Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear what we are doing here. The knock and announce policy is enshrined in the Constitution, in the context of the fourth amendment. It goes back at least to the 13th century. It is enshrined in common law. It is held up by numerous Supreme Court decisions over the last 100 years, going back at least to 1914, and several of them in recent years, late 1990s, one again in 2003. Now, all of a sudden, we have this more activist Supreme Court coming to the fore and intruding itself on the law, a Supreme Court which believes it can make the law, not just interpret it. One of the most brilliant aspects of our Constitution is the separation of powers provision. Every law in this country can be made only by this Congress. Now I know some of my friends on the other side want the President to make the law. But if they do so, they are violating the Constitution again. Every law in this country, according to the Constitution, can only be made by this Congress. Not by the President, not by the Supreme Court. The Courts can only interpret the law. What this court has done is attempt to make the law and to intrude itself upon previous Supreme Court decisions and, by doing so, violate the fourth amendment to the Constitution and the knock and announce provision which has been in effect for many centuries. It is up to this Congress to stop that. That is why this amendment is being offered.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, before beginning, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the desk having to do with the medicinal use of marijuana. I understand that the first one has been allocated 10 minutes and the second one has been allocated 20 minutes, is that correct?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment was to reallocate funding in this bill away from the prosecution of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in those 11 States where either the legislature or the people of those States by referenda have decided that they would like to have marijuana use for medicinal purposes under the supervision of a licensed physician in those 11 States, to have it moved from there to the enforcement of methamphetamine violations. My understanding is that the chairman is going to insist on a point of order, saying that this is legislating on an appropriations bill. Am I correct about that?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't know why there would be a point of order against this amendment, because it seems to me that we have the ability to make these kinds of decisions now. This is not legislating on an appropriations bill. It is simply moving one appropriation for one particular purpose to a better purpose.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in any case, I respect the chairman's decision; and, with that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with two things: It has to do with compassion, compassion for people who are very seriously ill and/ or dying, and the ability of States in which those people live to provide means by which their suffering can be relieved. It also has to do with one other point, and that is the issue of States' rights, the ability of the States to determine how medical care will be regulated in those States. We have 11 States in our country, Mr. Chairman, that have determined that it is in the interests of the people of those States that they be allowed to use marijuana for medicinal purposes to alleviate the suffering from such things as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. However, the Federal Government has decided that they are going to intervene and prevent those States from carrying out the laws which were passed in two cases by the State legislatures and in nine cases by referenda by the people of those States. We will hear from the people who oppose this amendment that marijuana has something to do with a gateway drug. In other words, it introduces people to other drugs. This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with that. This amendment has nothing to do with drug addiction. This amendment has nothing to do with the potential for drug addiction. This amendment simply has to do with the ability of States to relieve the suffering of their citizens without Federal intervention and the right of States to pass laws regulating medical practice without Federal intervention. It is a very simple amendment, and it ought to be passed. Those people here who believe in small government should support it. Those people here who believe in the issue of States' rights ought to support it. And those people here who believe that State governments and the people in those governments have the right to take care of their citizens and alleviate their suffering, those people in this House ought to support this amendment as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman, the arguments that have been put forth against this amendment have nothing to do with this amendment. This amendment has nothing to do with legalizing marijuana. It has to do with two simple things: being compassionate for people who are suffering and dying under the lawful provisions of laws passed in their States, the 11 States that have done so; and States' rights, the right of States to govern medical malpractice, not this Congress. This Congress should recognize States' rights and live up to the provisions of the Constitution and pass this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Town of Spencer in Tioga County, NY, which is part of the 22nd Congressional District that I proudly serve. This year marks the 200th anniversary of the founding of Spencer and I am pleased to recognize the Town of Spencer and the important contributions it has made to Tioga County and to the State of New York. Located amidst the fertile hardwood forests of south central New York, Spencer was founded in 1806 as an agrarian settlement. The town, named for New York State Supreme Court Judge Ambrose Spencer, held the county seat from 1810-1821 and included the present-day towns of Caroline, Candor, Danby, Newfield, and Cayuta. Today, the Town of Spencer is not only still a strong agricultural center, but it is also becoming home to many new residents who work in neighboring communities, and place a premium on rural small town living. Shortly after Spencer was settled, it produced ``The Mother of Women's Suffrage.'' Born in Spencer in 1814, Esther McQuigg Morris was a proponent of civil rights for all people. On May 2, 1870, shortly after the passing of Wyoming Bill 70, Esther was elected as the Justice of the Peace of South Pass City, Wyoming. With her appointment, Esther became the first woman to hold a public office in the United States. Her motto of ``It's justice first, then after that, the law,'' allowed her position to be so highly revered that in 1967 Esther McQuigg Morris was given her own postage stamp. Throughout its history, Spencer has been vital to the economic well- being of the county. Because of the abundance of fertile land, Spencer blossomed as an agricultural center that boasted successful dairy farms, creameries, and a milk condensory well into the 20th century. This booming agrarian community attracted many settlers, including the Finns, whose positive influence on agricultural technique and trade can still be seen throughout the community. In addition to its rich and attractive agricultural heritage, Spencer hosts several technology driven firms that provide critical information based services throughout the region. Spencer is also home to a thriving arts scene. Historically centered around the Spencer Opera House and the theatrical works of the Spencer Players, Spencer's art scene has become a vital part of community living. Today, Spencer, which is home to many talented artists and crafts men and women, supports a flourishing music society which attracts concerts from both visiting and local performers. When visiting Spencer, it is impossible not to notice how the hard work and generosity of its people has turned the lush green hills into a flourishing community. With this success, Spencer has become a quintessential example of how rural communities form essential, colorful threads that enrich the fabric of this great Nation. For the special role that they play, Spencer, and rural towns like it, deserve to be honored and recognized for their numerous contributions to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the Town of Spencer, NY, as it celebrates the 200th anniversary of its founding.