[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8874-H8882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          NATIONAL NARCOTICS LEADERSHIP ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

  Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2610) to amend the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 
to extend the authorization for the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy until September 30, 1999, to expand the responsibilities and 
powers of the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2610

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Narcotics Leadership Act Amendments of 1997''.
       (b) Amendment References.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the National 
     Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

     SEC. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTORS.

       (a) Establishment.--Section 1002 (21 U.S.C. 1501) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) There shall be in the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy a Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy, a Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, a 
     Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, a Deputy Director for 
     State and Local Affairs, and a Deputy Director of 
     Intelligence.''; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) The Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy, the Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, the 
     Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, the Deputy Director for 
     State and Local Affairs, and the Deputy Director of 
     Intelligence shall assist the Director in carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the Director under this Act.''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (c)(2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) The Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs shall 
     be the head of the Bureau of State and Local Affairs.''.
       (b) Appointment.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1003(a) (21 U.S.C. 1502(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``the 
     Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy,' after ``The Director,'';
       (B) in each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``and 
     the Associate Director for National Drug Control Policy'' and 
     inserting ``the Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs, 
     and the Deputy Director of Intelligence''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, a Deputy Director, or 
     Associate Director'' and inserting ``or as a Deputy 
     Director''.
       (2) Deadline for nomination.--The President shall submit to 
     the Senate nominations of individuals for appointment as the 
     Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy, the Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, the Deputy 
     Director for Supply Reduction, the Deputy Director for State 
     and Local Affairs, and the Deputy Director of Intelligence of 
     the Office of National Drug Control Policy by not later than 
     90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Continued service of associate director.--The 
     individual serving on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     as Associate Director for National Drug Control Policy may 
     act as the Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs until 
     such time as an individual is appointed to that position in 
     accordance with the amendments made by this Act.
       (4) Clerical amendment.--The heading of section 1003 (21 
     U.S.C. 1502) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1003. APPOINTMENT AND DUTIES OF DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY 
                   DIRECTORS.''.

       (c) Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (A) in section 5314, by inserting after the item relating 
     to the Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy, the following:
       ``Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs, Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy.
       ``Deputy Director of Intelligence, Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy.'';
       (B) in section 5313, by adding at the end the following:

[[Page H8875]]

       ``Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy.''; and
       (C) in section 5315, by striking the item relating to the 
     Associate Director for National Drug Control Policy, Office 
     of National Drug Control Policy.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--Section 1003(a) (21 U.S.C. 
     1502(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (4)(C).

     SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTOR.

       (a) Expansion of Responsibilities.--Section 1003(b) (21 
     U.S.C. 1502(b)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) establish Federal policies, objectives, goals, 
     priorities, and performance measures (including specific 
     annual agency targets expressed in terms of precise 
     percentages) for the National Drug Control Program and for 
     each National Drug Control Program agency, which include 
     targets for the following:
       ``(A) reduction of unlawful drug use to 3 percent of the 
     population of the United States or less by December 31, 2001 
     (as measured in terms of overall illicit drug use during the 
     past 30 days by the National Household Survey), and 
     achievement of at least 25 percent of such reduction during 
     each of 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001;
       ``(B) reduction of adolescent unlawful drug use (as 
     measured in terms of illicit drug use during the past 30 days 
     by the Monitoring the Future Survey of the University of 
     Michigan or the National PRIDE Survey conducted by the 
     National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education) to 3 
     percent of the adolescent population of the United States or 
     less by December 31, 2001, and achievement of at least 25 
     percent of such reduction during each of 1998, 1999, 2000, 
     and 2001;
       ``(C) reduction of the availability of cocaine, heroin, 
     marijuana, and methamphetamine in the United States by 80 
     percent by December 31, 2001;
       ``(D) reduction of the respective nationwide average street 
     purity levels for cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and 
     methamphetamine (as estimated by the interagency drug flows 
     assessment led by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
     and based on statistics collected by the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration and other National Drug Control Program 
     agencies identified as relevant by the Director) by 60 
     percent by December 31, 2001, and achievement of at least 25 
     percent of each such reduction during each of 1998, 1999, 
     2000, and 2001;
       ``(E) reduction of drug-related crime in the United States 
     by 50 percent by December 31, 2001, and achievement of at 
     least 25 percent of such reduction during each of 1998, 1999, 
     2000, and 2001, including--
       ``(i) reduction of State and Federal unlawful drug 
     trafficking and distribution;
       ``(ii) reduction of State and Federal crimes committed by 
     persons under the influence of unlawful drugs; and
       ``(iii) reduction of State and Federal crimes committed for 
     the purpose of obtaining unlawful drugs or obtaining property 
     that is intended to be used for the purchase of unlawful 
     drugs; and
       ``(F) reduction of drug-related emergency room incidents in 
     the United States (as measured by data of the Drug Abuse 
     Warning Network on illicit drug abuse), including incidents 
     involving gunshot wounds and automobile accidents in which 
     illicit drugs are identified in the bloodstream of the 
     victim, by 50 percent by December 31, 2001;'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) coordinate, oversee, and evaluate the effectiveness 
     of the implementation of the policies, objectives, goals, 
     performance measures, and priorities established under 
     paragraph (1) and the fulfillment of the responsibilities of 
     the National Drug Control Program agencies under the National 
     Drug Control Strategy;'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``and nongovernmental 
     entities involved in demand reduction'' after 
     ``governments'';
       (4) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (5) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(9) require each National Drug Control Program agency to 
     submit to the Director on a semi-annual basis (beginning with 
     the first 6 months of 1998) an evaluation of progress by the 
     agency with respect to drug control program goals using the 
     performance measures referred to in paragraph (1), including 
     progress with respect to--
       ``(A) success in reducing domestic and foreign sources of 
     illegal drugs;
       ``(B) success in protecting the borders of the United 
     States (and in particular the Southwestern border of the 
     United States) from penetration by illegal narcotics;
       ``(C) success in reducing violent crime associated with 
     drug use in the United States;
       ``(D) success in reducing the negative health and social 
     consequences of drug use in the United States; and
       ``(E) implementation of drug treatment and prevention 
     programs in the United States and improvements in the 
     adequacy and effectiveness of such programs;
       ``(10) submit to Congress on a semi-annual basis, not later 
     than 60 days after the date of the last day of the applicable 
     6-month period, a summary of--
       ``(A) each of the evaluations received by the Director 
     under paragraph (9); and
       ``(B) the progress of each National Drug Control Program 
     agency toward the drug control program goals of the agency 
     using the performance measures described in paragraph (1);
       ``(11) require the National Drug Control Program agencies 
     to submit to the Director not later than February 1 of each 
     year a detailed accounting of all funds expended by the 
     agencies for National Drug Control Program activities during 
     the previous fiscal year, and require such accounting to be 
     authenticated by the Inspector General for each agency prior 
     to submission to the Director;
       ``(12) submit to Congress not later than April 1 of each 
     year the information submitted to the Director under 
     paragraph (11);
       ``(13) submit to Congress not later than August 1 of each 
     year a report including--
       ``(A) the budget guidance provided by the Director to each 
     National Drug Control Program agency for the fiscal year in 
     which the report is submitted and for the other fiscal years 
     within the applicable five-year budget plan relating to such 
     fiscal year; and
       ``(B) a summary of the request of each National Drug 
     Control Program agency to the Director under this Act (prior 
     to review of the request by the Office of Management and 
     Budget) for the resources required to achieve the targets of 
     the agency under this Act;
       ``(14) act as a representative of the President before 
     Congress on all aspects of the National Drug Control Program;
       ``(15) act as the primary spokesperson of the President on 
     drug issues;
       ``(16) make recommendations to National Drug Control 
     Program agency heads with respect to implementation of 
     Federal counter-drug programs;
       ``(17) take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt 
     to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that--
       ``(A) is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
       ``(B) has not been approved for use for medical purposes by 
     the Food and Drug Administration; and
       ``(18) ensure that drug prevention and drug treatment 
     research and information is effectively disseminated by 
     National Drug Control Program agencies to State and local 
     governments and nongovernmental entities involved in demand 
     reduction by--
       ``(A) encouraging formal consultation between any such 
     agency that conducts or sponsors research, and any such 
     agency that disseminates information in developing research 
     and information product development agendas;
       ``(B) encouraging such agencies (as appropriate) to develop 
     and implement dissemination plans that specifically target 
     State and local governments and nongovernmental entities 
     involved in demand reduction; and
       ``(C) developing a single interagency clearinghouse for the 
     dissemination of research and information by such agencies to 
     State and local governments and nongovernmental agencies 
     involved in demand reduction.''.
       (b) Survey of Drug Use.--(1) The University of Michigan 
     shall not be prohibited under any law from conducting the 
     survey of drug use among young people in the United States 
     known as the Monitoring the Future Survey.
       (2) The National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug 
     Education in Atlanta, Georgia, shall not be prohibited under 
     any law from conducting the survey of drug use among young 
     people in the United States known as the National PRIDE 
     Survey.

