Craig Recreation Land Purchase Act

Madam Chairman, first of all, I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for crafting an outstanding piece of legislation. As we all know, he guided and shepherded through this body landmark legislation on AIDS which would not have been written into law without his effective leadership. I also thank the gentleman for including so many provisions which I proposed either as amendments or as base text.

In particular, including an amendment on refugees I offered along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that increases refugee protection monies by $310 million over 2 years, and my bill called the Belarus Democracy Act. This legislation which is embodied now into the text of the bill, would provide for effective help to civil society, human rights promotion, and democracy promotion in Belarus; the victims of torture which gets a modest but necessary increase in the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture; and there are many others.

This is a consensus bill in many ways, but there are some points of divergence. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has put into the bill by a very narrow vote, an amendment that seriously and fundamentally weakens America's core anti-coercion law which says no funding goes to any organization that supports or participates in the management of a coercive population control program.

We in this Congress do not make the determination as to whether or not a group gets population control money. We set the standard. It is then left to the executive branch which relies on all relevant information to make a finding. Last year, Secretary Powell made that finding and said that the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births and that this regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the harsh penalties.

``UNFPA's support of and involvement in China's population planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion,'' Secretary Powell said.

I say to my colleagues, this debate is all about coercion. I would hope that my friends who support abortion would realize that coercion, whether it be forced sterilization or forced abortion, is an unconscionable act; and when it is done with impunity by the Chinese government with their partner, the U.N. Population Fund, we need to disassociate ourselves from that kind of activity. We need to stand with the oppressed, not with the oppressor, and the friends of the oppressor. We need to stand with the victims.

I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that I will be offering, cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), that would strike this language from the bill. I would hope that we would stand with the women of China who are being oppressed by their government and with their partners in these crimes against humanity, the U.N. Population Fund. I urge Members to vote for our amendment.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased that Title XV of the State Department authorization bill incorporates key provisions of the Belarus Democracy Act of 2003, which I sponsored earlier this year. The State Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices report on Belarus states that the Belarusian regime's ``human rights record remained very poor and worsened in several areas.'' Thanks to Alexander Lukashenka--aptly cited by The Washington Post as ``Europe's last dictator''--Belarus has the worst human rights record in Europe today. The Helskinki Commission, which I Chair, as well as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe including its Parliamentary Assembly, the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union and other international entities have all chronicled the appalling state of human rights and democracy in a country located in the heart of Europe. Belarus already borders NATO. In just a few years, Belarus will border the European Union.

The Lukashenka regime has blatantly and repeatedly violated basic freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, association and religion. The independent media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and democratic opposition have all faced harassment. Indeed, in the last few months, his war against civil society has intensified--resulting in the closure of non-governmental organizations, independent media outlets and Western-funded media support groups, such as Internews Network group, an international organization that helps develop independent media in countries in transition.

Just last week, the Lukashenka regime denied continuation of the accreditation of the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), an American organization that has implemented a variety of assistance programs in Belarus for years, including programs that helped the struggling independent media. Last week, they ordered the closure of the Minsk bureau of Russian NTV television. Just a few weeks ago, Lukashenka closed down the National Humanities Lyceum, a highly respected school promoting the study of the Belarusian language and culture. There are growing, legitimate fears that Lukashenka is aiming to remove Belarus from its vestiges of democracy dissent.

In October, Lukashenka signed into law the most restrictive religion law in Europe. Independent journalists have been sentenced to ``corrective labor'' for their writings. There are credible allegations of the Lukashenka regime's involvement in the disappearances of leading opposition figures and a journalist. Here in Washington and at various OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meetings, I've had occasion to meet with the wives of the disappeared, Victor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky, Yuri Zakharenka, and Dmitry Zavadsky. These meetings have been heart- wrenching. The cases of their husbands--who disappeared in 1999 and 2000 and are presumed to have been murdered--are a stark illustration of the climate of fear that pervades in Belarus.

On the security front, reports of arms deals between the Belarusian regime and rogue states, including Iraq and North Korea, continue to circulate. Lukashenka and his regime were open in their support of Saddam Hussein.

One of the primary purposes of this initiative is to demonstrate U.S. support for those persevering to promote democracy and respect for human rights in Belarus despite the onerous pressures they face from the anti-democratic regime. Necessary assistance is authorized for democracy-building activities such as support for non-governmental organizations, independent media--including radio and television broadcasting to Belarus--and international exchanges.

The bill also encourages free and fair parliamentary elections, conducted in a manner consistent with international standards--in sharp contrast to the 2000 parliamentary and 2001 presidential elections in Belarus which flagrantly flaunted democratic standards. As a result of these elections, Belarus has the distinction of lacking legitimate presidential and parliamentary leadership, which contributes to that country's self-imposed isolation. Parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held in 2004, and we should encourage those who seek to create the laws and environment conducive to a free and fair election.

In addition, the Executive Branch is encouraged to impose sanctions against the

Lukashenka regime and deny high-ranking officials of the regime entry into the United States. U.S. Government financing would be prohibited, except for humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products. The U.S. Executive Directors of the international financial institutions would be encouraged to vote against financial assistance to the Government of Belarus except for loans and assistance that serve humanitarian needs.

Madam Chairman, we are seeking to help put an end to the pattern of clear and uncorrected human rights violations by the Lukashenka regime and are hoping this will serve as a catalyst to facilitate Belarus' integration into democratic Europe. The Belarusian people deserve to live in a society where democratic principles and human rights are respected and the rule of law is preeminent. The Belarusian people--who have endured so much both under past and current dictatorships--deserve our support as they work to overcome the legacy of the past and develop a genuinely independent, democratic country.

In addition, Madam Chairman, in keeping with this authorization for the Department of State, I want to express my appreciation for the work of the Department in bringing needed attention to the concerns about ongoing anti-Semitism, an age-old plague that still haunts many countries in the OSCE, including our own. I have sought to identify effective responses to this troubling phenomenon, including the introduction of the resolution, H. Con. Res. 49 which passed last month.

Last month, I joined Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Congressman Hastings in Vienna for an OSCE conference specifically focused on anti-Semitism. Having the OSCE itself take up this important cause is significant. In fact, the idea was first raised in the May 2002 hearing of the Helsinki Commission and also suggested in the resolution condemning anti- Semitism I presented at the Berlin Parliamentary Assembly meeting last summer. I offered a similar resolution week before last at the Rotterdam OSCE PA meeting. Both resolutions passed the Assembly unanimously. While the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has actively denounced anti-Semitic acts, I give great credit to the State Department for making the Vienna Conference a reality. Notably, one initiative emerging from the Vienna Conference was a pledge by our German friends to hold a follow-up meeting in Berlin next year to focus on anti-Semitism. I hope this meeting will rally the troops from Europe, the U.S., and Canada to say in one voice ``never again.''

