John Fleming

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. FLEMING. Well, my response, Mr. Chairman, is, first of all, there is nothing vague about the billions and billions of dollars that have already been wasted through corporate welfare, giving loans that are guaranteed by the Federal Government, loans to companies such as Solyndra and a whole list of others that now have failed and taken the taxpayer money with them. Now, with regard to the gentlewoman's claim that programs and projects already in progress would be stopped, well, that is absolute nonsense because those deals have been signed. That money has already been committed. What we are talking about is stopping any new projects. Again, I would emphasize here that, if these projects made sense--whether it is renewable or nonrenewable, whether it is carbon-based or noncarbon- based, there is plenty of capital out there to lend. There are a lot of people who want to make money on energy. There are a lot of people who have made money on energy. The reason why there isn't a private market out there primarily is because the government has displaced that private market; and number two, in many cases, when the question is asked--in fact, the President of the United States--why is the government lending this money? His answer was: well, because you can't get it from the private market and private investors. Why? Because it is a dumb idea. They will never get their money back. So why in the world do we want to let the taxpayer money go down the tubes when other people, who are a heck of a lot smarter than we are, see that it is unfit for lending and for capital production? Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, 48 years ago this August marks my first practice as a football player for the famed Meridian, Mississippi High School Wildcats. After almost a half century, I still remember the fragrance of freshly cut dew-covered grass juxtaposed against the pungent odor of skin balm and the human stink of a sweaty locker room. 1966 was the first year of our newly appointed head coach, Bob Tyler, from a small town in north Mississippi. My initial thought and first reading of him was a Meridian Star news article in which he was quoted as saying he believed in maintaining a high level of physical conditioning. I immediately knew that meant we would be running our butts off. And we did. Our first August practice was everything I expected, and much more. We practiced twice a day, sometimes three times a day, first in shorts and then in full pads. Temperatures approached 100 degrees, with 100 percent humidity. Prayers for a quenching rain usually went unanswered. Coach Tyler kept some of the existing assistants such as Jerry Foshee and the late Earl Morgan, and brought in new ones, including Charles Garrett and Robert Turnage. Charles McComb, Jim Redgate, Don Evans, and Doug Marshal were also assistants under Tyler. August, 1966, practices under Coach Tyler and staff seemed unique, even from the beginning. The level of organization, the level of excitement of over 100 young men coming out to join our team, and the professionalism and commitment to a strong work ethic and Christian principles were evident from the beginning. There was also something else quite unique in the history of the football program. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Meridian, Mississippi, deep in the segregationist South, began to slowly integrate its public schools. That first Tyler August of 1966, we were joined by James Williams, the first black athlete in the Wildcat football program's history. The following year, several more African Americans, including Robert Bell, a defensive tackle, joined us. Not very tall, but very wide and athletic, Bell proved to be quite immovable, and hitting him seemed like slamming into rebar filled with concrete. He went on to play for Mississippi State. Our relatively unknown head coach then, Bob Tyler, led Meridian High to a fully undefeated season in his first year. The championship game was also quite unique in a couple of ways. Our opponent, the Jackson Provine Rams, still ran the old single-wing offense popular during the 1930s. The secret to Provine's success was high school coaches of the 1960s had no experience defending against the--even then--archaic style of football. Bob Tyler had an old secret weapon, too, which was defensive line coach Earl Morgan, who played college football during the single-wing era. He knew exactly how to destroy it. The other surprise of the game was a touchdown from the very first play of scrimmage when a ``long bomb'' was lobbed from Bob White to George Ranager. Meridian High won the game and the Big Eight championship, equivalent to today's 6-A championship. The 1967 season under Tyler went much the same way. We had another perfect season, except for a tie game with Columbus. Nonetheless, we went to the State championship and defeated Biloxi High to make it two State championships in a row. With such a sterling resume, Bob Tyler received considerable notice from colleges, as you can imagine. SEC coaches pursued him, and the great Johnny Vaught, head coach of Ole Miss, recruited Tyler to become assistant at Tyler's alma mater and favorite team ever. It was rumored that Vaught was grooming Tyler to succeed him as head coach. Vaught ultimately retired with health problems, and Tyler left for the opportunity to coach under the legendary Bear Bryant of the famed Crimson Tide. It wasn't long before Bob got his shot to become head coach of an SEC football team. He went on to Mississippi State, where he found great success during his 5-year tenure. Bob Tyler was not only noted for his coaching, but for the talent he developed. Smylie Gebhart, a great defensive end, went on to become an All-American at Georgia Tech. David Bailey, a wide receiver, went on to set reception records under Bear Bryant. George Ranager caught the winning touchdown for Alabama in the famous 33-32 shootout with Ole Miss in 1969. Coach