Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 15, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership, he and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), for bringing this important bipartisan initiative to the floor. What we are discussing today is compassion, and that is a bipartisan value. I am grateful for their leadership on this issue that is critical to many in my district and across the country who are suffering from debilitating illnesses and to those who care for them.
Before I proceed with my comments, though, I want to acknowledge the tremendous leadership of the Chair of this subcommittee of appropriations, the subcommittee that has such a long name now, but we all know it is the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). He knows, and every chance I get, I want to tell others, of the high regard that I have for him. It is a privilege to call him colleague and to serve with him in the Congress of the United States. Again, every chance I get, I want to acknowledge his tremendous leadership, especially for respecting the human rights of every person on the face of the Earth.
I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) as well for their leadership on this important subcommittee.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is especially timely coming on the heels of the Supreme Court decision last week. The Court's decision makes clear that Federal regulatory and statutory changes are needed. For that reason, I strongly support the proposed legislation of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that would change Federal laws to permit medical marijuana pursuant to State law. Make sure you know that what we are talking about here is in regard to States passing their own laws or initiatives and what would happen in this initiative, which is needed because we do not have a Federal law to respect States' rights specifically in terms of medicinal marijuana.
This amendment is necessary because it would prohibit the Justice Department from spending any funds to undermine State medical marijuana laws. It would leave to the discretion of the States how they would alleviate suffering of their citizens. This is a States rights issue. I have been a longstanding advocate for allowing States to make medical marijuana available to patients under a doctor's recommendation to alleviate painful suffering. A doctor's prescription is needed for a substance that is not otherwise legal. Doctors write prescriptions every day for that purpose, and they should be able to do so if their States allow it in the case of medical marijuana.
In my district in San Francisco, we have lost more than 20,000 people to AIDS over the last two decades. Twenty thousand people. I have seen firsthand at the bedsides of these patients the suffering that accompanies this dreadful disease. Medical marijuana alleviates some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting syndrome and nausea. It is not confined to AIDS, but also cancer and so many examples that our colleagues will point out. This is just the compassionate way to go.
The previous speaker says he knows of no scientific or medical institution that has said anything positive about this. I beg to differ. The fact is this has been supported by science. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report that had been commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The study found that medical marijuana would be advantageous in the treatment of some diseases and is potentially effective in treating pain. Medical journals and other recent articles attest to the fact that active components in medical marijuana inhibit pain. Other proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of life, as I mentioned before, for patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis and other severe medical conditions. That is why many medical associations support legal access to medical marijuana, again, if the State allows it with a doctor's prescription, including the American Academy of HIV Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association and the AIDS Action Council.
In addition, more than 10 States, including my own State of California, have adopted these laws since 1996. Most of these laws were approved by a vote of the people. Numerous polls indicate that three-quarters of the American people support the right of patients to use marijuana with a doctor's prescription. A recent AARP poll showed that 92 percent of America's seniors support the use of medicinal marijuana with a doctor's prescription in the States where it is allowed.
Religious denominations also support legal access to medical marijuana, including the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Churches, the National Progressive Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the United Methodist Church.
We must not make criminals of criminally ill people. Excuse me. We must not make criminals of seriously ill people. My slip of the tongue may tell the tale. It is not a crime to be ill. If we need to have access to pain relief, the people who seek this therapy should be able to receive it. It is long past time to base our policies on science and not on misguided politics. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment affects the health and well-being of so many Americans, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
I also want to commend again the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) for their courage in bringing this important bipartisan, compassionate legislation to the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanders amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his leadership in protecting our Constitution and our civil liberties. I also commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his important work in that regard and, of course, the distinguished chairman of the full committee. Again, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), my compliments, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) as well.
But I am rising in support of Mr. Sanders' amendment. The amendment reaffirms the fundamental principle of our history, our Constitution, and our jurisprudence that our civil liberties that must be protected, that any intrusion must be narrowly tailored and contain strong safeguards, and finally, that the executive branch must be accountable through vigorous congressional and judicial oversight.