Finally, Madam Chairman, I was pleased to learn of Senator Voinovich's amendment to the Senate's State Department reauthorization bill requiring the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom to include specific coverage of anti-Semitism. The amendment calls for the report to cover ``acts of anti-Semitic violence that occurred in that country'' and ``the response of the government of that country to such acts of violence.'' Importantly, the amendment would mandate the report to chronicle ``actions by the government of that country to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to religious freedom with respect to people of the Jewish faith.'' I think this is a worthwhile idea and hope it will be enacted into law.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to strike the Crowley language in the State Department bill under consideration.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, just 10 months ago a sweeping, comprehensive reiteration of China's Draconian population control program went into effect in all of China. Sadly, the new law is as harsh, brutal, and violent as ever. Lest anyone be deceived that Beijing is somehow easing up on coercive population control, it is all there in the new law, the infamous one-child-per-couple policy, the crippling fines on those women who attempt to resist, and severe punishment to those women who have a child without explicit government permission.

Since 1979, the U.N. population fund has been the chief apologist for China's coercive one-child-per-couple policy. By its words and by its actions, the UNFPA has chosen to partner with those who oppress women. The UNFPA has funded, provided crucial technical support and, most importantly, provided cover for massive crimes of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. Tens of millions of children have been slaughtered, their mothers robbed of their children by the state. The UNFPA has aggressively defended this barbaric policy that makes brothers and sisters illegal and makes women the pawns of population control cadres.

One terrifying consequence of China's policy is the disproportionate number of girl murders. According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in China, currently there may be as many as 100 million more men than women, clearly a direct result of the one-child-per-couple policy.

Time and again, Madam Chairman, the officials at the UNFPA have defended the indefensible. The former executive director of the UNFPA, Nafis Sadik, said, ``China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy. The country could offer its experience and social expertise to help other countries.'' God forbid. Let them export the one-child-per- couple policy which relies on coercion to achieve its ends? I hope not! On CBS ``Nightwatch,'' the executive director of the UNFPA said, ``The UNFPA firmly believes, as does the government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a total voluntary program.'' Madam Chairman, that is unmitigated nonsense and that is a lie.

UNFPA Beijing representative Sven Burmester said and I quote, and please listen to this. This is the U.N.'s man in Beijing:

``China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind.'' That does not sound like a criticism of coercion or involuntary or forced abortion. That sounds like a partner defending a fellow partner gushing with praise. Of course it ``works,'' and of course the Chinese program is ``successful.'' Coercion works every day of the week.

Forced abortion, I would remind my colleagues, was construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. It is no less of a crime today as it is practiced by China with its partners in that crime, the UNFPA.

Madam Chairman, having failed the important review required by the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion law, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) today is now attempting to gut, to weaken, to rig the 18-year-old Kemp- Kasten law by requiring that it only be operative if an organization ``knowingly and intentionally'' advances or expands coerced abortion or forced sterilization. If we adopt the Crowley language, enforcement of the current anticoercive law would be dead. Clearly, the whole idea behind this is that the money will flow to the UNFPA unfettered because with this standard, the weakened standard, there is little doubt that the money will flow.

U.S. investigators, if we adopted this language that is in the underlying bill, would now be required to investigate UNFPA personnel and ascertain their knowledge and their intent: What did they know and when did they know it? Given UNFPA's deplorable track record of denying that coercion even exists in China, it would be nearly impossible to prove intent. Even the hard-liners in China, in the government, deny coercion or any knowledge of coercion or intent to compel abortions.

I have made three human rights trips to China. I met with the head of China's population control program, Peng Peiyun. Madame Peng Peiyun told me over and over in that lengthy conversation that there was no coercion in China and then she backed that up by citing UNFPA's participation in the program and UNFPA's public statements where UNFPA leaders have defended and said there is no coercion in China. For the past 24 years, again despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, UNFPA has declared China's program to be, quote, purely voluntary, free of coercion and a model to be emulated by other countries. Let us not forget that proving intent, this weakening standard offered by the gentleman from New York, is usually the stuff of criminal prosecutions, not grant-making.

I would point out to my colleagues, also, if we applied the misguided Crowley standard to any other human rights standard, human trafficking or religious persecution, we would seriously undercut, even destroy, our efforts to mitigate these abuses around the world.

Crowley sets a dangerous precedent in human rights law.

Let me just point out to my colleagues I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Pursuant to that law, Secretary Powell recently placed 15 countries on what we call the tier 3 sanctions list. Those sanctions will soon be imposed. Nowhere in the statute do we require

the Secretary of State to divine the intent of the officials or whether or not they knowingly engaged in these human rights abuses. To give the oppressors that out, that escape clause, would be a gross betrayal of the victims.

In like manner, I respectfully submit we betray the victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization, millions of Chinese women, millions of Chinese children, when we give the oppressors or the friends of the oppressors this engraved invitation to continue denying and obfuscating the truth and, of course, enabling this kind of carnage to go on.

I ask Members to support the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 40 seconds.

I just want to point out to my colleagues that the State Department and Secretary of State Colin Powell relied on many sources to make their determination, and Secretary Powell made this comment in his letter of finding: ``Regrettably, the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a program of coercive abortion.'' He pointed out ``UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.''

Every dollar, Madam Chairman, that does not go to the UNFPA the Secretary of State has said in writing he wants to reprogram to family planning and to maternal healthcare initiatives elsewhere around the world.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my colleagues that we provide almost half a billion dollars in family planning monies that go to Haiti, that go to Nicaragua, that go to El Salvador. We provide government-to-government and through nongovernmental organization support. And the money that does not go to the UNFPA will be reprogrammed dollar-for-dollar for these kinds of services.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my good friend and colleague.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King.)

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Chairman, presumably the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and virtually everybody in this Chamber opposes the tyrannical forced abortion policy of China, but not the UNFPA. Let me say that again, not the United Nations Population Fund.

Their representative has called this the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind. They call it voluntary when it is not. They aid and abet this cruel policy in many, many tangible ways.

The State Department has it right. In the 32 counties as well as in the rest of China, when a woman gets pregnant and the baby is out of ``plan'', in other words, an illegal pregnancy--an illegal child--she faces Draconian fines of up to 6 years of salary. That is what compels the abortion. Desperate, with nowhere to turn, she aborts the child to avoid those fines. I urge support for Smith-Oberstar-Hyde amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have one final speaker to close debate on my side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, to close debate for our side.

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1950, the foreign relations authorization bill for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 as it was reported out of committee. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill; and I am proud to have cosponsored it with my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman; and I want to pay public tribute to his extraordinary leadership of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Chairman, every single item that our committee deals with represents the daily menu of all our international and domestic media: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the Middle East, Pakistan, Colombia, North Korea, China, Russia, Cuba, NATO, Europe, Africa. They are all part of this legislation, and our committee and its staff deserves commendation for being able to deal with these issues in a bipartisan fashion.