     SEC. 4. EXPANSION OF POWERS OF DIRECTOR.

       Section 1003(d) (21 U.S.C. 1502(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(10) require the heads of National Drug Control Program 
     agencies to provide the Director with statistics, studies, 
     reports, and any other information regarding Federal control 
     of drug abuse;
       ``(11) require the heads of National Drug Control Program 
     agencies to provide the Director with information regarding 
     any position (before an individual is nominated for such 
     position) that--
       ``(A) relates to the National Drug Control Program;
       ``(B) is at or above the level of Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary; and
       ``(C) involves responsibility for Federal counternarcotics 
     or anti-drug programs; and
       ``(12) make recommendations to the National Drug 
     Intelligence Center on the specific projects that the 
     Director determines will enhance the effectiveness of 
     implementation of the National Drug Control Strategy.''.

     SEC. 5. SUBMISSION OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY.

       (a) In General.--Section 1005(a) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (2)(A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) include comprehensive, research-based, specific, 
     long-range goals and performance measures (including specific 
     annual targets expressed in terms of precise percentages) for 
     reducing drug abuse and the consequences of drug abuse in the 
     United States;'';
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2)(C);
       (3) by striking paragraph (2)(D);
       (4) by adding at the end of paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraphs:

[[Page H8876]]

       ``(D) include 4-year projections for National Drug Control 
     Program priorities (including budget priorities); and
       ``(E) review international, Federal, State, local, and 
     private sector drug control activities to ensure that the 
     United States pursues well-coordinated and effective drug 
     control at all levels of government.'';
       (5) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking clauses (iv) and (v) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(iv) private citizens and organizations with experience 
     and expertise in demand reduction;
       ``(v) private citizens and organizations with experience 
     and expertise in supply reduction; and
       ``(vi) appropriate representatives of foreign 
     governments.'';
       (6) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by amending clauses (i) through 
     (vi) to read as follows:
       ``(i) the quantities of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, 
     methamphetamine, ecstasy, and rohypnol available for 
     consumption in the United States;
       ``(ii) the amount of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, ecstasy, 
     rohypnol, methamphetamine, and precursor chemicals entering 
     the United States;
       ``(iii) the number of hectares of marijuana, poppy, and 
     coca cultivated and destroyed domestically and in other 
     countries;
       ``(iv) the number of metric tons of marijuana, cocaine, 
     heroin, and methamphetamine seized;
       ``(v) the number of cocaine and methamphetamine processing 
     labs destroyed domestically and in other countries;
       ``(vi) changes in the price and purity of heroin and 
     cocaine, changes in price of methamphetamine, and changes in 
     tetrahydrocannabinol level of marijuana;'';
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (C) by striking the period at the end subparagraph (D) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) assessment of the cultivation of illegal drugs in the 
     United States.''; and
       (7) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``February 1, 1995'' and inserting ``February 1, 1998'';
       (B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``second'';
       (C) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (D) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) a description of the National Drug Control Program 
     performance measures described in subsection (a)(2)(A).''.
       (b) Goals and Performance Measures for National Drug 
     Control Strategy.--Section 1005(b) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by striking ``, Objectives, and 
     Priorities'' and inserting ``and Performance Measures'';
       (2) in the matter after the heading, by inserting ``(1)'' 
     before ``Each National Drug Control Strategy'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (6) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (F);
       (4) in subparagraph (A) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)), 
     by striking ``and priorities'' and inserting ``and 
     performance measures'';
       (5) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)), 
     by striking ``3-year projections'' and inserting ``4-year 
     projections''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) In establishing the performance measures required by 
     this subsection, the Director shall--
       ``(A) establish performance measures and targets expressed 
     in terms of precise percentages for each National Drug 
     Control Strategy goal and objective;
       ``(B) revise such performance measures and targets as 
     necessary, and reflect such performance measures and targets 
     in the National Drug Control Program budget submitted to 
     Congress;
       ``(C) consult with affected National Drug Control Program 
     agencies;
       ``(D) identify programs and activities of National Drug 
     Control Program agencies that support the goals of the 
     National Drug Control Strategy;
       ``(E) evaluate in detail the implementation by each 
     National Drug Control Program agency of program activities 
     supporting the National Drug Control Strategy;
       ``(F) monitor consistency between the drug-related goals of 
     the National Drug Control Program agencies and ensure that 
     drug control agency goals and budgets fully support, and are 
     fully consistent with, the National Drug Control Strategy;
       ``(G) coordinate the development and implementation of 
     national drug control data collection and reporting systems 
     to support Federal policy formulation and performance 
     measurement;
       ``(H) ensure that no Federal drug control funds are 
     expended for any study or contract relating to the 
     legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a 
     substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
       ``(I) ensure that no Federal funds appropriated for the 
     High Intensity Drug Trafficking Program are expended for the 
     expansion of drug treatment programs.''.