In his famous dissent in the Olmstead decision in 1928, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the right to privacy ``the right to be left alone, the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.'' As he wrote: ``The makers of our Constitution sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the fourth amendment.''
Against these deeply embedded values that underlie our Constitution, the President has called for Congress not only to extend and again rubber-stamp all of the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but also to provide the FBI with additional and unprecedented powers to seize American citizens' records without the approval of a judge or grand jury.
The 9/11 Commission, however, last year recommended a full and informed debate on the PATRIOT Act, and placed the burden of proof on the President for extending the PATRIOT Act's provisions by demonstrating that they are actually needed, and that there is adequate oversight to ensure protection of civil liberties. These conditions have not been met.
Instead of a full and informed debate, we witnessed all kinds of other intrusions into the privacy of the American people and silencing of voices in our country.
When Congress voted for the PATRIOT Act, Members clearly understood that it would be accompanied by a strong congressional oversight so that the implementation would not violate our civil liberties. That oversight has not occurred effectively.
The Attorney General has admitted that the information has not been forthcoming to the Congress in a timely manner. But for the sunset provisions and the requirements for the inspector general reports, there is little doubt that Congress would not even receive the insufficient information it has received to date.
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act permits the government to obtain library and bookstore records without any showing of specific facts that particular individuals are involved with a foreign power or with terrorism. The only requirement is a statement by the FBI that the records are sought for an authorized investigation, and the judges have no authority to deny the application.
As written, the statute would permit records of innocent and unsuspecting American citizens to be caught up in dragnets and fishing expeditions without notification. Finally, the statute has a gag provision that prohibits the recordholder from talking about the searches, thereby preventing the public from any information that the government is abusing these powers.
By itself, section 215 is problematic, and it is sweeping, but this provision and others are even more problematic when measured by the policy of the Bush administration which point to an absence of safeguards. These include the seizure and detention of more than 1,000 noncitizens in the United States without providing them access to counsel.
In particular, increased surveillance of political and other groups was made possible by the decision of the Attorney General, Attorney General Ashcroft, in July 2002 to effectively end what are known as the Levi guidelines. These guidelines were written in response to constitutional violations committed by the Nixon administration. The Levi guidelines prevented the FBI from monitoring political and religious activity in the absence of specific and articulable facts justifying a criminal investigation. Attorney Ashcroft, however, effectively ended these guidelines and permitted the FBI to monitor political and religious activities without the ``special care'' and supervision that the Levi guidelines required. And we saw the results of that policy: According to the New York Times, in November 2003, the FBI collected information on antiwar demonstrators.
Proponents and the Justice Department claim that section 215 will not be used solely on the basis of citizens' exercise of the first amendment, but can we be assured of that, given the effective revocation of the Levi guidelines and the reported monitoring of political groups, and the fact that section 215 does not require specific and articulable facts? Where are the safeguards?
Oversight, at least by this Republican Congress, has not worked. It is against that backdrop that we consider this amendment today. It is essential that we pass this amendment to let the world know that we will protect and defend this Nation, and, as we do so, that we will protect and defend the Constitution and the civil liberties contained therein. The amendment would not preclude law enforcement from obtaining the records of individuals that they need upon a showing of probable cause through their other authorities.
What we choose to read and the books we buy goes to the heart of our innermost thoughts and our liberty in a free society. These rights must be defended.
As we look to the future, rather than giving further unchecked powers without proper justification and safeguards, Congress should look at the measures to restore the Federal judiciary's role to make sure that law enforcement agencies do not conduct broad and indiscriminate searches.
We should not simply extend all of these provisions, but we should have extensive hearings on the PATRIOT Act, vigorous oversight and modifications to prevent abuses of our civil liberties.
Unfortunately, these essential objectives are not being met by the Republican leadership. Instead, they have sought to silence those who seek to protect our civil liberties and to protect and defend our Constitution.
We can and we must keep the American people safe without threatening their civil liberties. Our Founding Fathers knew well the balance between freedom and liberty. Let us honor their legacy and vote for the Sanders amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov