Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I hear people talking about States' rights. If a State said sexual trafficking is okay, would we honor that and say that we're not going to protect? I would hope not. States, in the past, have done some things that have not been good in this country. Secondly, we know that many of these marijuana dispensaries are simply fronts for illegal marijuana distribution. The FDA noted in 2006 that ``there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful''--harmful--and that ``no sound scientific study supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety of efficacy of marijuana for general medical use.'' As required by the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA requested a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. And what was concluded is ``that marijuana,'' the stuff that we're saying tonight-- anybody, if you saw the ``60 Minutes'' piece, they come in, they buy, they take. We talk about doctors. The number of doctors that were ripping off people with OxyContin, the number of doctors that were devastating-- You can go down to Broward County, Florida, and go into some of these pain clinics. There are buses coming down and planes coming down to buy it. And doctors are writing prescriptions. So we're going to hide behind and just say doctors are? The number of doctors that ruin, that ruin young people on OxyContin, whereby they died--they died. So to hide behind a doctor says that that means it's okay--but Health and Human Services said, ``Marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use under medical supervision.'' I may be the only one in this body that feels this way, but I will tell you, I think if this amendment passes and this becomes the law, this would be a gateway to young people. This will literally send a message down to the Mexican cartels. There is going to be a market all over. It will also increase automobile accidents because you will basically be finding people that are driving while they are high versus driving while they are intoxicated. So, lastly, I would just hope and ask that we defeat this amendment. Why don't you have hearings in the Judiciary Committee? Why don't you have hearings some other place? But at 7:30--and my friend from Massachusetts was joking about the time. The time is now 8:05, and we're doing this. We're changing the law. And I think it would be bad for the country and urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I want to thank the gentleman and the gentlelady for raising this issue and standing up. This was not done by our committee. This was done by the Justice Department, by the administration. But what we will do is next week we will ask the three or four who spoke, that we bring the Justice Department in. We will get them to come up here whereby they can sit down with all of you together and your staffs to explain why, and see if they can justify this. But I just want to be clear, this was not done at the committee's request. This was the Justice Department.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WOLF. I thank you, and with that I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WOLF. I share the comments made by Mr. Fattah and by my friend from New York (Mr. King). At every hearing we have, we raise this issue with Director Mueller. Director Mueller may be the best--not one of the best--the best Director that we've ever had at the FBI. I think Director Mueller has stood with the NYPD. He had an opportunity to speak and to say something negative. He did not. My good friend--and he is my friend. I think we throw words around there, but I like Rush Holt, and he knows how I feel about him. Yet this is not a good amendment, and it almost makes the FBI or the NYPD look like they're doing something wrong. It's one thing to have a colloquy on the floor, but another to have an amendment that looks like it's a direct kind of attack on it after. I looked at the original amendment, and you had to kind of change it for it to be in order. Secondly, I think Ray Kelly is one of the finest police chiefs we've ever had in the country, and if you were an NYPD policeman, you would see this and think. Thirdly, to validate what Mr. King said, I will read here: President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser praised the New York Police Department's work Friday, saying the agency has struck an appropriate balance between keeping people safe and protecting their rights. We have to remember Major Hasan was responsible for the death of 13 people, and there were targets and signs that nobody wanted to kind of identify. As Mr. King said, there are about 180 people from my congressional district who died in the attack at the Pentagon. Brennan goes on to say: It is not a trade-off between our security and our freedoms and our rights as citizens, John Brennan said Friday at an appearance at NYPD headquarters. I believe that balance that we strike has been an appropriate one. We want to make sure that we're able to optimize our security at the same time we optimize those freedoms we hold and cherish so deeply. Brennan's comments represent a White House stamp of approval of the NYPD's tactics. For months, the Obama administration has sized up the question about the NYPD surveillance program while insisting on the importance of building partnerships with American Muslims. Then it goes on to say: City officials said the police department has done nothing illegal and argued that the NYPD would have endangered the city it is charged with protecting if it did not take such preventative measures. Officers cannot wait to open an investigation until a crime is committed, they argue. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has said it is a mischaracterization to describe the department's tactics as spying. I will close with this: In a speech to the police department's officials and representatives from private security firms, Brennan then went on to say, The NYPD's counterterrorism work was essential to the safety of the Nation's citizens. So I agree with Mr. King, and I agree with Mr. Holt.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. WOLF. In reclaiming my time, I do take Mr. Brennan at his word. I think Mr. Brennan is actually a constituent who lives in my congressional district. He has a pretty distinguished career in having been our station chief in Saudi Arabia and the head of the Counterterrorism Center, and he probably knows more about terrorism than any Member here in the Congress but for, perhaps, Mr. Rogers or Mr. Ruppersberger. Secondly, Director Mueller, I maintain, is one of the best Directors. Director Mueller is an honest, decent, ethical guy, who cares deeply with regard to civil rights. Mr. Serrano is not here, but God bless Mr. Serrano. At every hearing, Mr. Serrano always bears in to make sure that the FBI is doing things appropriately. I believe they are, and he validated what the NYPD did. It's just not a good idea to be attacking our law enforcement and saying this when they're actually doing a good job. So I stand with Mr. Fattah, and I stand with Mr. King.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. WOLF. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. WOLF. We have a little concern, but we are going to accept the amendment with the idea we can work as we go to conference. We will accept the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman from Alaska. We will work with the other body to ensure that these programs are adequately funded.

Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WOLF. I have no objection. I support the amendment. It's appropriate to reduce the Agency's representation funds in this austere fiscal environment. Last year, the House and Senate conference committee on the bill reduced every representation account in the bill by 10 percent. So I think MEP is a great program, and I support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WOLF. I have no objection to the amendment. I accept the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I was the only member of the Virginia delegation to vote for the Voting Rights Act in 1982. I attended school for 1 year in a State in which I saw things that were different than I had seen before. And there is a Simon and Garfunkel song called ``The Boxer'': ``The man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' We really can't disregard what has taken place in the country. Now, we may be reaching a point at which this should be looked at again. I believe there is no discrimination now in my State. I think the Judiciary Committee ought to look at this carefully, but this is not the place to do this, and it is such a sensitive issue. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act applies to jurisdictions determined to have had a history of discrimination against minority voters. Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions, based on the formula set forth in section 4, to pre-clear their congressional redistricting plans with either the Department of Justice or with the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia before implementation. In order to be granted pre-clearance, jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the proposed voting change neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color or membership in a language minority group. Litigation is pending now in the Federal District Court, including the case of Texas v. Holder, which challenges the constitutionality of the coverage formula and pre-clearance requirements in sections 4 and 5. In its 2009 decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, the Supreme Court may have signaled a willingness to reconsider the constitutionality of the pre-clearance regime and coverage formula. But this is not an amendment that, I think, is appropriate here. Again, as we deal with this thing, we have to be very, very sensitive because, quite frankly, I remember in 1982, when I voted for this, there were editorials in the Richmond Times-Dispatch that were ripping me apart for this vote. But because I do believe that everyone should have the right to vote, I voted for it. But I would also say, to end, we may be approaching a time that this would go because we want a Nation where no one is discriminated against, and we may have reached that point. But I think the Judiciary Committee should hold extensive hearings and we should see what the Supreme Court does. I don't think this is the place to do it, and I strongly rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. WOLF. I am not a legal scholar, and at 10:10, I don't think I can do it, but there may be a time. I believe now in my State there is not discrimination with regard to voting. I think our Governor is a good, decent guy, and I don't think he wants to discriminate against anybody. The members of the general assembly are of that same mind. Yet there had been in a case in previous times in the State of Virginia, so I'm not going to be the--I went to Georgetown Law School. It's an accredited law school, but I'm not going to sit here tonight and lay it out. I don't think this is what we ought to do tonight. I initially wasn't going to speak, but I just feel strongly. Again, I go back. I remember in 1982 voting for this, and people felt it and I just felt in my heart this was the right thing to do. As of now in my heart, it tells me we ought not adopt this amendment, and we can have the Judiciary Committee hold hearings both in the House and the Senate. We can see what the Supreme Court will do. I just don't think this is the place for this amendment, and I strongly oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for his interest in and advocacy for STEM education. I share his belief that STEM education must be a national priority, and I think the more we invest in it, it is very important for this country so the 21st century is the American century and not the Chinese century. And I look forward to working with him on this issue as we move forward.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.