     SEC. 6. REPORT ON DESIGNATION OF HIGH INTENSITY DRUG 
                   TRAFFICKING AREAS.

       Section 1005(c)(3) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Not later than March 1 of each year, the Director 
     shall submit to Congress a report--
       ``(A) on the effectiveness of, and need for, the 
     designation of areas under this subsection as high intensity 
     drug trafficking areas; and
       ``(B) that includes any recommendations of the Director for 
     legislative action with respect to such designation.''.

     SEC. 7. REPROGRAMMING AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

       (a) Expansion of Transfer Authority.--Section 1003(d)(8) 
     (21 U.S.C. 1502(d)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) except to the extent that the Director's authority 
     under this paragraph is limited in an annual appropriations 
     Act, and with the concurrence of the head of the affected 
     agency and upon advance approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations and the authorizing committees of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, transfer funds appropriated 
     to a National Drug Control Program agency program, activity, 
     or function designated by the Director pursuant to subsection 
     (c) to a different National Drug Control Program agency 
     program, activity, or function designated by the Director 
     pursuant to such subsection in an amount that does not exceed 
     5 percent of the amount appropriated to either program, 
     activity, or function;''.
       (b) Report.--Section 1003(c)(7) (21 U.S.C. 1502(c)(7)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(7)(A) The Director shall report to Congress on a 
     quarterly basis (beginning with the first quarter of 1998) 
     on--
       ``(i) the need for any reprogramming or transfer of funds 
     appropriated for National Drug Control Program activities; 
     and
       ``(ii) any funds appropriated for National Drug Control 
     Program activities that were reprogrammed or transferred 
     during the quarter covered by the report.
       ``(B) The Director shall report to Congress as required by 
     paragraph (A) not later than 30 days after the last day of 
     each applicable quarter.''.

     SEC. 8. LONG-TERM PLAN FOR REDUCTION OF DRUG USE.

       Section 1003 (21 U.S.C. 1502) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Long-Term Plan for Reduction of Drug Use.--Not later 
     than March 1, 1998, the Director shall submit to Congress a 
     long-term plan for reducing the population of illegal drug 
     users in the United States by December 31, 2001, to 3 percent 
     of the population of the United States or less. Such plan 
     shall include--
       ``(1) a request for funds and other resources necessary to 
     achieve such reduction within the guidelines of the balanced 
     budget agreement of 1997; and
       ``(2) the justifications for each such request.''.

     SEC. 9. DRUG POLICY COUNCIL.

       The National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 
     1501 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end of 
     chapter 1 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1013. DRUG POLICY COUNCIL.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Executive 
     Office of the President a Drug Policy Council, which shall be 
     composed of the members of the President's cabinet, and the 
     purpose of which shall be to make cabinet-level decisions 
     regarding national drug policy.
       ``(b) Chairman.--The President shall be the Chairman of the 
     Drug Policy Council established by subsection (a).
       ``(c) Executive Director.--The Director of the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy shall be the Executive Director 
     of the Drug Policy Council established by subsection (a).''.

     SEC. 10. DEFINITION OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAM AGENCY.

       Section 1010(6) (21 U.S.C. 1507(6)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(6) the term `National Drug Control Program agency' means 
     any agency that is responsible for implementing any aspect of 
     the National Drug Control Strategy, including any agency that 
     receives Federal funds to implement any aspect of the 
     National Drug Control Strategy;''.

     SEC. 11. EXTENSION OF DATE FOR TERMINATION OF OFFICE OF 
                   NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY.

       Section 1009 is amended by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 1999''.

     SEC. 12. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 1011 is amended by striking ``8 succeeding fiscal 
     years'' and inserting ``10 succeeding fiscal years''.

     SEC. 13. REPORT REQUIRED.

       Not later than November 1, 1997, the Director of the Office 
     of National Drug Control Policy shall submit to Congress a 
     report including--
       (1) proposed goals, targets, performance measures (as 
     described in section 1003(b)(1) of the National Narcotics 
     Leadership Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1502(b)(1)), and specific 
     initiatives with respect to the National Drug Control 
     Program, including the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 
     Program; and
       (2) proposals to coordinate the efforts of all National 
     Drug Control Program agencies.

     SEC. 14. APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DRUG-FREE 
                   COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 1031(c) (21 U.S.C. 1531(c)) is 
     amended--

[[Page H8877]]

       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c) Administration.--''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The Director shall appoint an individual to act as 
     Administrator until such time as an individual is appointed 
     to such position under paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Deadline for Appointment.--The Director of the Office 
     of National Drug Control Policy shall appoint an individual 
     to act as Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support 
     Program under section 1031(c)(2) of the National Narcotics 
     Leadership Act of 1988 (as added by subsection (a)) not later 
     than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 15. CONSISTENCY WITH NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947.

