[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7858-H7888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION ACT

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 538 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 538

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4550) to provide for programs to facilitate a 
     significant reduction in the incidence and prevalence of 
     substance abuse through reducing the demand for illegal drugs 
     and the inappropriate use of legal drugs. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by Representative Hastert of Illinois 
     or a designee and a Member opposed to the bill. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule for a period not to exceed three hours. 
     Before consideration of any other amendment it shall be in 
     order to consider the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by a Member designated in the report. That amendment shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. After disposition 
     of that amendment, the provisions of the bill as then 
     perfected shall be considered as original text for the 
     purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1630

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. McInnis) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the proposed rule is a modified open rule providing for 
1 hour of general debate equally divided between the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert) or a designee of Mr. Hastert's and a Member 
opposed to the bill. After general debate, the proposed rule provides 
for a 3-hour time limit on the amendment process.
  House Resolution 538 further provides, prior to the consideration of 
any other amendment, for the consideration of the amendment printed in 
the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by a Member designated 
in the report. This amendment shall not be subject to demand for 
division or to amendment and shall be debatable for the time specified 
in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an 
opponent.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, the proposed rule provides that should the 
amendment be adopted, the bill, as amended, be considered as original 
text for the purpose of further amendment.
  The proposed rule provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole may accord priority in recognition to Members who preprint their 
amendments in the Congressional Record. The proposed rule also allows 
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes on 
amendments and reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic 
voting on any postponed votes provided voting time on the first in a 
series of questions is not less than 15 minutes.
  Finally, the rule provides 1 motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  This rule was reported out of the Committee on Rules by a voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Drug Demand Reduction 
Act of 1998, is intended to intervene and reduce the demand for illegal 
drugs and the inappropriate use of illegal drugs in this country. The 
Drug Demand Reduction Act of 1998 complements other anti-drug 
legislation like H.R. 4300, the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination 
Act, and seeks to interdict drugs before they reach the United States. 
This proposed rule will allow ample time for the House to consider this 
measure, any amendments to it; 1 hour for the proposed rule, 1 hour of 
general debate and 3 hours on the amendments; a total of 5 hours 
devoted to the debate regarding H.R. 4550 and the Drug Demand Reduction 
Act of 1998.
  The underlying bill is a recent product of the Drug Task Force headed 
by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). However, the provisions 
of the underlying bill have been under consideration for the past year. 
Most of the provisions contained in the bill can be found in our bills, 
bills that have been thoroughly considered in other committees.
  I am not happy to note that illegal and illicit drug use in this 
country have doubled in the last several years. As a former police 
officer, Mr. Speaker, as somebody who has been on the street and 
somebody who understands illegal drugs, as somebody who has dealt with 
illegal drugs on a firsthand basis in my law enforcement days, I can 
tell my colleagues that this is a situation that is a serious, serious 
situation, and the Members ought to support this rule and move on to 
address the substance of this legislation. And it is my forecast the 
majority of our colleagues on this House floor will, in fact, support 
this bill because we share a common thread, and that thread is, cut out 
the illegal drugs.
  I think the Republicans have worked very strongly on this issue, an 
issue that has been driven in our Republican conference for a long 
period of time, and finally we are bringing it to some time of 
fruition.
  As Members noted in the earlier debate on the Western Hemisphere Drug 
Elimination Act, for kids 12 to 17, first-time heroin use, which has 
been proven to kill, surged 875 percent from 1991 to 1996. There is a 
problem out there, and it is a big problem. We, the Congress, have got 
to address this drug problem in this country. The Drug Demand Reduction 
Act of 1998 seeks to address the prevailing attitude towards drugs and 
shift that attitude.
  As a father of three children, actually three teenagers, two now in 
college and one that is now a junior in high school, I can tell my 
colleagues firsthand, we deal with lots of issues in our family 
discussions; but the one that concerns my wife Laurie and I the most 
is, what about illegal drugs? And constantly we have conversations with 
our children, as my colleagues do with theirs, about how deadly these 
things can be, how any kind of enjoyment on them, if it is there, is 
temporary at best, and the damage is long term. These discussions 
should be amplified by everybody in this country, and this bill helps 
our country move towards that War on Drugs. It is critically, 
critically important.
  The Drug Demand Reduction Act of 1998 seeks to intervene and send 
that message that drug use is not only dangerous, it is wrong, it is 
illegal, and it is illegal for a purpose. It is illegal because it gets 
people nowhere.
  I like the advertisement on TV with the gentleman who says, 
``Intervene any way that you can.'' I will talk about that a little bit 
later on, but I think that is a message that we should do here. This is 
one way that we can intervene. As he says, ``Get between your kids and 
those illegal drugs.'' This bill is a step in that direction. It helps 
us intervene any way we can.
  And we should not spend a lot of time on semantics. We know what it 
does, this bill is clear. Contents of this bill have been in front of a 
number of committees. We have put it together as a model, it is ready 
to go, and I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H7859]]