Charles Garrett, Tyler's right-hand man, took the helm for the 1968 season and had big shoes to fill. With Tyler promoted to the SEC, Garrett proved he had what it takes. Meridian High School had a third undefeated regular season, but lost out in the State championship rematch against a very fast Biloxi High School team. Garrett developed stars, too. In his 3 years as an Ole Miss running back, Greg Ainsworth ran for 1,361 yards and 17 touchdowns. Mac Barnes, Garrett's quarterback for the 1969 season, became a coaching star in his own right. He went on to coach Meridian High championship teams as well. Mr. Speaker, though of mediocre athletic ability, I gained tremendously from my experience as a Meridian High Wildcat under both Bob Tyler, Charles Garrett, and their very able assistant coaches. Any achievements I have made in my life and career must be credited to a large extent to what I learned on the practice field--concepts such as personal discipline, commitment to excellence, personal sacrifice for a unified team goal, preparation for success, and the meaning of teamwork. Morris Stamm said: It is a commitment to a bigger goal, an opportunity for a young man to learn more than blocking and tackling. Don May offered this: My life lessons learned from the MHS football days proved positive. Hard work and dedication can enable an individual to accomplish any goal and achieve success throughout a lifetime. Applying those lessons to my career and personal relationships has helped me achieve things I would not have thought possible. I now look forward, Mr. Speaker, to the scheduled gathering with many of my teammates and coaches of the Meridian High Wildcats who coached or played under Tyler during the football season of 1966 and 1967. Therefore, I now hereby declare the period of 1966 and 1967 to be the ``Coach Bob Tyler Era.'' What is likely to be our final roll call will be held on August 23, 2014, Meridian. Amazingly, most of the coaches and players, including Tyler himself, after nearly a half century, are still living and will attend the reunion. Some have gone on to glory before us, however, and will miss that final roll call and we will miss them. They include coaches Earl Morgan and Byron McMullen, as well as players such as Smylie Gebhart, David Bailey, Mike Cumberland, David Murray, Gary Saget, Maurice Ross, Mike Magee, Woodson Emmons, and possibly others. Mr. Speaker, I now close with these words. To a man, each of my brother Wildcats, I am sure, feel as I do that every moment of the hard work, sweat, pain, and sometimes disappointment was worth it, and we are all better men because of it. Such a common experience even a half century ago bonds us together forever. Indeed, we were then, as we are today, and always, even when we no longer answer that roll call, will be known as the Meridian High Wildcats, a true ``band of brothers.'' Mr. Speaker, today I want to express a heartfelt tribute to the leaders of our Wildcat band of brothers--Coaches Bob Tyler, Charles Garrett, and all Wildcat coaches, living and not, and to all of my brother players living and not--for all you have done for our town, our school, and especially for me. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, the amendment before you today holds the Department of Defense to current accepted DOD policy and standards when appointing military chaplains. It maintains the status quo, which has been well accepted for decades, if not centuries. My amendment affirms the spiritual role of chaplains in the U.S. armed services, preserving the integrity of the U.S. Chaplain Corps. I want to thank Representatives Jim Bridenstine and James Lankford for their cosponsorship of this amendment. This amendment was adopted last year during the House's consideration of DOD appropriations on a bipartisan basis, although it was ultimately dropped from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. I would urge my colleagues to support its passage again today. Chaplains by definition are ministers for spiritual needs to people of secular institutions. They are equipped to do so because, like many other professionals requiring a certain skill set, chaplains possess a belief in God or a spiritual world view. Chaplains are experienced in their field, educationally qualified, and are willing to serve and attend to the spiritual needs of all members of the armed services, regardless of whether or not that soldier, sailor, airman, or marine shares the same faith as that of the chaplain. Current DOD guidelines requires that the candidates be endorsed by a ``qualified religious organization'' whose primary function is to perform religious ministries to a nonmilitary lay constituency and which holds tax-exempt status as a church. Faith and spiritual leadership are integral and inseparable from the institution of the Chaplain Corps. It would be difficult for an individual lacking in any faith to be appointed as a military chaplain without first dismantling the purpose of the chaplaincy and making significant changes to the DOD policy. Madam Chairman, it is an oxymoron to have a secular person attached to a secular institution as a chaplain. How can that person minister to the spiritual needs of others? Even so, there continues to be a movement to appoint atheist chaplains in the military. Such individuals reject the very existence of God, a deity, or even a spiritual world view, and thus an atheist chaplain would not serve any identifiable need for servicemembers that is not already currently being met with the Armed Forces. There are a host of other nonspiritual services available to support people in a nonfaith context, including social workers, psychologists, and counselors. Through Military OneSource and the Military and Family Life Counselor Programs, servicemembers can receive temporary and confidential counseling services from a licensed professional without any attachment to their records. In addition to these services, military chaplains can stand ready to