I am very pleased that our bill fully funds the administration's request for the State Department and contains many of the provisions that Secretary of State Colin Powell has requested to help him better manage the Department of State. I want to commend Secretary Powell for his effort to strengthen what has traditionally been one of our Nation's greatest resources, our diplomatic corps. I am pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that under the authority provided in our bill, the Secretary's diplomatic readiness initiative will reach its final goal of putting 1,158 new professional American diplomats in place to serve our country across the globe.

I am also very pleased to be joining my good friend from Illinois in a continuing effort to make sure that we reduce as rapidly as possible the period of time in which our embassy employees are left in compounds and facilities that are vulnerable to terrorist attack. To support this, our bill provides over $1.3 billion over the next 2 years for security upgrades at our embassies in all parts of the world.

Our bill also contains a number of critical foreign policy initiatives that will give our State Department the tools it needs to promote and protect our national security interests in an increasingly complex world.

I am very pleased to have had the chance to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), our distinguished Committee on Rules chairman, in crafting one such measure, the International Leadership Act of 2003, which has been folded into this bill. Mr. Chairman, the Leadership Act is designed to give our diplomats the tools they need to ensure that America once again punches at its weight class at the United Nations.

Our legislation achieves this by creating a Democracy Caucus to support the United States at the United Nations by directing our President to use his influence to reform U.N. rules, so that rogue regimes cannot gain leadership positions, and by providing new training to make our diplomats more effective in multilateral diplomacy. As my colleagues well know, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of years ago, the United States was removed from the U.N. Human Rights Commission, a body we founded; and Libya was put in charge of that commission, a theater of the absurd if we ever saw one.

I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that with the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), on a historic measure, we succeeded in making provisions for offering significant assistance to a new and democratic Palestinian state if performance benchmarks can be reached, including a total cessation of terrorism and the establishment of a transparent, democratic, and independent judiciary and Palestinian government responsive to its people.

An important provision to our bill was added by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). His provision reverses the administration's harmful

and highly political decision to withhold U.S. funding from the United Nations Population Fund. The administration's move came after its own hand-picked investigative team concluded that there was no evidence that the population fund would be involved in any way in coercive family planning in China. The gentleman from New York's (Mr. Crowley) measure will help the population fund to demonstrate that voluntary family planning is the only humane and effective way for China to control its population explosion.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that this provision will be debated later today, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the committee position on this matter.

Another important initiative included in our bill is the International Free Media Act of 2003. It will help the State Department to encourage the development of sources of accurate, objective reporting in societies which are currently polluted by messages of propaganda and hate in state-controlled media, such as the media in Egypt. I am particularly pleased that this initiative includes a new $15 million fund to support independent and ethical journalism across the globe.

Our bill also contains the Missile Threat Reduction Act of 2003, which is designed to confront the alarming spread of offensive ballistic missiles for launching nuclear, chemical, and biological warheads. This measure commits the United States to seeking a new international mechanism to restrict the trade in missiles. It strengthens United States sanctions against those who trade in missiles, and it provides assistance to countries which agree to destroy their missile arsenals.

The bill also recognizes the United States' vital interests in promoting Afghanistan's transition from chaos, civil war, and disorder to an increasingly prosperous and democratic state. To prevent the spiral downward, the bill directs the President to ensure that there is adequate security along major transportation routes in Afghanistan and urges him to expand the international security assistance force.

I am also pleased, Mr. Chairman, that our bill authorizes all funds necessary to pay our assessed dues upon reentry to UNESCO, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Full funding is critical, Mr. Chairman, if we are to fulfill the President's commitment of last year to rejoin this most important international organization. When UNESCO was founded at the end of the Second World War, its motto was, ``Since war begins in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must first be constructed.'' Never was this statement more appropriate and timely than it is now; and our rejoining UNESCO will demonstrate that, far from being unilateral, we want to accept our full responsibility as a cooperative member of the international community.

I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the rule for our bill has struck out the amendment sponsored by my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) which addresses global climate change, a very real and immediate threat to our national security, an issue that has been neglected far too long.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that later today we will be debating an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and me authorizing the President's Millennium Challenge Assistance Initiative and the proposal to dramatically expand our Peace Corps. This amendment will dramatically improve the ability of the United States to help the least fortunate on this planet and to promote a world where hope thrives and the despair that leads to support for international terrorism vanishes.

I want to thank the chairman of our committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for working with me and all of the other members of our committee in crafting an excellent bill. Virtually every element of this bill has the support of both Republicans and Democrats, and this is in large part due to the statesmanlike leadership of the gentleman from Illinois. I want to commend our distinguished chairman and thank him for the open, collegial, and witty manner in which he has brought this bill through the committee and he will bring it through this House.

Mr. Chairman, we are considering this legislation at a pivotal moment in global history. We are engaged in intense diplomacy on every continent, with opportunities to solve long-festering disputes and crises in Levant, in Iraq, in the Eastern Mediterranean, in Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, in Afghanistan, in Colombia, and in scores of other places.

It is in the midst of this critical conflict against the forces of terror and Islamic fanaticism that our bill will make a major contribution to building a safe, secure and more democratic world. I believe that enactment of our legislation will leave a lasting legacy towards solving all of these disputes and crises, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), my good friend, the distinguished ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA), and I ask unanimous consent that during the period of time I am making a presentation at the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) may control the time on this side and yield it to others.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I am second to no one in this body in my criticism of China's horrendous human rights record, including its population control policies. But the U.N. funds program in China is specifically designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of voluntary family planning programs free of coercion and free of quotas. In fact, for over three decades the U.N. fund has helped couples in scores of countries around the globe, avoiding unwanted pregnancies through voluntary family planning programs that fully respect individual rights.

Today, 99 percent of U.N. funds, and let me repeat, 99 percent of the funds are spent outside of China. But this amendment ignores 99 percent of the programs and cuts off our contribution solely over China. If this amendment should pass, more unwanted children will come into the world, and more unnecessary abortions will occur.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to commend my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), for the power and integrity of his convictions. The Millennium Challenge Account would not have been possible without his leadership and commitment to a bipartisan approach to international poverty reduction.

The Millennium Challenge Account, as conceived by the President and crafted by the Committee on International Relations, marks the beginning of a revolution in U.S. international development assistance by recognizing the importance of democratic rule, good governance, and human rights. In achieving sustainable levels of economic growth and social development, the MCA creates the political and economic linkages critical to reducing poverty and to achieving progress.

At the same time, the MCA removes the Cold War-era strategic calculus from the development assistance equation. Each potential recipient of our assistance is to be judged on its own merits, based on their commitment to progress and our commitment to the political, economic, social, and humanitarian value of development assistance.