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank my dear friend from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, illegal drugs are the scourge of American society. 
Illegal drugs damage or destroy not only the individual using them, but 
they impose a tremendous cost on the American society as a whole, a 
cost that is just too high for our society to continue to pay.
  No one, nobody in this Congress, holds a monopoly on deploring what 
drugs have continued to do to the millions who use these poisons.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I am sure this bill will pass, as indeed it should. 
We all want to do whatever it takes to stop illegal drug use in this 
Nation.
  But I must take this opportunity to address the process or the lack 
thereof that surrounds this bill.
  This legislation has been drafted behind closed doors, by a task 
force composed almost entirely of Republican Members, with little 
opportunity for input from the other side of the aisle. And what that 
means, Mr. Speaker, is that the ideas of all but a very few Democratic 
Members were not a part of the discussion when this bill was created. 
It also means that we are today considering a bill that was introduced 
only last Thursday and then referred to six committees; referred to six 
committees, Mr. Speaker, none of which has taken any action on this 
bill.

  This bill has had no hearings, it has not been subjected to the 
scrutiny by experts in the field of drug abuse; yet, Mr. Speaker, it 
will be touted as a major anti-drug initiative. It will be managed on 
the floor not by the chairman of the committee of original 
jurisdiction, but by the head of the Republican task force that drafted 
it.
  This is not the way we should be proceeding with an issue as 
important to our Nation as combating the War on Drugs.
  My concerns, Mr. Speaker, may be the ultimate inside baseball; 
however, I think that when the Congress is addressing what may be one 
of our most pressing, what may be one of our most critical social 
problems, that we would all be better off and we would all be better 
served if all points of view were part of this process.
  Again, I must point out that no one among us holds a monopoly on 
condemnation of the use of illegal drugs. We might, however, differ in 
our views in which way to approach reducing the demand and the use of 
them. We do have a committee process, Mr. Speaker, and I think had this 
bill been considered under regular order, it might have far more to 
offer in our national struggle against the use of illegal drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not saying this is not a good bill. It is a good 
bill as far as it goes. I am especially pleased that the bill includes 
authorization for the creation of a model substance abuse treatment 
program for men and women in our prisons.
  The relationship between drugs and crime is alarming. The Office of 
National Drug Control Policy says that as drug use increases, so does 
the number of crimes that a person will commit. The National Drug 
Control Policy Office also points out that a 1992 survey of chronic 
drug users not in treatment found that during the 30 days prior to 
enrollment in that study, more than 50 percent of both male and female 
drug users were involved in some kind of illegal activities.
  Drug use has led to the substantial growth in the prison and jail 
population in this country so that today we have, and this is very 
important, today we have more people behind bars in our prisons in this 
country than we have men and women in our entire Armed Forces. Clearly 
this should be our national policy, to use the time substance abusers 
are behind bars to expose them to treatment in the hopes that they will 
not return to a life of drugs and crime once they are free.
  But again, Mr. Speaker, it should be our policy to keep our children 
away from drugs in the first place, and while this bill provides $195 
million for a national anti-drug media campaign and $30 million in 
authorization for parent involvement programs, it ignores a proposal 
made by the administration to create a pilot program that would provide 
6,500 schools around this country with drug prevention counselors. It 
also ignores alcohol abuse in teenagers and ignores under-age smoking, 
both gateway behaviors that can lead to later illegal drug use.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also ignores making more treatment beds 
available around the country. In fact, an amendment by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) to address this very important component 
of drug control was voted down by the Committee on Rules Republicans. 
The Ramstad amendment, based on a bill which has 92 cosponsors, would 
help alcoholics and would help addicts who are working and who have 
health insurance get treatment by requiring health insurers to treat 
alcoholism as an addiction, as diseases on a parity with other covered 
diseases. This amendment is a good one, for if we are to combat and 
confront addictions on both alcohol and drugs, we have to make sure 
that the treatment is available, we have to make sure that it is 
affordable.