faithfully and respectfully serve all servicemembers with any resources they might need, regardless of whether the individual shares the chaplain's faith. My amendment would prevent DOD from making changes to its longstanding appointment process that could undermine the integrity of the chaplaincy and interfere with the chaplain's responsibility to meet the religious needs of our brave men and women in uniform. I would like to thank the Family Research Council and the Chaplain Alliance for their support of this amendment, and urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. FLEMING. It is interesting. The gentleman argues that-- amazingly--somehow a chaplain is not going to be open to serving the spiritual needs of all, whether they be gay or otherwise. There is nothing in this amendment that says anything about the choice of one's sexual partner whatsoever. In fact, remember that we already have in our chaplaincy Wiccans, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Many of those accept same-sex marriages. This argument that the gentleman makes is for another debate, not for this one. This deals purely with atheism. It is very interesting because the scene is that, on the battlefield, you have a chaplain who is serving the spiritual needs of a dying soldier and the soldier asks the chaplain: What happens now? What happens after my death? The answer from the atheist chaplain is: There is nothing for you after death. That is really a very disturbing thought, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. FLEMING. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I have amendment at the desk.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill that will prohibit the purchase of automated license plate readers that can record and indefinitely store innocent Americans' whereabouts as they drive by. In the wake of the revelations about NSA data collection, Americans are now learning that police cars and traffic cameras are similarly accumulating a picture of their lives. In many States, there is no policy for how long the government may store the data, and so it is being retained indefinitely. Just like phone metadata, this geo-location data with time stamps can be used to reconstruct intimate details of our lives, who we visit, where we worship, from whom we seek counseling, and how we might legally and legitimately protest the actions of our own government. This language expands upon the prohibitions already adopted under previous MAP-21 reauthorizations preventing Federal funds from being used to purchase cameras for purposes of traffic law enforcement. Despite this prohibition, transportation grants can still currently be used to purchase cameras that collect and store license plate data even when no crime has been committed. Certain highway safety grants within this bill can be used to purchase traffic monitoring systems that we see along highways. This amendment would not stop the purchase of such traffic monitoring cameras. It would only prohibit cameras that have the ability and the purpose of capturing and indefinitely storing the license plate information of innocent Americans. Citizens of each State should have the opportunity to decide the question, but citizens of one State who oppose this policy should not subsidize such monitoring in other States. This amendment does not stop States from purchasing these cameras on their own. Each State should have an open and fair debate in their legislatures about what their citizens are comfortable with. This amendment gives States and local governments a 1-year pause on purchasing these cameras until Congress can deal with the issue more fully. Therefore, I ask the support of all in this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, let me say that in this discussion you may have heard reference to the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause. Let me address that. I want to get that out of the way, because I have talked tremendously over the past few days and weeks about the dangers of marijuana. This controversy came before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich. The Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Government's authority to enforce the Controlled Substances Act. In a 6-3 decision, Justice Scalia, a strong states' rights advocate, concurred with the majority ruling that the CSA does not violate the Commerce Clause or the principles of State sovereignty. Just to read what he said: Not only is it impossible to distinguish controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate, but it hardly makes sense to speak in such terms. Drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities, as the Court explains marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market, and this is so whether or not the possession is for medicinal use or lawful use under the laws of a particular State. Again, if we want to make a statement principle on the Tenth Amendment, fine, but don't do it on the backs of our kids and our grandkids. This is dangerous for them. How do we know this? The health risks: brain development, schizophrenia, increased risk of stroke. A study at Northwestern University recently showed profound changes in the brain just in casual marijuana users. Heart complications, three times normal in such use. Recent studies shows, as I said, not only damage in certain structures in the brain, but the same structures that attend to motivation, which again underlines the amotivational syndrome that we have all heard about. So again, it is settled law. The Supreme Court has already spoken on the constitutionality of this. It is settled when it comes to medicine. We hear anecdotal stories, but there is no widespread accepted use of marijuana, medicinal marijuana and so forth. There is no acceptance of this by the medical community. It is not evidence-based. Fine, if you want to do research on it, but this will take away the ability of the Department of Justice to protect our young people.