Finally, the MCA implicitly endorses a critical aspect of our approach to combatting international terrorism. Although the administration has not focused on this point, modern terrorism of the kind that struck our Nation on September 11 is fueled in part by the desperation and hopelessness that pervades much of the developing world. The MCA provides new hope, and as such, represents a powerful antidote to terrorism and other forms of violent conflict that have stalled the developing world.

Mr. Chairman, when the Committee on International Relations held its first meeting on the MCA, I expressed a range of concerns about various aspects of the administration's initial proposal. I am pleased to say that the legislation included in this amendment has addressed satisfactorily each of my earlier concerns, and the Hyde-Lantos amendment before us has my very strong support.

The administration's initial proposal relegated USAID, the most capable agency within our government in administering international assistance, to a bit part in managing this massive account. Our bipartisan amendment restores USAID to its rightful role by providing its administrator with a seat and a vote on the Millennium Challenge Corporation's board of directors. Together with the interagency coordination that our amendment requires, this improvement promises to strengthen the MCA considerably.

Our bipartisan amendment also addresses my earlier concerns about the rigid application of strict eligibility criteria by mandating congressional and societal consultations on the finalization of criteria. By providing for an annual reevaluation process and by authorizing limited assistance to those countries on the cusp of eligibility, our legislation safeguards against the inherently arbitrary nature of mechanically selecting qualified states.

Mr. Chairman, the Hyde-Lantos MCA amendment will not single handedly eradicate poverty, nor will it place the United States in the same company as Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands, the global leaders in this field, in terms of per capita levels of development assistance; but our legislation will renew our commitment to poor, but striving, countries in our common fight against hunger and despair.

Speaking as someone who as a youth experienced both tremendous deprivation and the bounty of American generosity, I can testify to the profound influence that U.S. assistance can have on shaping the perceptions of foreign nations of our great country.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to conclude by addressing the reauthorization of the Peace Corps, which is also included in this amendment. It is fitting that we consider the Millennium Challenge Account and the Peace Corps jointly because both are critical to enhancing U.S. international development assistance.

Since President Kennedy first deployed the Peace Corps in 1961, the program's 168,000 volunteers, men and women, young and old, have made an immeasurable contribution to reducing poverty and promoting American values literally all over the globe. Reauthorizing this inspirational initiative is clearly in our national interests and in the interests of reducing poverty and restoring hope across the globe.

Two of our colleagues deserve special recognition for bringing the Peace Corps reauthorization before us. The gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a new, but invaluable, member of our committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a former Peace Corps volunteer himself, were instrumental in crafting this amendment; and I am deeply indebted to both of them.

Mr. Chairman, today this Chamber has the opportunity to reauthorize the Peace Corps and to establish the Millennium Challenge Account. Both initiatives offer the best hope to defeat international poverty and international terrorism, and I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the Hyde-Lantos amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), my good friend and colleague and a former Peace Corps volunteer.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware of the gentleman's excellent amendment, and I support his efforts in enhancing our capability to provide post-conflict reconstruction assistance.

The legislation of the gentleman addresses the importance of providing a coherent strategy in the provision of assistance to postconflict reconstruction in countries and regions. In today's world, we are continually faced with humanitarian disasters, wars and other crises, and enhancing our capability in providing reconstruction assistance in times of such crises is a vital and necessary goal that we must achieve.

I want to commend my friend for proposing this very useful approach.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the distinguished ranking member of our Subcommittee on Africa.

(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that denies all funding for the American Community Survey. And if anyone has been listening to the debate early on, the Census has come up numerous times already, and much of what I have to propose here has in many ways has been debated. But I do want to bring it up one more time dealing specifically with the American Community Survey.

One of the reasons why it came to my attention is just recently I received this survey in the mail here in my temporary residence in Virginia. It is rather intimidating and it is rather threatening when you receive this in the mail. And I have the envelope here and right up on the front they have warned me. They said ``The American Community Survey form enclosed. Your response is required by law.''

This was the second time. Evidently, I missed it the first time, so the second time around I have been threatened by the census police that I better jolly well fill it out or the police will be knocking on the door. And that does happen because I have known other individuals who have not filled out the long form, and they come to the door, the police are there deciding they want this information.

It was stated earlier in the discussion about the census that this was certainly the law of the land. The law of the land is very clear that the Congress gave the authority; the Census Bureau certainly does not do this on its own. We, the Congress, gave it the authority to do this. But it just happens to be an authority that we had no right to give. We have no right to give this authority to meddle into the privacy of American citizens.

Article 1, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates a national census every 10 years. I am in support of that, and I vote for funding for a national census every 10 years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting. But, boy, this is out of hand now. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars and it is perpetual. The argument earlier was, we have to have to survey continuously because we save money by spending more money. Ask people a lot of questions, personal questions about bathrooms and incomes and who knows what.

This survey I have got here, here is a copy of it. It is called the American Community Survey. And it says the Census Bureau survey collects information about education, employment, income, housing for the purposes of community uses so that they can do community economic planning.

How did we ever get involved in all of this? It is almost sacred now that we fund these programs and they are going to be perpetual, perpetual meddling in the personal lives of all American citizens, 24 pages here.

I got to wondering, I did not fill it out the first one. I got the second one, and they are threatening me. I know I

did not vote for it, but you who did means, you are ready to send the census police out to get me.

I am getting worried about this. I mean, what is the penalty? So I looked it up, and it is not insignificant. Do you know what my colleagues have done and threatened me with? A $1,000 penalty for every question I do not answer. Wow, that is scary stuff. I had a friend that he did not answer the long form, after a couple of requests, the census police came and knocked on his door and said you better, you better answer all these questions or you are going to be penalized.

So that is the kind of thing that we do and everybody talks about all these wonderful advantages, but it is stuff we do not need. I mean, if we want this information, if people need this information in the communities, they ought to get it themselves. This whole idea that we have to collect all this information for the benefit of our communities to do all this economic planning, I mean, it is just so much more than we need, and we are not talking about 10 or $15 million. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is not just every 10 years.

It is continuous with this perpetual threat, you tell us what we want to know and we are going to put it into the record, and if not, for every question you do not answer, we can fine you $1,000 if you do not tell us your age and where you work and how far you have to go to work and how long it takes you to go to work.

I mean, this is way too much of Big Brother. Let me tell my colleagues, I think the American people cannot be very happy with all this meddling.

So my proposal is let us at least get rid of the American Community Survey, which is the ongoing nuisance that we put up with, and limit what we do here to what the Constitution has told us we can do and what we should do, and that is, count the people every 10 years for the purpose of redistricting. But big deal, who cares. For all we do around here, how often do we really pay attention to the details of the Constitution?

So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and cut this funding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it denies funding to the Department of Justice to prosecute doctors for prescribing legal drugs.

The reason I bring this up is to call attention to the Members of a growing and difficult problem developing in this country, and that is, that more and more doctors now are being prosecuted by the Justice Department under the laws that were designated for going after drug kingpins, for illegal drug dealers; but they are using the same laws to go after doctors.

