Union Station building. 
While it may be small, it also has a very colorful history. There were 
no businesses which were more famous, or infamous than those that 
dotted 24th and 25th Streets.
  The legislation would allow Ogden City to operate as the management 
entity for the area, working in closely with the National Park Service. 
The City will be responsible for developing a management plan which 
will present comprehensive recommendations for the conservation and 
management of the area while the National Park Service will work 
closely with the partners to help with interpretation and the 
protection of this valuable cultural and historical resource. Working 
with railroad enthusiasts from all over the country we can develop a 
long-term management plan which will provide better interpretation of 
the historical and cultural opportunities.
  I hope my colleagues will support me in sponsoring this legislation. 
Congressman Hansen has introduced similar legislation and I look 
forward to working with him and my friends on the Energy Committee to 
hold hearings and eventually move this bill through the Senate.

[[Page 23718]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH:
  S.J. Res. 35. A joint resolution disapproving the Legalization of 
Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, pursuant to the order of section 602 of the 
District of Columbia Home Rule Act.


   disapproving the legalization of marijuana for medical treatment 
                           initiative of 1998

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint 
resolution that will prevent the implementation of an initiative in the 
District of Columbia that would allow the use of marijuana for medical 
treatment.
  As many of my colleagues know, the voters of the District of Columbia 
passed a ballot initiative--Initiative 59--last November that would 
legalize marijuana use for ``medicinal'' purposes.
  Supported by the Mayor and many elected officials in the District, 
Initiative 59 would permit marijuana use as a treatment for serious 
illness including ``HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasms, and cancer.''
  Because physicians are not allowed to prescribe marijuana under 
federal law, Initiative 59 would allow individuals to use marijuana 
based on a doctor's ``written or oral recommendation.'' The initiative 
would also allow the designation of up to four ``caregivers'' who would 
be able to cultivate, distribute and possess marijuana for the purpose 
of supplying an individual with marijuana for medicinal purposes.
  Proponents of the D.C. initiative, and similar initiatives elsewhere 
in the country, have argued that marijuana is the only way that 
individuals can cope with the effects of chemotherapy and AIDS 
treatments.
  However, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 
individuals who are using marijuana for AIDS, cancer or glaucoma may 
actually be doing damage to themselves:

       AIDS: Scientific studies indicate marijuana damages the 
     immune system, causing further peril to already weakened 
     immune systems. HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to 
     full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers and have an 
     increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia.
       Cancer: Marijuana contains many cancer-causing substances, 
     many of which are present in higher concentrations in 
     marijuana than in tobacco.
       Glaucoma: Marijuana does not prevent blindness due to 
     glaucoma.

  In addition, Dr. Donald R. Vereen, Jr., Deputy Director of the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy (commonly referred to as the office of 
the ``Drug Czar''), in an article titled, ``Is Medical Marijuana an 
Oxymoron?'' and printed in Physicians Weekly on February 1, 1999, 
stated:

       No medical research has shown smoked marijuana to be safe, 
     effective, or therapeutically superior to other substances. 
     Synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary 
     psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, has been available for 
     fifteen years in pill form (Marinol) to treat HIV Wasting 
     Syndrome and chemotherapy-induced nausea. A legal drug, 
     Marinol is the real ``medical marijuana.'' It is available in 
     measured doses and guaranteed purity without the adverse 
     side-effects of smoking tars, hydrocarbons, and other 
     combustibles. Furthermore, newer drugs like ondansetron and 
     grenisetron work better than Marinol, as clinical practice 
     has demonstrated.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article by Dr. 
Vereen be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  In an attempt to prevent this initiative from going into effect, last 
October, Congress passed and the President signed into law the fiscal 
year 1999 D.C. Appropriations bill which included a provision that 
blocked the District government from releasing the vote results of 
Initiative 59.
  The provision was challenged in court, and last month, the 
prohibition was overruled by a federal judge and the results were made 
public.
  Meanwhile, as the battle over releasing the ballot figures was being 
fought, Congress re-emphasized its opposition to Initiative 59 in the 
fiscal year 2000 D.C. Appropriations bill by prohibiting the use of 
funds to ``enact or carry out any law, rule or regulation to legalize 
or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession use or 
distribution of any Schedule I substance under the Controlled 
Substances Act.''
  Mr. President, under federal law, marijuana is a controlled 
substance, and as such, possession, use, sale or distribution is 
illegal and is subject to federal criminal sentences and/or fines. 
Possession of marijuana is a crime in the District as well, with the 
possibility of 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
  Congress merely sought to uphold current law by saying no to the 
implementation of Initiative 59, and no to the use of marijuana.
  Nevertheless, the President vetoed the D.C. Appropriations bill last 
Tuesday, issuing a statement that stressed that Congress was 
``prevent(ing) local residents from making their own decisions about 
local matters.''
  However, there appears to be some confusion over the Administration's 
direction on such legalization initiatives.
  Last Wednesday, before the House D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, 
Dr. Donald R. Vereen, Jr. of the Drug Czar's office stated that:

       The Administration has actively and consistently opposed 
     marijuana legalization initiatives in all jurisdictions 
     throughout the nation. Our steadfast opposition is based on 
     the fact that: such electoral procedures undermine the 
     medical-scientific process for establishing what is a safe 
     and effective medicine; contradict federal regulations and 
     laws; and in the Office of National Drug Control Policy's 
     view, may be vehicles for the legalization of marijuana for 
     recreational use.''

