Good morning.

The ability of modern medicine to extend life is truly amazing -- each day, we learn of a new treatment to preserve life and function.

How far we have moved from the 16th century, when Montaigne observed: “To die of old age is a death rare, extraordinary, and singular... a privilege rarely seen”.

As science yields its astounding, life-extending discoveries, we also face the stark reality that many of us will develop chronic, often painful conditions such as arthritis ...or perhaps acute, life-threatening diseases such as cancer.

Medicine’s ability to treat these illnesses and extend life brings with it new challenges. And one of these challenges is how to provide the best care and treatment for our loved ones as they move toward the end of life.

A number of recent events have sparked a national debate over the tremendously intertwined moral, legal and ethical issues surrounding end-of-life care, and more specifically, the idea of physician-assisted suicide.

I join with many of my colleagues, witnesses and other colleagues here today in condemning the practice of physician-assisted suicide. To me, physician-assisted suicide is morally and ethically reprehensible, an abhorrent practice which our society can ill-afford to see as a viable alternative to compassionate care and treatment.

Indeed, the Congress spoke out overwhelmingly on this issue last year, when we passed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act by a 99-0 vote in the Senate, and a decisive 398-16 in the House of Representatives. And with the President’s signature, we safeguarded from legal challenge the long-standing federal practice which barred the use of Federal funds to assist in suicide or euthanasia.

America’s conviction that physicians are healers is underscored by the fact that 45 states have laws against assisted suicide.

Which brings us to the topic of today’s hearing on the more narrow subject of the use of controlled substances in physician-assisted suicide.

On July 25, 1997, I joined with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde in sending a letter to Drug Enforcement Administrator Constantine inquiring whether the use of a controlled substance in the deliberate assistance of a suicide would violate the Controlled Substances Act, despite enactment of any state laws which might appear to be in conflict.

While some have expressed concern about any legislative effort which might override state laws here, it is important to note that the Federal government has asserted for decades its appropriate role in regulating substances of abuse.

As Chairman Hyde and I noted in that letter, under existing regulations, a prescription for a controlled substance must be issued for a “legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” I find it hard to argue that deliberate administration of a controlled substance in order to cause an individual’s death could be construed as either legitimate or a usual course of professional medical practice.

On October 8, 1997, the Supreme Court denied certiorari on the Lee v. Oregon case, thereby allowing Oregon’s Measure 16 to go into effect on October 27, 1997. That Measure, about which we anticipate significant discussion today, rescinded penalties against the use of prescriptions for suicide in patients with a life expectancy of less than six months.

After another urgent plea Chairman Hyde and I made to the DEA on October31, Chairman Hyde and I received a November 5 letter from Administrator Constantine concurring in our assessment that the Controlled Substances Act precludes use of a controlled substance with the intent of assisting a suicide.

I might note that Administrator Constantine’s ruling came after a careful review of legal cases, briefs, law review articles, state laws, and prior administrative cases.

On June 5 of this year, I was shocked to receive from the Attorney General a letter revoking the DEA decision, a reversal which appears in the words of her letter to have been prompted by “other correspondence supporting a contrary conclusion.” In that letter, General Reno concludes that the CSA did not override the Oregon law, an interpretation I find troublesome, particularly in light of the apparent extensive analysis leading to DEA’s opposite conclusion.

These letters will be made a part of the record.

There are important legislative efforts underway to reassert the DEA’s authority to stop physician-assisted suicide. In particular I commend the significant contributions offered by Senator Nickles and Representative Hyde as their “Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act” moves forward in the Congress.

Given the near unanimous Congressional expression of opposition to physician-assisted suicide shown last year, I hope to use our hearing today to begin exploring a successful resolution of any important issues so as to facilitate enactment of the Nickles/Hyde bill this year. In that regard, let me iterate my particular interest in developing a consensus among health care providers on the appropriate government role in the practice of medicine. This should not be insurmountable given the medical community’s virtual opposition to physician-assisted suicide.

This promises to be a fascinating session with profound moral and medical implications and I look forward to the testimony of our three panels.