It is not one or two or three or four. There are approximately 400 doctors who have been prosecuted, and I know some of them, and I know they are good physicians; and we are creating a monster of a problem. It does not mean that I believe that none of these doctors have a problem. As a physician, I know what they are up against and what they face, and that is, that we have now created a system where a Federal bureaucrat makes the medical decision about whether or not a doctor has prescribed too many pain pills. I mean, that is how bureaucratic we have become even in medicine; but under these same laws that should be used going after kingpins, they are now being used to go after the doctors.

As I say, some of them may well be involved in something illegal and unethical; and because I still want to stop this, this does not mean I endorse it, because all the problems that do exist with some doctors can be taken care of in many different ways. Doctors are regulated by their reputation, by medical boards, State and local laws, as well as malpractice suits. So this is not to give license and say the doctors can do anything they want and cause abuse because there are ways of monitoring physicians; but what has happened is we have, as a Congress, developed a great atmosphere of fear among the doctors.

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, a large group of physicians in this country, has now advised their members not to use any opiates for pain, not to give adequate pain pills because the danger of facing prosecution is so great. So the very people in the medical profession who face the toughest cases, those individuals with cancer who do not need a couple of Tylenol, they might need literally dozens, if not hundreds, of tablets to control their pain, these doctors are being prosecuted.

Now, that is a travesty in itself; but the real travesty is what it does to the other physicians, and what it is doing is making everybody fearful. The other doctors are frightened. Nurses are too frightened to give adequate pain medications even in the hospitals because of this atmosphere.

My suggestion here is to deny the funding to the Justice Department to prosecute these modest numbers, 3 or 400 doctors, leave that monitoring to the States where it should be in the first place, and let us get rid of this

idea that some bureaucrat in Washington can determine how many pain pills I, as a physician, can give a patient that may be suffering from cancer.

I mean, this is something anyone who has any compassion, any concern, any humanitarian instincts would say we have gone astray; we have done too much harm; we have to do something to allow doctors to practice medicine. It was never intended that the Federal Government, let alone bureaucrats, interfere in the practice of medicine.

So my suggestion is let us take it away, take away the funding of the Justice Department to prosecute these cases, and I think it would go a long way to improving the care of medicine. At the same time, it would be a much fairer approach to the physicians that are now being prosecuted unfairly.

And let me tell you, there are plenty, because all they have to do is to be reported that they prescribed an unusual number of tablets for a certain patient, and before you know it, they are intimidated, their license is threatened, their lives are ruined, they spend millions of dollars in defense of their case, and they cannot ever recover. And it is all because we here in the Congress write these regulations, all with good intentions that we are going to make sure there is no abuse.

Well, there is always going to be some abuse. But I tell you there is a lot better way to find abusive doctors from issuing pain medication than up here destroying the practice of medicine and making sure thousands of patients suffering from the pain of cancer do not get adequate pain medication.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment denies funds to UNESCO, and it is an amendment that is identical to what I brought up last year and got a recorded vote on and had a debate on last year.

Last year, I brought it up because we were just getting back into UNESCO. President Ronald Reagan, in 1984, had the wisdom of getting us out of UNESCO because of its corrupt nature, not only because it had a weird, false ideology, contrary to what most Americans believed, but it was also corrupt. He had the wisdom to get us out of it, yet last year we were put back in UNESCO, and I was hoping that we would not fund it.

Last year, the Congress approved $60 million for this purpose, which was 25 percent of UNESCO's budget. Does that mean we have 25 percent of the vote in UNESCO? Do the American people get represented by 25 percent? How much do we get out of it? What is the American taxpayer going to get? The American taxpayer gets a bill, that is all. They do not get any benefits from it.

And there is one part of UNESCO that is particularly irritating to me, and it is called the Cultural Diversity Convention. This is an organization that actually is very destructive and will play havoc with our educational system. It also attempts to control our education through the International Baccalaureate Program, and that, too, introduces programs and offers them to our schools. It is not forced, but there are already quite a few schools that have accepted these programs.

Now, let me just give my colleagues an idea of the type of philosophy they are promoting, but what we as the Congress promote with what the American taxpayers are paying for. Here it is:

``The international education offers people a state of mind, international mindedness. We are living on a planet that is becoming exhausted. And now listen to this, this is what the U.N. UNESCO people are saying about education in the various countries, including ours. Most national educational systems at the moment encourage students to seek the truth, memorize it and reproduce it accurately.'' Now, one would think that is not too bad of an idea. ``The real world is not this simple,'' so says UNESCO. ``International education has to reconcile this diversity with the unity of the human condition.''

I mean, if those are not threatening terms about what they want to do, and yet here we are funding this program and the American taxpayers are forced to pay for it. Now, there are a few of us left in the Congress, I see a couple on the floor tonight, that might even object to the Federal Government telling our States what to do with education, and of course there is no constitutional authority for that. We have the Leave No Child Behind, but it looks like everyone is going to be left behind before we know it.

But here it is not the Federal Government taking over our Federal education system; this is the UNESCO, United Nations, taking over our educational system. It does have an influence. Sure, it is minimal now, but it will grow if we allow this to continue.

So I ask my colleagues to please vote for my amendment, and I sure hope they allow a vote on this amendment. It was permitted last year, so it surely would be permitted this year.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and conclude with another statement from a director of UNESCO, who further explains exactly what they are up to. He said in June that ``the program remains committed to changing children's values so they think globally rather than in parochial national terms from their own country's viewpoint''. So if we talk about an attack on national sovereignty starting at the lowest level through an educational system, it is right here.

The chairman, obviously, is not very enthusiastic about this. But my job as a representative is not to follow what other people tell me. My job is to read these bills and to know what they say

and to represent my district. Because somebody asks us to finance this and our instincts tell us there is something very sinister about this, I would say that that is not a very strong reason to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, am a physician from Texas, but I have a little different opinion about Marinol. No doctor that I know of ever prescribes Marinol.

I think marijuana is a helpful medical treatment for the people who have intractable nausea. I would like to point out this is not something strange that we are suggesting here. For the first 163 years of our history in this country, the Federal Government had total hands off, they never interfered with what the States were doing. They interfered only after 1938 through tax law. So this is something new.

The States' rights issue is almost a dead issue in the Congress, but we ought to continue to talk about it, and I am delighted somebody has brought this up.

But if you do have compassion and care for patients, they ought to have a freedom of choice. I think that is what this is all about, freedom of choice.

I would like to point out one statistic. One year prior to 9/11 there were 750,000 arrests of people who used marijuana; there was one arrest for a suspect that was committing terrorism.

Now, that, to me, is a misdirected law enforcement program that we could help address here by at least allowing the States to follow the laws that they already have on the books.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is very straightforward. In simple terms, the Farr-Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Paul amendment prohibits the use of funds in the bill from preventing States that have medical marijuana laws from implementing them.