                              {time}  1645

  But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the House will not get any 
opportunity to vote on this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, there are no easy answers to this very crushing problem. 
I only wish that my Republican colleagues had included more Democrats 
in their deliberations. Had they used the tried and true committee 
process, perhaps the more Democratic voices might have been heard. This 
is a national crisis requiring the efforts of every American.
  I will vote for the bill, Mr. Speaker, but I think it would have been 
a far better product had it been created in a truly bipartisan manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS.  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I have great respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I know 
that from a personal standpoint he is very adamant about our 
involvement in the war against drugs, but he also represents the views 
of some people perhaps who have come to him and complained.
  Let me point out a couple of things that I think are important that 
the gentleman brought up in his statement.
  Number 1, anybody who does not like this is free to vote ``no.'' 
Number 2, the Democrats, when they controlled the Congress, they 
controlled the Senate, they controlled the House, and they had the 
current President as President of the United States, they could have 
put this bill through overnight. It took the Republicans, frankly, who 
only control the House and the Senate, we do not control the 
presidency, it took us to push this thing forward. And at that, we are 
making it bipartisan. The bill itself is constructed from the 
components of a number of other bills.
  This is a good bill. This takes on the illegal drugs out there. I am 
a parent. I used to be a cop. I know what we need to do. Carroll 
O'Connor, as I said earlier in my testimony, said, get in between the 
drugs, intervene any way we can. The Democrats did not do it when they 
had the House and the Senate and the presidency. This bill does, and it 
is a bipartisan bill.
  Now, there was some comment made about one of my colleagues here did 
not get his amendment put in order. It was not the content of the 
amendment that caused the problem, it was that the amendment was not 
germane to the bill. We agreed to an open rule; we are going to have 
lots of time for debate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the time we are allowing 
for debate here is exceptionally generous.
  The basics of the bill are pretty simple. We have 4 or so amendments, 
we have one hour of general debate and several hours for the 
amendments, but we have to keep it germane, we have to keep it on 
subject, and that is what we were attempting to do there.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I said I was not opposed to the bill, I was opposed to the process. 
We have a committee process in the Congress. The Congress meeting in 
committee is the Congress working. I mean all of a sudden just to set 
that committee process aside and create a task force, why do we not 
just do away with all of the committees and make a task force; in fact, 
get rid of the Committee on Rules and just get a task force. Things

[[Page H7860]]

