IB
Union Calendar No. 366
103D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4230
[Report No. 103–675]
To amend the American Indian Religious Freedom Act to provide for the
traditional use of peyote by Indians for religious purposes, and for
other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 14, 1994
Mr. RICHARDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources
AUGUST 5, 1994
Additional sponsors: Mr. PASTOR and Mr. LEWIS of Georgia
AUGUST 5, 1994
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on April 14, 1994]
A BILL
To amend the American Indian Religious Freedom Act to
provide for the traditional use of peyote by Indians for
religious purposes, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Indian
Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994’’.
SEC. 2. TRADITIONAL INDIAN RELIGIOUS USE OF THE
PEYOTE SACRAMENT.
The Act of August 11, 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996), com-
monly referred to as the ‘‘American Indian Religious Free-
dom Act’’, is amended by adding at the end thereof the fol-
lowing new section:
‘‘SEC. 3. (a) The Congress finds and declares that—
‘‘(1) for many Indian people, the traditional cer-
emonial use of the peyote cactus as a religious sac-
rament has for centuries been integral to a way of
life, and significant in perpetuating Indian tribes
and cultures;
‘‘(2) since 1965, this ceremonial use of peyote by
Indians has been protected by Federal regulation;
‘‘(3) while at least 28 States have enacted laws
which are similar to, or are in conformance with, the
Federal regulation which protects the ceremonial use
of peyote by Indian religious practitioners, 22 States
have not done so, and this lack of uniformity has cre-
ated hardship for Indian people who participate in
such religious ceremonies;
‘‘(4) the Supreme Court of the United States, in
the case of Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S.
872 (1990), held that the First Amendment does not
protect Indian practitioners who use peyote in Indian
religious ceremonies, and also raised uncertainty
whether this religious practice would be protected
under the compelling State interest standard; and
‘‘(5) the lack of adequate and clear legal protec-
tion for the religious use of peyote by Indians may
serve to stigmatize and marginalize Indian tribes and
cultures, and increase the risk that they will be ex-
posed to discriminatory treatment.
‘‘(b)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian
for bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection
with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful,
and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any
State. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated
against on the basis of such use, possession or transpor-
tation, including, but not limited to, denial of otherwise ap-
plicable benefits under public assistance programs.
‘‘(2) This section does not prohibit such reasonable reg-
ulation and registration by the Drug Enforcement Admin-
istration of those persons who cultivate, harvest, or distrib-
ute peyote as may be consistent with the purposes of this
Act.
‘‘(3) This section does not prohibit application of the
provisions of section 481.111(a) of Vernon’s Texas Health
and Safety Code Annotated, in effect on the date of enact-
ment of this section, insofar as those provisions pertain to
the cultivation, harvest, and distribution of peyote.
‘‘(4) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any Federal
department or agency, in carrying out its statutory respon-
sibilities and functions, from promulgating regulations es-
tablishing reasonable time limitations on the use or inges-
tion of peyote prior to performance of official duties by ac-
tive duty military personnel, sworn law enforcement offi-
cers, or personnel directly involved in public transportation
or any other safety-sensitive positions where the perform-
ance of such duties may be adversely affected by such use
or ingestion, nor shall this section prohibit affected depart-
ments or agencies from establishing reasonable limitations
on the transportation of peyote on military bases or over-
seas. Such regulations shall be adopted only after consulta-
tion with representatives of traditional Indian religions for
which the sacramental use of peyote is integral to their
practice. Any regulation promulgated pursuant to this sec-
tion shall be subject to the balancing test set forth in section
3 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law
103–141; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1).
‘‘(c) For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) the term ‘Indian’ means a member of an
Indian tribe;
‘‘(2) the term ‘Indian tribe’ means any tribe,
band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or
community of Indians, including any Alaska Native
village (as defined in, or established pursuant to, the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601
et seq.)), which is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States
to Indians because of their status as Indians;
‘‘(3) the term ‘Indian religion’ means any reli-
gion—
‘‘(A) which is practiced by Indians, and
‘‘(B) the origin and interpretation of which
is from within a traditional Indian culture or
community; and
‘‘(4) the term ‘State’ means any State of the
United States, and any political subdivision thereof.
‘‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as abro-
gating, diminishing, or otherwise affecting—
‘‘(1) the inherent rights of any Indian tribe;
‘‘(2) the rights, express or implicit, of any
Indian tribe which exist under treaties, executive
orders, and laws of the United States;