As a result, the States have medical marijuana laws on the books they can implement, regulate and enforce them, just like now. States that do not have medical marijuana laws on the books remain subject to the overarching Federal law.

This amendment does not stop law enforcement officials from prosecuting illegal use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage the use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage the use of drugs in children. This amendment does not legalize any drugs. This amendment does not change the classification of marijuana. This amendment is recognized as States' rights to oversee the medical scope of practice of doctors in their States, to prescribe drugs as doctors see as necessary for medical conditions.

Today's Los Angeles Times points out that the Justice Department's medical marijuana war seems increasingly out of step with the whole country. Last fall, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling barring Federal officials from prosecuting doctors for their recommendations.

Just 2 weeks ago, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainstream religious groups supported doctors' rights to prescribe pot as a when- all-else-fails treatment for the seriously ill. The best way to thwart casual use of this drug is to let doctors prescribe it in closely circumscribed and regulated ways such as the States do.

Now, there are nine States that have passed these laws. The voters are speaking, and they are doing it more in every State. Just recently Vermont. Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have enacted State medical marijuana laws. Because of these State laws, thousands of patients are able to alleviate their pain and suffering without fear of arrest by State or local authorities.

The threat of arrest by Federal agents, however, still exists. In the past, the Federal Government has impeded research on medical use of marijuana, even though thousands of patients have testified, explained, and acknowledged that it helps relieve some of the debilitating symptoms, such as nausea, pain, loss of appetite associated with serious illness.

Despite Federal admonitions against marijuana, the American people support medical marijuana and pretty overwhelmingly. Most national polls show the support around 70 percent.

This amendment is not necessarily about the actual medical purpose of marijuana, though I know scores of doctors have attested to marijuana's medical benefits. In States where medical marijuana is legal, thousands of licensed physicians have recommended marijuana to their patients. This amendment is not about legalizing drugs, though some will argue that it should be.

No. What this amendment is about is States rights. In so many areas we trust States rights. And I think of us here in the United States Congress. We allowed States to draw our district boundary lines.

We allow States to set the fee we have to pay to run for office. We allow the States to create the primary procedures for getting elected to Congress. We allow the States to fashion Medicaid packages. We allow States to license doctors to practice. We trust the States to do what is best for their residents of that State. When it comes to health care policy or palliative care, the care of alleviating pain, nine States of the United States have determined that it is appropriate public policy to allow the use of marijuana as a prescribed treatment.

If Congress respects States rights in so many other areas, why does it not respect it with regard to medical marijuana?

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the Federal Government from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. It would end the DEA raids on medical marijuana patients and caregivers who are acting in accordance with state law. It would not--let me repeat--it would not prevent the DEA from arresting individuals who are involved in marijuana-related activities unconnected to medical use.

Here is the simple question posed by this amendment: Should the Federal Government arrest individuals who are trying to alleviate their own suffering or the suffering of others in compliance with state law?

I am only too familiar with the tension between DEA law enforcement and state and locally-sanctioned marijuana cooperatives in California. On September 5, 2002 in Santa Cruz, California--my district--dozens of heavily armed DEA agents stormed into the home of Valerie and Mike Corral where the cooperative garden of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), a medical marijuana hospice, is tended by collective members. They destroyed 167 plants, which would have been distributed--free of charge--to more than 200 seriously and terminally ill WAMM members. Although the Corrals did not resist, the agents pointed loaded rifles to their heads, forced them to the ground, and handcuffed their hands behind their backs. The DEA agents kept them handcuffed in their home for 4 hours before taking them 30 miles to the Federal courthouse in San Jose where they were eventually released without being charged. Meanwhile, Federal agents handcuffed the Corral's over-night guest, Suzanne Pfeil, a WAMM member who was disabled by polio, and detained two other members, one with AIDS and a caregiver. Pfeil happened to be sleeping when the raid occurred. Despite the fact that her leg braces and crutches were in plain sight, the agents demanded she stand, which she was unable to do with her hands cuffed. Pfeil's blood pressure shot up and she experienced chest pains. Agents then refused to call an ambulance. All this pain, confusion and fear--yet WAMM was operating with the full knowledge and consent of state and local authorities.

Many people who oppose medical marijuana say that there is only anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness. But these anecdotes cannot be simply dismissed; they are the stories of real people who are suffering. Just this morning in Roll Call, there was a powerful example of this. Talk show host Montel Williams discussed his struggle to live with excruciating pain caused by multiple sclerosis. Montel Williams, a former Marine and decorated naval officer, who made anti-drug PSA's for the White House drug czar's office, explained in this article that marijuana is the ``only'' drug that allows him to function on a day-to- day basis. Now if he is using marijuana with his doctor's advice and is following state law, why on earth should we waste Federal resources trying to prevent him from alleviating his own pain? And taking it a step further, if someone else is growing that marijuana for him and is following state law why should we take that medicine away from him by interfering with the grower?

The answer most opponents of this amendment will give is that marijuana simply is not a medicine. But this had become an absurd claim. First of all, both the Netherlands and Canada have enacted medical marijuana laws, with marijuana available at pharmacies in the Netherlands. In the United States, nine states have medical marijuana laws that allow doctors to recommend marijuana to their patients. And in those states, hundreds of doctors have recommended marijuana to thousands of patients.

Even our Federal Government has acknowledged the therapeutic benefits of marijuana. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine conducted a study funded by the White House Office of National Drug Policy. The principle investigator from the study said upon its completion, ``We concluded that there are some limited circumstances in which we recommend smoking marijuana for medical use.'' An even stronger endorsement came from the DEA in 1988. Then, Administrative Law Judge Francis Young, after an exhaustive, 2-year study of marijuana, called for its rescheduling on the grounds that ``marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.'' He concluded, even 60 years ago, that marijuana offered a ``currently accepted medical use in treatment.''

Over the past year, medical marijuana has gained even wider acceptance. It has been endorsed by the American Nurses Association, whose 2.6 million members care for the Nation's most seriously ill patients; by the United Methodist Church, the Nation's third largest religious denomination; by the New York and Rhode Island Medical Societies; and by many other health care organizations. Other longtime supporters of medical marijuana include the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the American Public Health Association.

Do opponents of this amendment honestly believe the American Nurses Association, the New York State Medical Society, United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and others are supporting this issue because they hope to legalize marijuana for all purposes? Of course that isn't the reason. These organizations support legal access to marijuana for medical purposes because they know one simple fact: it helps sick people.