       Section 1004 (21 U.S.C. 1503) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``(1)'';
       (B) by striking ``(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(b) Consistency 
     With National Security Act of 1947.--(1)'';
       (C) by striking ``(B)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and
       (D) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)''; and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d) respectively.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. EMERSON). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Barrett] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2610 amends the National Narcotics Leadership Act 
to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy and 
fundamentally restructure the way the drug war is fought.
  In many ways, this is the most significant antidrug bill since the 
original authorization of the drug czar in 1988, with the possible 
exception of the Drug-Free Communities Act, which Congress passed 
earlier this year.
  This bill is built around one basic goal, a virtual drug-free America 
by the year 2001. To achieve this goal, the bill has two basic points: 
First, it empowers the Nation's drug czar to improve interagency 
coordination; second, it adds significant accountability mechanisms to 
ensure that the American taxpayer is getting maximum results from the 
drug czar's office and all of the national drug control policy program 
agencies.
  H.R. 2610 includes additions from both Democrats and Republicans. 
Although we do not agree on everything, I believe the basic concern for 
America's future, especially our shared interest in achieving a 
virtually drug-free America, is certainly a bipartisan goal.
  I thank my colleague across the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
[Mr. Barrett], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], for 
being an original cosponsor of the bill, as well as my Republican 
colleagues, the gentlemen from Indiana [Mr. Souder], the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sessions], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] for their cosponsorship.
  I will briefly summarize the major provisions. First, H.R. 2610 gives 
new coordination authority to the White House drug czar's office, 
including allowing the drug czar to shift up to 5 percent of the 
counternarcotics funding among the national drug control program 
agencies upon concurrence of the agency head. It also requires that 
performance measures be established to give Congress a way to test the 
effectiveness of each and every drug control program.
  Additionally, agencies are asked to identify precisely where each 
dollar of the $16 billion drug budget is going.
  Other new powers include: Requiring the director to review agency 
budgets prior to OMB approval in order to find out the real needs of 
our agencies; acting as the President's chief spokesman on drug policy; 
and monitoring consistency between agency budgets, performance 
measures, and results.
  This bill also creates deputy directors for intelligence coordination 
and for State and local affairs, both of which are badly needed.
  At the request of the ONDCP, we also included a deputy for the office 
to facilitate transitions in the absence of a director.
  To assure the utmost accountability in our war on drugs, this bill 
sets forth, for the first time ever, hard targets and goals and precise 
percentages to be achieved by the year 2001. They are premised on a 
collection of Federal, State, and private studies and hearing testimony 
dating back to 1995.
  These goals are expected to form the basis of a growing national 
expectation that the drug war must be well coordinated and the national 
drug control agencies be held accountable for meeting the ONDCP's 
performance measures. The aim of this bill also is to establish the 
ONDCP, through semiannual reporting, as a central coordinating entity 
in the drug war and not as a mere bully pulpit or paper tiger.
  Finally, this bill contains a manager's amendment, the purpose of 
which is to reaffirm that the authorities conferred on the Office on 
National Drug Control Policy, and its director, by this act shall be 
exercised in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National 
Security Act of 1947.
  In the end, there are certain to be differences of opinion about how 
high or how low the bar should be set in this fundamentally 
reengineered approach to our national drug control policy, but the 
important point about this bill is that for the first time ever 
Congress is actually setting a standard, a bar, and empowering the drug 
czar's office to promulgate aggressive performance measures for the 
agencies which will provide results.
  In closing, let me say that we reauthorized the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy for 2 years, the midpoint between now and the year 
2001, which will allow a review of the foregoing innovations 2 years 
into the 4-year goals.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Although it is 
named the National Narcotics Leadership Act Amendments of 1997, it 
would be more appropriately called the Drug Control Failure Act for the 
year 2000.
  I say failure because this bill has never been designed to give the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy the tools and direction to 
succeed, rather the bill establishes unattainable drug control targets, 
requires the administration to report twice yearly on its failure to 
meet those targets, and provides for only a 2-year authorization 
requiring reauthorization during a Presidential campaign.
  Judging by its major provisions, the bill appears designed to achieve 
political advantage in the 1998 and 2000 elections, all at a cost to 
ONDCP and its efforts to fight drugs at the Federal level.
  In case there is any doubt about this, the bill is opposed by the 
administration, and General McCaffrey, the drug czar, has stated he has 
serious reservations about the bill.
  I have had the pleasure of working and serving with the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] as the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice. I 
know of his commitment to the fight against drugs in this country, a 
commitment shared by all members of the subcommittee, and I am sure by 
all Members of this House. It is because of this commitment and because 
of the hard work we have done on a broad range of drug-related issues 
that I am dismayed by this bill and the process leading up to its 
consideration today.
  Although the subcommittee has held many hearings on a variety of 
drug-related topics, we have not conducted a single hearing on this 
piece of legislation, either in subcommittee or full committee. General 
McCaffrey gave testimony on the administration's proposed bill, but 
neither he nor any other administration official has had the 
opportunity to testify about this bill or any of its major provisions.
  Although the majority in committee made vague references to 
statistics from various sources, there is not a single study or report 
from any source, government or private sector, that recommends or even 
directly supports the targets set forth in this bill. In view of ONDCP, 
which has spent thousands of hours developing performance measures and 
drug control objectives, these targets are arbitrary and flatly 
unattainable by the year 2001.

[[Page H8878]]

  The target for overall drug use is illustrative. The bill establishes 
an arbitrary target to reduce drug use from the current level of 6.1 
percent to 3 percent by year 2001, a goal we all share. However, this 
would require ONDCP to reduce drug use to a rate 60-percent lower than 
at any time in the last three decades. The greatest reduction in drug 
use ever recorded in this country was from 14.1 percent in 1979 to 5.8 
percent in 1992.