Mr. FLEMING. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Wolf. Look, first of all, let's be clear, marijuana is an addicting substance. It is schedule I, it is against Federal law, it was passed that way into the CSA in 1970. What this amendment would do is, it wouldn't change the law, it would just make it difficult, if not impossible, for the DEA and the Department of Justice to enforce the law. Members on my side have been criticizing President Obama for selective enforcement of ObamaCare and for immigration and other laws like that. So now we are going to start going down the road of selective enforcement for our drug policy. Medicinal marijuana, what is it exactly? Folks, I can tell you it is nothing more than the end run around the laws against the legalization of marijuana. There is nothing medical or medicinal about it. It is not accepted by physicians. Oh, somebody claims it may do something for glaucoma, perhaps. Well, maybe it will, maybe it won't. But there are a lot more drugs that do a much better job than that and they are much safer. But the most important thing I want everybody to know, Mr. Chairman, today is the fact that marijuana is highly addicting. It is the most common diagnosis for addiction in admissions to rehab centers for young people. Why in the world do we want to take away drug enforcement and leave our young people out there vulnerable? Yes, you say it can only be used by adults. Well, if it is sitting around on shelves at home the kids are going to get into it. We are already hearing about Colorado fourth-graders dealing with it. We hear about more poisonings in the emergency room. If you look at other places that have gone down this road like Alaska, they retracted from their legalization. So I don't think we should accept at all that this is history in the making and that we are never going to go back. You look at Amsterdam, they put a lot more restrictions back in the control even in that very, very liberal nation. So for that and many reasons I would just say tonight from a legal standpoint this amendment would not be constitutional. Our laws are currently constitutional, as found so in 2005 by the Supreme Court. And this is an extremely dangerous drug for our children and future adults and future generations.

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, Chairman Wolf, for all the many years of service he has provided and the great work he is doing on this appropriation. My amendment simply reduces the Department of Justice's general legal account by $866,000, specifically targeting the Deputy Attorney General's office until the Attorney General enforces the Controlled Substances Act, as well as the Bank Secrecy Act. My amendment does not reduce the enforcement funding available to DOJ, but rather decreases available funding for the salaries of individuals who are delineating ways to evade Federal law. Madam Chairman, it is with growing alarm that we see this administration selectively executing and enforcing Federal law. The CSA sets forth five classifications or schedules for controlled substances. Marijuana, along with heroin and LSD, are schedule I drugs without accepted medical purpose and which have a high potential for abuse. Smoking marijuana remains a Federal offense, and growers and distributors could and should be prosecuted. Despite DOJ's responsibility to uphold the CSA as the law of the land, over the last few months, the Department of Justice has issued several memos suggesting ways for States like Colorado and Washington to evade Federal law and Federal law enforcement and encouraging other States to follow suit with decriminalization and potentially legalization. Any Google search will tell you that the first of eight Federal priorities outlined in Deputy Attorney General James Cole's August 2013 is being run roughshod in Colorado. Kids are quickly gaining access to marijuana. News accounts from Colorado describe elementary children selling pot at school. In February of this year, both the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury outlined ways for banks and other financial institutions to circumvent Federal law, in effect, giving tacit approval for financially facilitating the marijuana industry. Madam Chairman, I don't have time to delve into all of the negative issues regarding health care and marijuana, but it is vitally important for my colleagues to remember that the scientific facts and recent studies all point to the fact that marijuana is highly addictive, is closely linked to altered brain development; schizophrenia; mental illness; heart complications; lower IQ; and impairs attention, judgment, and memory functions. I would like to close by reading the following statement from the Drug Enforcement Agency's DEA May 2014 booklet on the ugly truth about marijuana: Legalization of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety. It will create dependency and treatment issues and opens the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior, and drugged drivers. I think the DEA got it right. It is time for the rest of the Justice Department to do their job and enforce current U.S. law that recognizes marijuana's devastating impact on our children and society. I am hopeful that my amendment will encourage DOJ to take steps necessary to correct any misunderstanding regarding the Federal enforcement of the CSA and the BSA. I now urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLEMING. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I would say to you that science tells us that the more drugs--whether it is marijuana or heroin or whatever--are out there in society, on the shelves in homes, the more likely children will get involved in them. And as they do, in their young, developing brains, they are five times more likely at risk of having an addiction, and that is what gets them in prison. And trust me, my friend, I will tell the gentleman that whether it is marijuana or heroin or methamphetamines, as a drug addict once told me: All addicting substances are gateways to other addicting substances.