Other opponents of this amendment say that they will not support medical marijuana until more research is complete. The problem is that the Federal Government has effectively blocked research. To cite just one example, in July 2001, the University of Massachusetts applied to the DEA for a license to manufacture marijuana for medical research. This is the same kind of license a company called GW Pharmaceuticals applied for in England a few years ago. While GW Pharmaceuticals has now concluded Phase III trials and is nearing market approval for its marijuana spray, the DEA--3 years later--has not even bothered to deny the University of Massachusetts' license. Of course, they have not granted it, either. They have just let the application sit in limbo.

Antoher application to the Federal Government, requesting permission to import just 10 grams of marijuana for research has languished for 10 months. Does our government think 10 grams of marijuana is going to increase the drug problem in this Nation? Of course not. The Federal goal seems to be to purposely to block research that would prove--or disprove, once and for all--that marijuana has therapeutic benefits.

But let's assume for a minute that all of the obstacles to research were suddenly removed. That does not get us past the immediate question: Should the Federal Government, over the course of the next year, while research is proceeding, arrest patients and caregivers who are complying with state law in order to alleviate their own suffering or the suffering of others?

Another objection raised by opponents of this amendment is that passing it would send the wrong message to children. It would make children think that marijuana is not dangerous. Let me tell you something. Children know how dangerous marijuana is already. Allowing seriously ill patients to use it will not change that. And associating the use of marijuana with AIDS and chemotherapy is not likely to increase its appeal. On the other hand, if you deny cancer, AIDS, and MS patients the opportunity to use this drug to alleviate their pain-- while permitting the medical use of powerful addictive drugs like vicodin and oxycontin--the only message you are sending to children is that you are intellectually dishonest and completely lacking in compassion.

The truth is, where medical marijuana is legal, there has been no increase in marijuana

use among teens. In fact, in my home state of California, teen use of marijuana has dropped 34 percent among 7th graders, 44 percent among 9th graders, and 21 percent among 11th graders since the California medical marijuana initiative passed in 1996. The same Institute of Medicine study described earlier noted, ``there is no evidence that the medical marijuana debate has altered adolescents' perceptions of the risks associated with marijuana use.'' Listen closely today to hear whether opponents of this amendment back their warning about sending the wrong message to children with any evidence demonstrating that medical use has caused a change in attitude about recreational use; I doubt there will be any with any scientific weight.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is reasonably drafted and built on scientific evidence, judicial review, and medical studies. It reflects the grass roots demand and legislative will of nine of our United States. It is time for Congress to recognize the powerful dynamics of this issue and adopt my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I thought the author of the amendment has the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the comment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I am going to read here that in the State of California, teen use of marijuana has dropped 34 percent among seventh graders, 44 percent among ninth graders and 21 percent among eleventh graders since the California medical marijuana initiative passed in 1996.

Also, I would like to point out that this is not such a radical amendment. It only affects the States that have State laws, that have the enforcement. We have not heard from law enforcement opposing this. We have heard from the American Nursing Association, the United Methodist Church, the New York Medical Society, the Rhode Island Medical Society, the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar Association, the American Public Health Association and the Episcopal Church. They all support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul. This amendment would have the practical effect of putting doctors above the law. It would prevent the federal government from taking action against a doctor who abused his privilege of issuing prescriptions for controlled substances, including addictive and dangerous drugs like Oxycontin. While I have great respect for doctors, and I know that the vast majority of them are honest, law-abiding and motivated solely by their concern for their patients, we can't exempt them from our drug laws.

First, there is no evidence that the federal government is ``persecuting'' doctors for prescribing pain killers. Last year, in fiscal 2003, only 50 doctors nationwide were arrested for illegal prescriptions. That is only five one-thousandths of one percent (.005%) of all the doctors who have DEA licenses to write prescriptions. No one can seriously argue that the DEA is engaging in some kind of campaign to stop doctors from writing prescriptions for pain killers.

Second, the tiny number of physicians who were arrested were not arrested just because they prescribed pain medication. They were arrested because they abused the public trust and the clear standards of the profession set by their peers. These were essentially drug dealers hiding behind a white coat. They used their professional status to obtain sexual favors, drugs, and money.

Last year, six doctors were arrested for trading drug prescriptions for sex. Twenty-three doctors were arrested for writing prescriptions in exchange for money, four doctors were arrested for issuing prescriptions in exchange for other illegal drugs, and seventeen were arrested for writing prescriptions to obtain drugs to feed their own drug habits. (I am attaching a listing of those arrests, provided by the DEA, to my statement for the Record.)

Let's take a look at some examples. Dr. Bernard Rottschaefer was convicted last March for writing 153 illegal prescriptions for painkillers; five women testified that he demanded sex in exchange for those prescriptions, usually for Oxycontin. Another doctor wrote them in the dressing room of an adult nightclub, and another issued prescriptions for sex, firearms, lawn and farm equipment, and labor on his personal property. I don't think anyone in this House would want to give people like that a blanket immunity from the law.

Now, it may be argued that the amendment would only prohibit enforcement when drugs are prescribed ``for the purpose of relieving or managing pain''. But this distinction is meaningless--because anyone who uses a narcotic can argue that it is to relieve pain. When dealing with problems like drug trafficking and abuse, we can't just rely on the word of drug dealers and addicts. Instead, current law already recognizes a reasonable judge of the conduct of doctors--the professional standards set by their peers. I would like to note that the American Medical Association, the largest professional organization in the country representing doctors, has itself refused to support this amendment--precisely because it would immunize the few bad apples who abuse their professional trust.

In closing, I'd like to point out that this amendment would seriously undermine our goal of reducing Oxycontin and other prescription drug abuse. As President Bush stated in the National Drug Control Strategy for 2004, the problem of prescription drug abuse is a growing threat that needs to be addressed. The misuse of prescription drugs was the second leading category of illicit drug use after marijuana, with an estimated 6.2 million Americans having used prescription drugs for nonmedical, illegal purposes. Oxycontin was abused in 2002 at a rate ten times higher than in 1999. Abuse by high school seniors of Vicodin is more than double their use of cocaine, ecstasy or methamphetamine. Meanwhile, Internet pharmacies (which frequently rely on illegal prescriptions), ``doctor shopping'' and other illegal drug diversion tactics are presenting new challenges to law enforcement and the community. Those few doctors who contribute to this problem must be held accountable for their actions. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

DEA Arrests of Physicians--Fiscal Year 2003

summary

Prescriptions in exchange for sexual favors--6;

prescriptions in exchange for drugs--4; prescriptions for

money--23; obtaining drugs by fraud/personal abuse--17. Note:

50 arrests reported for Fiscal Year 2003 which includes 2

separate arrests of the same physician.

physicians of note

Two physicians, Dr. H and Dr. S, maintained medical

practices specializing in the treatment of chronic pain.