                              {time}  1545

  That was a 59 percent reduction and it took 13 years. The other 
targets in this bill are similarly unrealistic and unsupported by any 
scientific evidence. The point here is to make the administration fail 
and to embarrass Democratic candidates in the 1998 and 2000 elections.
  Madam Speaker, if this were a serious bill and not an exercise in 
partisan politics, we would take our example from the other body. There 
Democrats and Republicans are working together on a 4-year 
authorization that supports ONDCP's extensive work on performance 
measures and targets. This bill, which authorizes ONDCP for only 2 
years, takes the agency only halfway in time to the very goals that it 
seeks to establish. It also falls woefully short of the 10-year plan 
outlined in the 1997 National Drug Control Strategy.
  Finally, I would only note that despite its willingness to establish 
arbitrary and unrealistic drug control targets, this House appears 
unwilling to put its money where its mouth is. A review of 
appropriations bills in the House shows drug control budgets 
significantly below the President's request in several key areas:
  In education, appropriations fall short by $68 million. Sixty-four 
million dollars of this is for safe and drug-free school grants. 
Appropriations for drug courts fall $45 million below the President's 
request. Appropriations for the U.S. Customs Service will likely fall 
by $18 million, resulting in a significant reduction in interdiction 
efforts along the southwest border. And appropriations for the Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are likely to fall by $17 million. 
About 40 percent of ATF's programs are related to drug enforcement.
  Madam Speaker, instead of setting up ONDCP for failure, we should act 
responsibly and in a bipartisan way to give General McCaffrey the tools 
and the flexibility he needs to get this job done. I urge my colleagues 
to defeat this bill on suspension so that we may have a full debate and 
an opportunity to offer amendments.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, I 
have worked with the gentleman from Wisconsin for a number of years and 
certainly appreciate his hard work. The fact is that we have had over 
40 hearings on the ONDCP and the drug czar. We have had a dozen 
hearings this year. We have had General McCaffrey up on the Hill 
himself. We have talked about these issues.
  The fact is we are setting goals for this country and for the drug 
czar to wipe out one of the most dreaded things that can approach this 
country and our children, and that is drug addiction. We want to make 
sure that we significantly reduce it and we want to be sure by the year 
2001 that we have significantly reduced it to a point that it is not a 
threat in this country anymore. I do not think that is partisan. It was 
never set up to be partisan. We want to win this fight against drugs. 
We have to take an extraordinary effort to get it done. The fact is the 
drug czar has gotten 7 of the 8 things that he wanted in this bill. He 
got the flexibility that he needs.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. Goss asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me the time. Despite a decade of steady progress in combating 
drug use and drug abuse during the 1980's, the situation appears to 
have taken somewhat of a dramatic turn for the worse since the early 
1990's, and that is why we are here.
  In my view, that is because the administration has accepted stalemate 
in the war on drugs rather than pressing on for the victory that 
everybody in America wants. So now Congress is going to take charge. We 
are going to set some tough goals for the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy. I am very concerned and I know many parents and all 
Americans are concerned about the permissive attitude toward drug use 
that once again seems to be spreading out across our country. We need 
to have leadership that says drugs are not cool, drug use is not 
acceptable, it will not be tolerated.
  That is what this bill is about. We set some performance measures to 
judge the success of the administration's efforts. Let me ask, if we 
are willing to set performance measures for our kids in schools, why 
are we reluctant to set performance measures for how well the 
bureaucrats are doing on the war on drugs? It seems to me to be a 
curious question.
  By 2001 under our program, we expect drug use to be at 3 percent of 
the population or lower. We expect an 80 percent reduction in the 
supply of illegal drugs. We expect a reduction of 50 percent in drug-
related crime and drug-related emergency room visits. And we expect 
drug use by young people to be down to 3 percent, because one of the 
most effective strategies for decreasing the overall use of drugs is to 
convince young people to disapprove of them. The war on drugs has many 
facets, as we all know, treatment, prevention, law enforcement, 
interdiction. ONDCP was created to develop an overall strategy, 
coordinate Federal efforts and channel resources. That was a good idea.
  While this bill will improve the drug czar's ability to effectively 
manage and win the drug war, we are not giving him a blank check. There 
are certain very strict reporting requirements that go along with this, 
so we know what is working and what is not.
  I am also very pleased to be able, through the efforts of the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] to be able to provide ONDCP with 
new tools without upsetting the balance that now exists between ONDCP 
and the intelligence community. It took a lot of workout and compromise 
to get that done. I urge Members to support this bill. It is time we 
had a plan to win the war. This is a good one.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to this bill in its current form. This bill is anything but 
noncontroversial. This bill deals with one of the great issues of our 
day, what type of drug policy will we have.
  Any effective drug policy in America or any nation must include at 
least 3 components: Treatment, education, and prevention. This bill 
does not include in a real way these 3 components.
  An effective drug control policy must embody the principle of 
treatment because through treatment people are healed of their 
addictions. Through treatment we can reduce the number of addicts. 
However, this bill prohibits the use of HIDTA funds for treatment of 
people who are chemically dependent. In fact, this bill provides no 
real ideas for treatment strategies. This is the first reason it should 
be rejected.
  The second principle that must be a part of any effective drug 
control policy is education. Education gives people an opportunity to 
understand how to move away from that which they are using. However, 
this bill does not provide any real component of education. It sets up 
grandiose targets for reductions in drug use that are unrealistic and 
unachievable. This bill lacks the serious components of education and 
therefore must be opposed for that reason.
  Finally, the third principle that must be a part of any effective 
drug control strategy is prevention. An ounce of prevention goes a long 
way toward reducing the number of people addicted to drugs. Prevention 
comes in many forms. It could be a job, it could be hope for someone 
who was hopeless, it could be interdiction, reducing the supply. This 
bill provides no real prevention strategies other than the old ``lock 
them up, throw away the key,'' which we already know does not, will 
not, and cannot work.
  This bill is too important to not debate. I urge that we oppose it on 
the