Mr. FLEMING. If the gentleman will again yield, alcohol has been a part of our society and culture for thousands of years as part of our religious practices. It was impractical to have a prohibition.

Mr. FLEMING. Alcohol is part of our religious practices.

Mr. FLEMING. So it has been culturally accepted for many generations; whereas, marijuana hasn't. So if alcohol is a problem, why do we want to add another problem in the form of marijuana?

Mr. FLEMING

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, today, in this very interesting discussion, I am talking on this subject coming from the perspective of a physician and a military veteran himself, someone who is very acquainted with addiction disorders, someone who has been a medical director for addiction centers, even involved with methadone treatment over the years. I can tell you that we all honor our veterans. We love our veterans. We are so glad that they have sacrificed what they have and what they go through. We know about PTSD and traumatic brain syndrome and all of these things which are a big problem. However, I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the last thing in the world we should be doing is giving medical marijuana to people with these disorders. What have we learned just in recent days? This month, the American Heart Association came out and said that marijuana, through their studies, both in young adults and middle-aged adults, has been shown to be very damaging to the cardiovascular system, leading to heart disease and congestive heart failure. I have a study right here. Also, in this month, Northwestern came out with a study where they found that there was profound changes in the brain just among young adults who were using only casual exposure to marijuana. We know, on a biochemical level, that addictive substances such as marijuana causes changes in the microscopic neurotransmitters. I wrote a book on that in 2007. So I would say to you today that one of the last things we should do is to damage the brains and the hearts of our beloved veterans. Why should we be hurting them? As far as the claim that there is medical use for marijuana, where is the proof of that? What disease or disorder can be treated by marijuana and nothing else just as well, if not better? There is no proof out there. Trust me, I have been looking for it. There is a mention of treating seizures. Yes, the University of Mississippi is doing a study extracting the oil, not the THC, but the oil for the use for some seizure disorders. It is under experimentation. There is no proof that it does any good. Is medicinal marijuana anything other than recreational marijuana? Well, we have more dispensaries in California and Colorado than we do Starbucks. Do we have that many sick people in these States? I don't think so. So I come to you today as a physician telling you that, having treated veterans in VA hospitals, one of the last things in the world we should do is give addicting substances to people with PTSD and other brain disorders. Any good physician would tell you that. We have other anxiety-reducing medications that are nonaddicting and work very well. Antidepressants do a very good job. But we know that if we compound a brain disorder or disease with an addicting substance that alters the brain itself, we are just going to see even higher rates of disorders, especially suicides. I would challenge you today that we back away from this. Fine, if we want to do some more studies, but medical marijuana--medicinal marijuana--in fact, we even have something called Marinol, which is prescribed sometimes under a physician's supervision--but medicinal marijuana is not under a physician's supervision. There is a scrip written out, and somebody goes and gets high. The smoke from marijuana has more tar in it than cigarettes. Why do we want to have another epidemic of lung cancer and heart disease, for heaven's sake, especially among our veterans? I would say to you today that you can argue about the law. I would say to the gentleman that, yes, it would be improper to recommend to a patient to break the law by using a schedule I drug. It is against the law to use that, at least the Federal law. I wouldn't advise a patient to go break the law. I don't think that would be proper for me as a physician to do that. I would say to you today that we have a number of medical and health reasons that we don't want to hurt and damage the vital organs of our wonderful and beloved veterans. Again, if somebody has a claim that marijuana helps people medically, if it is so necessary and better than any other drug that we have on the market, well, then come forward with the proof. The fact that there are doctors out there who say: yeah, I prescribe it for my patients, fine. But we have doctors who do a lot of things that I don't advise and many other doctors don't advise. It doesn't make it right. It only makes it right if we have proof out there, scientific evidence, that supports its use and benefits. I think this is a good debate to have. I know we are going to be talking about this more, but this does not belong in this bill. Let's protect our veterans, not damage them. I yield back the balance of my time.