While both physicians treated some legitimate pain patients,

they both also practiced outside the scope of legitimate

medical practice by prescribing OxyContin for other than

legitimate medical reasons. These illegal activities led to

their investigation and subsequent arrests. Two individuals

died from overdoses of the OxyContin prescribed by one of the

physicians. One physician has been convicted of conspiracy to

distribute controlled substances. The other physician is

awaiting trial.

prescriptions in exchange for sexual favors

Dr. R--Pittsburgh--provided prescriptions for controlled

substances in exchange for sex. Date opened: 4/16/01; date of

arrest: 6/3/03; conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful

distribution of Oxycodone, Fentanyl, & Xanax.

Dr. W--Washington--wrote prescriptions to female members of

motorcycle gangs in exchange for sex. Date opened: 6/10/03;

date of arrest: 6/10/03; conviction date: 1/14/04; charges:

unlawful distribution of Percocet.

Dr. D--St. Louis--wrote prescriptions in exchange for sex,

firearms, lawn and farm equipment and labor on his personal

property. Date opened: 4/12/00; date of arrest: 11/25/00;

conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful distribution of

Mr. Chairman, first, do not let any Member kid themselves; if you cannot enforce a Federal law, you do not have a Federal law. This would eliminate our ability to enforce marijuana laws in States that have passed this.

My friend from California alluded to a very sad case in the State of California. When we as Members use phrases like ``medical marijuana'' and responsible officials imply that drugs like marijuana are medical, tragedies like this happen.

Irma Perez, age 14, the late Irma Perez, was overdosing on Ecstasy. Her friends had heard that marijuana was medical, and instead of getting her to a doctor, where they said she would have been saved, they gave her marijuana on top of her Ecstasy and she died.

When we have silly debates like this, quite frankly, we bear responsibility. Yesterday, in Ohio, six people died, including a family of four, two adults and two children, when a young person on marijuana and alcohol collided into a truck that hit two other vehicles and killed six people.

If you have medical marijuana laws, like has happened in a court case in the State of Oregon, drug testing laws for truck drivers have been thrown out. It is now being appealed higher, but it is not even clear that you can be assured that our congressional drug testing law for truck drivers will stand up, given the way the courts are interpreting this.

In California, we have a doctor that has given 348 patients under this medical marijuana, including for anxiety and restless leg syndrome. In Oregon, we have a doctor who gave it to 4,000 people over the last few years. We have another doctor in California who uses it, we actually had this person at our hearing, for ADD and hyperactivity, even though she admitted she has no evidence that it worked for those things, but she felt it would make them feel better.

You either believe you have an FDA or you do not have an FDA. We hear about all kinds of other things that FDA cracks down on. Either you have a national FDA or you do not have an FDA.

Furthermore, just last week in Oakland, California, they pulled over a group of guys with about 66 pounds of marijuana. They said it was for medicinal purposes. They found where it was coming from, and they found a warehouse. In this warehouse, they found millions of dollars of marijuana where the people started fleeing, and then these advocates of medical marijuana in California said, Oh, it was so medical.

The person who owned the building had already been busted for transporting illegal drugs. He had lost his license as a pawnbroker. But, no, this was medical marijuana. Some estimate that up to 90 percent of the cases, this is the pro-medical marijuana cases, of marijuana use in California, would be classified as medical.

That is why we have letters, and I will include these in the records, from the Community Antidrug Coalition, and Dr. Dean, who coordinates these efforts, says he opposes it; the Fraternal Order of Police; the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, who plead on behalf of the drug treatment and prevention groups in America to oppose this; the Drug- Free America Foundation; and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is concerned that they will not be able to enforce any drug laws if we do not allow the Federal Government to enforce.

We need to defeat this amendment because it is the wrong message to our youth, it is the wrong message to our law enforcement, it is the wrong message to our drug treatment people, it is the wrong message to the people in the streets of their neighborhoods trying to reclaim their often crime-ridden neighborhoods from drug dealers and addicts in their areas, and it is, quite frankly, unconstitutional.

We fought a Civil War over nullification. States do not have the right. If we can have States nullify an existing Federal law, then on what grounds can this not happen under the same precedent, a lack of enforcement on environmental laws, of civil rights laws, of the Americans with Disabilities Act, of any law? Because once a State can nullify a Federal law by saying, We cannot enforce it, you do not have a Federal system.

This is an amendment fraught with difficulties and should be overwhelmingly defeated by both sides for a multitude of reasons.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letters referred to earlier in my statement.

Community Anti-Drug

Coalitions of America,

Alexandria, VA, July 1, 2004.

Hon. Mark Souder,

House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,

Drug Policy and Human Resources, Rayburn House Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 5,000 coalition members

that Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA)

represents, I am writing to strongly urge you to oppose an

amendment to be offered by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey

(D-NY) to the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related

Agencies FY 2005 Appropriations bill which would effectively

prohibit enforcement of Federal law with respect to use of

``medical'' marijuana. I strongly urge you to oppose this

amendment not only because marijuana is an illegal, addictive

Schedule I drug, with no medicinal value, but also because

this sends the entirely wrong message to the youth of

America.

Marijuana is not a harmless drug: it is the most widely

abused illicit drug in the nation. According to the Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Treatment

Episode Data Set, approximately 60% of adolescent treatment

cases in 2001 were for marijuana abuse. Research shows that

the decline in the use of any illegal drug is directly

related to its perception of harm or risk by the user.

Advertising smoked marijuana as medicine sends the wrong

message to America's youth--that marijuana is not dangerous.

Congressman Hinchey's amendment goes even further by removing

the ability of law enforcement officials to enforce Federal

law. The efforts of the drug legalization movement, to

promote the myth of ``medical'' marijuana and to stifle the

efforts of law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal law

severely dilutes the prevention efforts that community anti-

drug coalitions across America are undertaking to communicate

marijuana is dangerous, it has serious consequences, and is

illegal.

Congressman Hinchey's amendment is offered under the guise

of compassion towards seriously ill patients, when in reality

it is a ``Trojan horse'' to legalize marijuana. To date, the

FDA has not approved nor has it found any medicinal value in

smoked marijuana, which is why it remains a Schedule I

controlled substance. Furthermore, in the States that have

legalized marijuana for so-called ``medicinal'' purposes,

seriously ill, elderly patients are not the only patients

receiving marijuana--children are also. At a hearing before

your Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human

Resources, Dr. Claudia Jensen, of Ventura, California,

testified that she prescribes marijuana as medicine for

adolescents under her care who have been diagnosed with

Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). In a policy statement from

the American Academy of Pediatrics stating their opposition

to the legalization of marijuana, they state that ``Any

change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to

adults, could effect the prevalence of use among

adolescents.'' What kind of a message are the youth of

America receiving when doctors willingly give children

marijuana--it tells children that marijuana is not a

dangerous drug.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge you to help us protect our

nation's youth and oppose any and all amendments limiting the

enforcement of the Federal law pertaining to marijuana use.

Thank you for considering my views.

Sincerely,

Arthur T. Dean,

Major General, U.S. Army, Retired,

Chairman and CEO.