[[Page H8879]]

suspension calendar and have a full debate so that we can really get at 
the issues.
  Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. To my good 
friend from Chicago, I just want to say that we devote $2 billion on 
treatment to HHS and initially $90, $100 million to Justice. We also 
add and allow $3 million for treatment out of the $140 million for 
HIDTA's, something that is happening now, especially in areas like 
Baltimore. And we are strong on prevention. We even have $195 million 
for media prevention and passed the prevention act this year. So I beg 
to differ with the gentleman from Chicago but that is the fact.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Back in 1988 I was one of the prime sponsors, along with the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and others, that worked so hard in 
this area of drug prevention of the original so-called drug czar bill, 
which was then watered down considerably in conference. This would 
reestablish much of the power that many of us back then, in a very 
bipartisan way, were supporting in order to try to get a handle on this 
Nation's growing drug problem.
  What has happened in the last 10 years? In the last 10 years we have 
spent $103 billion on the war on drugs. I will tell my colleagues that 
in the last 10 years, we have seen a bipartisan failure in the war on 
drugs. Neither party can say that they have been successful.
  Now, what are we doing with this bill? We are setting up 
expectations. We are setting up goals. We are setting up flexibility. 
We are setting up more power within the drug czar's office. We are 
doing all of the right things in order to try to get to what we all 
want to accomplish, both Democrats and Republicans, and that is to 
finally start winning some battles in the war against drugs.
  This country has had absolutely no resolve. Our war on drugs has been 
a blueprint for failure. We have not actually gone to war with the 
objective of winning. We have gone to the war on drugs with a Vietnam 
mentality, and that is the status quo. We talk about putting more 
resources, even more than this bill does, in education and in 
treatment. Sure, that is necessary. But if that is all you are going to 
talk about, it is like bailing the boat out and not plugging the hole, 
and that is ridiculous.
  This bill finally sets accountability and responsibility. I 
personally have a great deal of faith in the present drug czar, General 
McCaffrey. But if he cannot do it, then step aside and let somebody in 
that can do it. It is about time that we set our resolve to winning the 
war on drugs. The greatest possible gift that we can give to the next 
century, and the President is always talking about the bridge into the 
next century, the biggest gift that we can give is to cut back 
addiction in this country, to cut the supply of illegal drugs coming 
into this country, and to at last, get a grip on this thing that is 
absolutely killing neighborhoods. It is creating poverty, it is a 
disaster, it is a national disgrace. This bill fires a shot and it is 
not just a shot across the bow, this is real progress. I would hope 
that we do get a bipartisan vote on this, and I hope we get some 
speakers up on the Democrat side to speak in favor of this bill. It is 
a good bill and it is the way to go.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
fine gentleman from Baltimore, MD [Mr. Cummings].
  (Mr. CUMMINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I first of all want to thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin for his leadership as the ranking member of 
our subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
legislation. This bill is indeed controversial. A number of amendments, 
including one that was offered by myself, was offered by Democratic 
Members but rejected by the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. This bill should not be on the suspension calendar. At the 
very least it should be placed on the House calendar and be considered 
under regular order where issues surrounding the reauthorization can be 
debated.
  I object to a provision within the bill that does not allow high 
intensity drug treatment areas, HIDTA's, to expand their drug treatment 
programs. The Washington-Baltimore HIDTA is the only 1 of 17 federally 
funded HIDTA projects nationwide that uses drug treatment as one of its 
strategies. The success of the Baltimore-Washington HIDTA treatment 
program has been remarkable. Analysts have found that arrest rates 
plunge for drug-addicted nonviolent criminal offenders when they are 
forced to participate in sanctions-based drug treatment programs. After 
9 months of experience in the treatment programs, only 12 percent of 
HIDTA's clients were rearrested. Only 13 percent of HIDTA's clients 
tested positive for illegal substances in a typical month. This should 
be contrasted with the fact that 100 percent tested positive prior to 
entering the HIDTA program.

                              {time}  1600

  The Washington-Baltimore HIDTA is the only HIDTA that operates a 
program of this kind, and it should serve as a model for the remaining 
16.
  Under this bill, the expansion of this successful program approach is 
not possible. The bill sets a series of unrealistic and unworkable 
goals to reduce drug use. According to Barry McCaffrey, the 
requirements in this bill are arbitrary targets, goals and timetables, 
and contain unachievable goals.
  I agree with the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Hastert, that the 
HIDTA's primary focus should be law enforcement. However, I firmly 
believe there should be a partnership with a proven drug treatment 
program, which the Baltimore-Washington HIDTA drug treatment program 
provides. I regret this bill hamstrings the HIDTA drug treatment 
program.
  Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I have been pleased to work with my friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], in this vital 
battle against illicit drugs. He has given new meaning to the term 
``war on drugs.'' I share his desire and that of many others in the 
Congress to get greater accountability from this administration in its 
less-than-effective efforts in the battle, our battle, against illicit 
drugs.
  We surely need accountability from the drug czar now, more than ever, 
as our youth use soars. We also have 141,000 new heroin addicts in 
1995, and those statistics keep growing. Heroin use among the young has 
reached historic levels.
  I was distressed last week that not one piece of equipment or 
supplies to the Colombian National Police or military had been 
delivered under date under the President's 614 waiver of last August. 
We are losing that nation to narcoguerrillas. Witness the attacks on 
both their Joint Chiefs of Staff and the killings and executions of 17 
National Police. More soldiers and judges are being killed or maimed as 
a result of their war.
  The income for these narcoguerrillas is nearly $1 billion a year, and 
we are asking our friends in the CMP to fight this war on the cheap. 
ONDCP's reauthorization is a good legislative vehicle for reform and 
accountability for these shortcomings.
  I fully support the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hastert]. I was pleased the gentleman was able to accommodate my 
concerns about section VII of the bill entitled, ``Reprogramming and 
Transfer of Funds.'' ONDCP now has reprogramming or transfer authority 
of over 2 percent of all the Governments and antidrug budgets, for 
example, the FBI's and DEA's.
  The transfer authority has long created fear that substantial funds 
from law enforcement or interdiction could not be moved and later be 
used by this administration for treatment or media campaigns to the 
detriment of these equally important enforcement efforts.
  To raise the ONDCP Director's transfer authority even higher to up to 
5 percent of the budget of these agencies needs more counterbalance, 
checks and controls.
  By providing the authorizing committees' as well as the 
appropriations