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to my good friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for providing me with this opportunity. As we have heard, Mr. Speaker, next week the Food and Drug Administration turns 100 years old, and it is unfortunate that this agency is not making laudatory headlines as it celebrates such an auspicious occasion. Instead, the Food and Drug Administration is at the nadir of its trustworthiness with the American people. Its basic defense of the public health has simply been perverted in the name of so-called conservative interests. As a member of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee which has oversight over the Food and Drug Administration, I have been frustrated by the agency's cozy relationship with the pharmaceutical industry whose products it is supposed to regulate. In 2001, fees paid by the drug companies funded 32 percent of the FDA's budget for drugs. Today, that figure is nearly 50 percent, and it is expected to go higher. Making matters worse, the FDA must negotiate with the drug industry on how those user fees are allocated. This financial dependency, along with the FDA's constant negotiations with companies over how to spend the fees, is the foundation for the conflict of interest that exists between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry and others it is supposed to regulate. I have been alarmed that financial conflicts of interest are waived by the FDA among its advisory committee members. The agency relies heavily on these scientists and these experts to guide policy when questions arise concerning medical treatments. When the FDA allows conflicted scientists to serve on these boards, events that have occurred over 100 times already during this fiscal year alone, the public health is obviously jeopardized at the expense of inappropriate personal interests. I have been saddened by the stories I have heard from American families who have paid the price for mismanagement of this agency. I have met with many of these families on the efforts by the FDA to preempt their right to sue pharmaceutical companies in local and State courts. These families must be allowed to seek the understanding and justice they are owed after their loved ones are injured or killed from an adverse reaction to a product regulated by the FDA. I will meet with some of these families again later next week. For these and many other reasons, I and many of my Democratic colleagues have introduced legislation, the FDA Improvement Act and others, to address many of the loopholes that currently exist at this agency. This legislation would sever the financial links between the FDA and the drug companies. It would restore the independence of the FDA. It would strengthen the agency's efforts to guarantee post-market drug safety. It would eradicate conflicts of interest on FDA advisory boards. It would restore the public trust in this very critically important agency. Last month, the Wall Street Journal and Harris Interactive released a poll on public perceptions of the job that the FDA is doing on the safety of prescription drugs. Only 36 percent of the adults polled believe that the agency was doing a good job on ensuring the safety and efficacy on new prescription drugs. Eighty-two percent of the people polled believed that the FDA's decisions are influenced by politics over medical science to a great extent or at least to some extent. According to its own Web site, the FDA is our country's oldest consumer protection agency. It should be given the authority to do its job independently, and the administration should sufficiently use that authority to protect the American people. It is a two-step process. Yesterday, the American Association of Retired Persons reported that prices for brand-name pharmaceuticals jumped nearly 4 percent during the first 3 months of this year alone. The men and women paying for these drugs should be able to trust in the safety and the efficacy of the products for which they are paying so dearly. The Food and Drug Administration's 100th anniversary should be a time of celebration, and if we are going to make it such, we have to bring forward legislation to the floor of this House, legislation which makes the Food and Drug Administration free and independent, legislation which reestablishes the arm's-length relationship between the regulator and the regulated. That arm's-length relationship has completely disappeared because the FDA has become financially dependent upon the agency, the entities, the corporations, the drug companies that it is supposed to regulate, and that regulation has fallen apart. Let us bring forward legislation to the floor of this House which improves the FDA and protects the American people.

Mr. HINCHEY

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this issue to the floor in the form of this amendment today. I think that they have done the country a great service. If this House had been doing its job properly, this issue would have been out here on the floor of the House of Representatives quite some time ago. The fundamental principle that we are dealing with here is simply this: we are a Nation of law. All of our law is based upon the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the President of the United States the authority to violate the law. The President of the United States has violated the law. This is not the first administration that has sought to govern the country on the basis of the creation of a climate of fear. As one of our colleagues pointed out earlier in this debate, that can be traced all the way back to the Adams administration, the first Adams administration. But that attempt eventually was overthrown, and it didn't take a long time. The last time we had a President of the United States who wanted to engage in illegal surveillance on the American people, the last time we had a President like this one who was engaging in that kind of activity, was the Nixon administration. President Nixon engaged in illegal surveillance on the American people. As a result of that and other things, he was forced out of office. Subsequently the Congress developed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, in 1978. There are some of us who believe that FISA itself is a compromise of the fourth amendment of the Constitution. The fourth amendment of the Constitution guarantees independence and privacy to every single American citizen, and there are some of us who believe that the FISA Act compromises that. Nevertheless, it is the law. So what do we have now? We have a President who has gone beyond the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, who has engaged in illegal surveillance against the American citizens. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak in the way that I believe is appropriate, and I will continue to do so. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was set up to ensure that the President did not violate the law and go beyond it. This administration has violated the law. We have not addressed that. The House of Representatives, the Senate has not addressed this issue. Now we have an opportunity to address it by virtue of the fact that we have this amendment before us. This is an important vote today. Every Member of this House should act in accordance with the law and accordance with the Constitution and vote for this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.