  I refuse to believe that the President wants the American people to 
think that he is more concerned about not violating Home Rule than he 
is about upholding federal law, particularly when experts within the 
administration are opposed to legalization.
  In a June 29th article in the Washington Post, Director of the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy, Barry McCaffrey stated that:

       The term ``drug legalization'' has rightfully acquired 
     pejorative connotations. Many supporters of this position 
     have adopted the label ``harm reduction'' to soften the 
     impact of an unpopular proposal that, if passed, would 
     encourage greater availability and use of drugs--especially 
     among children.

  This past June, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Donnie Marshall, 
Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) stated ``I 
suspect that medical marijuana is merely the first tactical maneuver in 
an overall strategy that will lead to the eventual legalization of all 
drugs.'' He went on to say ``whether all drugs are eventually legalized 
or not, the practical outcome of legalizing even one, like marijuana, 
is to increase the amount of usage of all drugs.''
  Indeed, according to the DEA, 12-17 year olds who smoke marijuana are 
85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not. Sixty 
percent of adolescents who use marijuana before age 15 will later use 
cocaine. If these usage figures are occurring now, I shudder to think 
what they will be if we expand marijuana's usage.
  Assistant Chief Brian Jordan of the D.C. Metropolitan Police 
Department testified last Wednesday before the House D.C. 
Appropriations Subcommittee that ``the Metropolitan Police Department 
opposes the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana remains the illegal 
drug of choice in the Nation's Capital, and crime and violence related 
to the illegal marijuana trafficking and abuse are widespread in many 
of our communities.''
  According to D.C. government estimates, Washington currently has 
65,000 drug addicts. There are 1,000 individuals on a drug treatment 
waiting list who are likely continuing to abuse drugs right now.
  I believe the loose wording of the initiative--which again, would 
legalize an individual's right to possess, use, distribute or cultivate 
marijuana if ``recommended'' by a physician--would present an 
enforcement nightmare to police in the District of Columbia, and would 
serve as a de facto legalization of marijuana in D.C., increasing its 
prevalence and the number of addicts citywide.
  In the simplest of terms, illegal drug use is wrong. The District 
government

[[Page 23719]]

and the United States Government should never condone it, regardless of 
the professed purpose.
  That is why I am introducing this joint resolution. It's quite 
simple. It says that the Congress disapproves of the legalization of 
marijuana for medicinal purposes and prevents Initiative 59 from going 
into effect. Period.
  It is identical to legislation that the House will likely take-up 
next week.
  I agree with DEA Deputy Administrator Donnie Marshall that once 
society accepts that it's alright for individuals to smoke marijuana 
for, quote ``medical purposes'' unquote, we will start on the path 
towards greater social acceptance and usage of marijuana, which experts 
agree will lead to the use of harder drugs.
  Mr. President, marijuana is an illegal drug according to federal, 
state and local laws. It would be unconscionable for the United States 
Congress not to exercise its Constitutional duty and prevent the 
District from going forward with this initiative no matter how well-
intentioned the motive.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this resolution, and 
I urge its speedy adoption.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the joint resolution 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 35

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress hereby disapproves of the action of the District of 
     Columbia Council described as follows: The Legalization of 
     Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998, approved 
     by the electors of the District of Columbia on November 3, 
     1998, and transmitted to Congress by the Council pursuant to 
     section 602(c) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 1

                   [Physicians Weekly, Feb. 1, 1999]

                   Is Medical Marijuana an Oxymoron?

 (By Dr. Donald Vereen Deputy Director, White House Office of National 
                          Drug Control Policy)

       No medical research has shown smoked marijuana to be safe, 
     effective, or therapeutically superior to other substances. 
     Synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary 
     psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, has been available for 
     fifteen years in pill form (Marinol) to treat HIV Wasting 
     Syndrome and chemotherapy-induced nausea. A legal drug, 
     Marinol is the real ``medical marijuana.'' It is available in 
     measured doses and guaranteed purity without the adverse 
     side-effects of smoking tars, hydrocarbons, and other 
     combustibles. Furthermore, newer drugs like ondansetron and 
     grenisetron work better than Marinol, as clinical practice 
     has demonstrated.
       Objections about pills being difficult to swallow by 
     nauseated patients are true for any antiemetic. If sufficient 
     demand existed for an alternate delivery system, Marinol 
     inhalants, suppositories, injections, or patches could be 
     developed. Why isn't anyone clambering to make anti-nausea 
     medications smokable? Why choose a substance and delivery 
     system (smoking) that is more carcinogenic than tobacco when 
     safer forms of the same drug are available? Patients deserve 
     answers to these germane questions instead of being blind-
     sided by the ``medical marijuana'' drive.
       The American Medical Association (AMA), American Cancer 
     Society, National Multiple Sclerosis Association, American 
     Academy of Ophthalmology, and National Eye Institute, among 
     others, came out against ``medical marijuana'' initiatives as 
     did former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. Anecdotal support 
     for smoked marijuana reminds me of the laetrile incident 
     where a drug derived from apricot pits was believed to cure 
     cancer. Scientific testing disproved such testaments. How do 
     we know that testimonials touting marijuana as a wonder 
     drug--on the part of patients under the influence of an 
     intoxicant, no less!--may not simply demonstrate the placebo 
     effect?
       We shouldn't allow drugs to become publicly available 
     without approval and regulation by the Food and Drug 
     Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH). 
     Such consumer protections has made our country one of the 
     safest for medications. A political attempt to exploit human 
     suffering to legalize an illicit drug is shameful and 
     irresponsible. Voters should not be expected to decide which 
     medicines are safe and effective. What other cancer 
     treatments have been brought to the ballot box? Marijuana 
     initiatives set a dangerous precedent. Decisions of this sort 
     should be based on scientific proof, not popularity.

                          ____________________