[[Page H8880]]

committees' approval for any such reprogramming, we built in strong 
protections, and I am pleased that the bill now provides for notice of 
approval under this provision to the Committee on International 
Relations, for example. We and other authorizing committees could then 
have some real meaningful input.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield three minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick].
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member from Wisconsin for this opportunity to address the House.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, primarily 
because I am not a member of the committee that reported this, and, as 
a result, because it is on the suspension calendar, I do not have an 
opportunity to offer amendments.
  How can we put on the suspension calendar a bill so important to this 
Nation as the one before us this afternoon? Did you know that 850 tons 
of drugs leave Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and a couple other places in 
this world, destined to America, and that 600 tons of those drugs get 
into our country?
  Drugs are the cancer of America. It is creating a cancer in our 
families and our communities and across this Nation. How then can we 
put this legislation on the suspension calendar and not allow 435 
elected Representatives to debate the issue?
  I oppose this legislation, mainly on that ground. I have a HIDTA in 
my district, high intensity drug trafficking area. I work with the 
community and the people who are part of that in my district.
  But what we found in HIDTA is, yes, it is good on law enforcement, 
but it is poor on community input. It is poor on having proven programs 
participate in the HIDTA. The board of the HIDTA is law enforcement.
  Yes, we need law enforcement, but we also need community input into 
the cancerous drug trade hampering America, and which, in my opinion, 
will really restrict America from being the fine country we have been 
as we move to the 21st century.
  There have been no hearings on this legislation. How can a cancer 
such as drugs, 600 tons of it into our country, come before this 
Congress, with no hearings, and then be put on the suspension calendar?
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this. Let it go to the Committee 
on Rules. Let it be debated before the full House of Representatives. 
We can cure this program, I am convinced of that, but not when we try 
to hoodwink Americans, not when we do not give our communities the 
support that they need.
  This bill must go to the Committee on Rules. It must come on the 
Floor for open debate, so we can all debate it and amend it, and then 
send it on to the President.
  I urge the defeat of this legislation. Let us come back and debate 
it. Until we deal with the drug problem in America, our seniors are not 
safe, our children have no opportunity, and this Congress will not be 
as effective as it ought to be.
  Please defeat this legislation.
  Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman, the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, for 
yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I would enlighten the previous speaker and just 
indicate that there have been extensive hearings on this legislation, 
as there should have been, with regard to reauthorizing such a major 
component of our war against drugs, the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy.
  The vote on this bill, H.R. 2610, is very simple: Any Member who is 
serious about getting tough in the war against drugs should vote for 
it. Anybody satisfied with the status quo or desiring to move backwards 
should vote against it. It is that simple.
  The legislation did not all of a sudden develop. It was the result of 
extensive negotiations with the executive branch, both parties in this 
Congress, and the Senate. It reflects very extensive hearings that were 
held, including hearings with the GAO.
  The GAO, which is a nonpartisan watchdog agency of our Government, 
has told us that long study has indicated to it that the current drug 
policy under the leadership of the ONDCP is not clear, it is not 
coordinated, it is not comprehensive, and it is not consistent. 
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that it has been largely 
ineffective.
  This legislation, on the other hand, is clear, it is coordinated, it 
is comprehensive, and it is consistent; in short, a recipe for success 
where we have had failure in the past.
  This is perhaps the most important vote to come before this body with 
regard to coordinating our war against mind-altering drugs since the 
original enabling legislation setting up the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy was passed in 1988.
  Every Member here who is serious and wants to put their vote where 
their words are should vote for this piece of legislation. It is the 
by-product of extensive hearings, extensive material, and it will work.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I would say I reject the simplistic choices set forth 
by the gentleman from Georgia. They are not, in fact, the choices that 
are being made. I regret the gentleman is not listening to me, but to 
set up such a simplistic choice between A and B, and with the 
hypothesis if you are not for this bill, you are not for the drug 
fight, is absolutely incorrect. The gentleman is still not listening to 
me. C'est la guerre.
  Madam Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, 
Postal Service and General Government, I rise to urge my colleagues to 
oppose H.R. 2610. This bill does not simply reauthorize the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy, an office I strongly support, headed by 
Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who I think is doing an outstanding job. And we 
need to do more. There is no doubt about it, and he would be the first 
to say so.
  It does, however, contain several controversial provisions affecting 
national drug policy. My colleague from Michigan is correct, we should 
have had an opportunity to offer amendments to this critically 
important legislation. Therefore, it should not be on the suspension 
calendar.
  I want to address one provision, Madam Speaker, which would undermine 
the effectiveness of the high intensity drug trafficking areas. H.R. 
2610 would prohibit the use of HIDTA funds to expand drug treatment 
programs.
  There is not a law enforcement official I have talked to in the 
United States of America, and I would imagine the U.S. attorney from 
Georgia at one point in time did not have a law enforcement official 
that did not say if we could not get people off drugs, we are not going 
to win this war, period. That is the bottom line, and every law 
enforcement official I have talked to agrees with that.
  The Washington-Baltimore HIDTA, created in 1994, is one of the most 
successful in the Nation. Check the statistics, one of the most 
successful in the Nation. One important reason is the program's tough 
sanctions-based drug treatment component.
  Last year, that component caused the rearrest rate for drug-addicted 
not-violent offenders to plummet 38 percent below the national HIDTA 
average. Hear me, it is the only one that has the drug prevention, and 
it is 38 percent better in preventing recidivism than any other HIDTA 
program in America.
  The program forces addicts into treatment, holds them responsible for 
staying clean, and continually checks their state of sobriety.
  Madam Speaker, I would hope we would not defeat this bill. I would 
hope that temporarily we send it back to commit, give us the 
opportunity to address the shortcomings in this bill. Obviously, there 
is a lot of good in this bill. But in its current state, I will be 
unable to support it and would urge my colleagues not to support it in 
its current state.
  Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to address the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Madam Speaker, there is $2.9 billion dedicated to treatment and an 
extra $1

[[Page H8881]]

billion more than there were 3 years ago. The Baltimore-Washington 
HIDTA will continue. It is there. It can still coordinate that 
treatment. We have made sure that that treatment will flow into that 
area.
  Madam Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum].
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I rise in strong support of this bill. I think it is a tremendous 
improvement over current law and a reauthorization for the next 2 years 
of the National Drug Policy Office. I think, Madam Speaker, that we are 
not only not winning the war on drugs, we do not even have a war on 
drugs, not in the sense that most Americans would believe. We have not 
set up the kind of goals and missions and objectives that the military 
would fight if they were fighting a war.
  This bill tries to go to some measure to do that. I think General 
McCaffrey has discussed doing it, is working on doing it. I would like 
to believe much of what is in here he would embrace and will ultimately 
do so. But we are charged as legislators with the responsibility of 
setting goals and objectives, and we are charged with putting this war 
on drugs on a real wartime footing, and that is what this bill does.
  First of all, yes, there is 600 metric tons of cocaine coming into 
this country every year, and because of that, thousands of more young 
people's lives are being damaged by that result. The drugs that are 
coming in are purer and cheaper than ever.
  In order to stop that, we have to have a balanced approach. We have 
to have interdiction, we have to have drug treatment, we have to have a 
supply and demand, education, all those things. But on the interdiction 
side alone, I would like to point out this bill sets a goal of 
interdicting at least 80 percent of the cocaine coming into this 
country every year.
  We do not have a goal right now. They tell us that at least 60 
percent has to be interdicted before the price will be driven up. If 
you drive the price of the cocaine up on the streets, far fewer kids 
are going to get the narcotics. That is the way it was 5 or 6 years 
ago. We were driving the price up, interdicting enough.
  Now we are interdicting at best estimates 20 to 30 percent of the 
cocaine coming our way, not anywhere near the 60 percent. So the bill 
sets, among other things, a goal of 80 percent interdiction; 80 percent 
is a real goal. We then should know from the Drug Policy Office in a 
short duration what are the requirements to achieve that. What does it 
take? How many planes, how many ships, how much military involvement? 
Where do we draw the line? How do we proceed, and then this Congress 
should come back and provide whatever assistance it takes to do that, 
to win the war on drugs. I urge a yes vote for this bill. It is a good 
bill.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  It is with a great deal of regret that I come to the floor to oppose 
this bill. It has never been a partisan issue to fight against drugs in 
this country. But the Republican majority is politicizing this whole 
effort, and by this legislation today, the essence of it, it is a 
political one and it is a partisan one. Let me explain it on two 
grounds.
  First of all, there were no hearings in the committee on this 
legislation. There were not discussions with the administration to try 
to work out the bill that is now being presented to us. There were no 
processes where we could offer amendments on the floor today. This is 
being put on the suspension calendar to preclude any amendments to the 
bill.
  Second, this takes an agency that struggled to stay out of partisan 
politics and imposes upon it a standard which dooms it to failure, sets 
it up for ridicule during the election cycle in the year 2000. The bill 
has targets for drug reduction. I am not against targets. But the 
targets have to be realistic, and the targets in this legislation are 
doomed to failure because the targets are set so unrealistically.
  The bill requires the drug office to reduce adolescent drug use by 90 
percent in 4 years. This chart that is before me shows that the largest 
reduction in teen use achieved in any 4-year period in the past was 
just 33 percent, not the 90 percent required in this bill.
  What happens if we do not get a 90 percent reduction? Nothing, except 
the Republicans in the election year for President can say, look at the 
failure to achieve a 90 percent reduction in drug use by kids.
  I would suppose that when we get to the tobacco issue my Republican 
colleague will support a 90 percent reduction in tobacco use in 4 
years. There we have an easier time to deal with the problem, because 
we have a domestic manufacturer we can hold accountable. They control 
the distribution of their product. But I do not think anybody would say 
a 90 percent reduction is going to be achieved in illicit drugs in 4 
years when it is so diffuse, it is so illegal, and with all the 
ramifications of distribution and use.
  I feel that what we have here is a bill that is so unrealistic that 
we are being set up on a partisan basis for a failure, and then to 
politicize the effort by trying to have the Republicans attack the 
Democrats for that failure, this has never happened in the Congress 
before. We have always had opposition to drugs, the illicit traffic in 
drugs, opposition to drug use on a bipartisan basis, after hearings, 
after discussions, after votes, where amendments were offered and 
agreed to.
  So I regret this, and urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, 
and to insist that we go back to the regular order and have a realistic 
appraisal of what ought to be in a bipartisan effort to stamp out drug 
use.
  Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from California, I am 
dismayed at what he has said. This is not a partisan issue. It should 
never be a partisan issue, and we should not try to put up a partisan 
smoke screen to say this is why we should vote against this bill.
  We had more than a dozen meetings with the White House. We had the 
drug czar's office included, and two personal meetings with the drug 
czar. We asked and complied with the drug czar on seven out of eight 
requests. The only request that he wanted is a 12-year reauthorization. 
We said, that is too long, nobody is responsible for 12 years, because 
the drug czars especially are not here for 12 years.
  We are saying, let us look at 2 years and then go another 2 years, 
and let us get the job done. Let us hold ourselves and this 
administration and the law enforcement and treatment to tough standards 
in this country. Let us say that we are going to do this, we are going 
to cut teenage drug use in half. Is that too much? The 20,000 kids who 
die in this country in hospitals because of ODing and on street corners 
because of drug violence, to cut drug use in half in 4 years, is that 
too much? I do not think so.
  An example, in 1985 to 1992 we cut by 79 percent the amount of 
cocaine used in this country. Why can we not cut by 50 percent by the 
year 2000, so we can start in the 21st century with less than we have 
now, half the amount of kids on drugs? This deserves a yes vote, and I 
ask for Members' support.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, this reminds me of a press conference where there is a 
new football coach hired, and there is a lot of hoopla where they say, 
this coach is going to bring us to the Superbowl in 4 years. We are 
going to give him the tools to do it. Then the question is, how long is 
his contract? And the answer is 2 years. No one thinks they are 
serious. No one can say this is a serious attempt to end drug usage in 
this country, if you are not going to give General McCaffrey the time 
he needs to do it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Levin] is recognized for 1 minute.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H8882]]

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I deeply believe we have to do much better 
in the antidrug area, much better. I have spent, I think, more time in 
my district on this issue than any other, working with coalitions. If 
any issue needs a bipartisan approach, it is this one. This bill 
violates that, violates it. It extends the office tenure for only a 
couple of years. General McCaffrey does not support this bill. We 
should be working with him. Goals are set without relationship to what 
the office thinks is realistic. Let us not make this into a political 
football. Let us work together on this issue. Give us a chance to 
debate this on the floor with amendments, where we can improve it.
  I urge a no vote, not so that we stop this bill but so that we can 
amend it, debate it, and pass it with the seriousness this problem 
deeply deserves.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2610, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof), the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was 
passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________