would be done much quicker, but I am not sure that being quick about 
some of these pieces of legislation is the best way to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), the ranking member of one of the committees that was bypassed 
in this process.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, one can tell this is an election year, 
because with this wonderful piece of legislation we have authorized a 
lot of programs which are now in effect and which are now working. A 
remarkable exercise.
  Having said that, this is the most curious process. The bill was 
introduced Friday last, and essentially, according to the reports that 
we have been able to get from the departments, authorizes a series of 
programs that are now in place and that are now working just fine.
  The bill was apparently referred to the Committee on Commerce as well 
as the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Committee on Small 
Business, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee 
on the Judiciary, Committee on Education and the Workforce. None of 
them ever had hearings, never did anything on it, because they did not 
have time. It just came up here Friday.
  There are a lot of questions my Republican colleagues need to 
address. Did any of the committees report on this bill? Did any of the 
committees have hearings? Did any of the committees take testimony from 
any citizen or from any governmental agency? The answer is no, they did 
not. Did any of these committees have hearings on the bill? No. How was 
this bill drafted? Well, I gather that it was drafted by a Republican 
task force. Clearly, that is hardly adherence to the regular procedures 
and orders of the House, or indeed, a proper following of the rules of 
this body.
  Were any outside groups involved in the drafting of this bill? Were 
there consultations with any government agency or any private anti-drug 
agency? How did the task force function? Did they comply with the 
requirements of the sunshine rules? Did they comply with the Rules of 
the House? How did they decide what outside groups would appear and 
would testify, or which would not?
  The bill has a very interesting proposal and provision in it. It 
strengthens and lengthens the exclusivity period for antiaddiction 
drugs by 6 months. Was there any consultation on this matter with the 
Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human 
Services, or the Patent Office? The answer is none.
  But interestingly enough, what does this do? It says, if one has an 
antiaddiction drug that one will get an extension on any period of 
exclusivity on any drug which one happens to have in one's drug 
inventory. Not necessarily the one on which one has the antiaddiction 
drug, but on any others. And according to the Food and Drug 
Administration, this could even extend to drugs on which the period of 
exclusivity has expired, a most remarkable provision. So that a drug 
owner, or rather a patent holder may then extend his period of 
exclusivity on any drug in his inventory if he so chooses, even if the 
period of exclusivity has expired.
  Was there any consultation with the Justice Department, the Patent 
Office, the Food and Drug Administration on this? Absolutely not. But, 
after all, this is an election year, and this matter should be rushed 
to the floor so that it may be voted upon, even though almost all the 
provisions of this bill are now being funded and being implemented and 
on which programs are now in fact in place.
  Now, let us look at some of the requirements of the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who is the principal author of this 
bill and who is the author of provisions of the rules which relate to 
requiring the government to take certain actions. For example, did the 
Congressional Budget Office calculate the cost of the provisions with 
regard to patients who use antiaddiction? The answer is no, the 
Congressional Budget Office did not. Was there any estimate of the 
windfall to the drug companies involved? Absolutely not, none.
  Now, let us talk about secrecy. When this Congress adopted the 
government sunshine amendments to the House rules, something which my 
Republican colleagues made great hay about, it was promised that 
television cameras would be allowed in the markups of all bills so that 
the public would be allowed to watch how our bills are written, and to 
hear what is said by citizens, by government, by business, by special 
interests. Was anything of that kind happening here? Absolutely not. It 
was done by a task force.
  Now, I find, after careful reading of the rules and after some 40 
years and more service in this place, no mention in the Rules of the 
House of Representatives with regard to task forces or behavior of task 
forces or requirements for openness or other good behavior.
  Why was this bill written in a task force? Why was it written in 
secrecy? Why was it written outside the scrutiny of the public? Has the 
bill ever been reviewed by the administration? The answer to all of the 
above is no. Has the bill ever been reviewed by health experts, by Food 
and Drug, by the Attorneys General of the States or of the United 
States? Has the bill ever been reviewed by any of the drug-opposing 
agencies like DEA or FDA, or the National Institutes of Health, or the 
parts of NIH which address the questions of drug abuse and drug 
addiction? The answer again is no.
  Were any members of the public permitted to comment on this 
legislation to say whether it was good or bad or whether it should be 
changed, have more or less money? The answer is no. Are any government 
analysts in on the drafting of the bill? The answer to this question is 
no. Does this bill require waivers of the House rules? If so, what 
rules does it require? Does the bill require waivers of the Budget Act? 
We do not know. It is not said in here, and the Rules of the House do 
not apply to this because it was never reported by a committee, it was 
reported by task force, whatever that happens to be.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the question we really ought to ask is, why do 
we not use the regular order? Why do we not follow the Rules of the 
House? Is there any information or evidence in the hands of the authors 
and the sponsors of this legislation that this body would not have 
considered this bill fairly, speedily and expeditiously? The answer to 
that question is, there is none.
  Why is this bill being brought to the floor in such an extraordinary 
fashion without hearings, without markup? Is there any frustration with 
the leadership of the committees? Is there any CBO estimate as to the 
cost or budget impact? Are there any inflationary impact statements 
required by the Rules of the House? The answer is, there is none. Is 
there any regulatory impact statement? The answer is, there is none. 
Are there any requirements which are imposed on reported bills complied 
with here, as in the case of reports on unfunded mandates, as required 
so capably by my good friend who is the author of this bill who seems 
in some curious fashion to be anxious to evade the requirements of an 
imposition which he has put into the rules.
  There is no evidence whatsoever that there has been any evasion of 
the responsibilities of the committee's right by good Republican 
Members like the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), my friend; it is 
just that this, my dear friends, is an election year. This is a 
wonderful opportunity to rise and say, we are doing something about 
drugs, and what are we doing? We are doing something which first of all 
evades the rules, second of all evades the ordinary practices of the 
House, and third, which evades any requirement that we have proper 
consideration of this legislation, and which puts on the floor 
proposals which are already being implemented by the Government of the 
United States and for which Members of this body have already voted 
money for the implementation thereof.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is the most curious process. It is perhaps 
excusable by the fact that my Republican colleagues do not want to 
point out the fact that these things are already being done. And I can 
understand why they would not, because if they are going to pass a 
piece of legislation which is essentially a bill to celebrate an 
oncoming election by passing a piece of legislation that does not mean 
anything,

[[Page H7861]]

one does not want to have any committee scrutiny which shows that the 
bill does not do anything. That is the problem that we have here.
  The rules of this House have served this body well. The Rules of the 
House work. They say that they will consider legislation well. They say 
we will know when there are windfalls for special interests, like as in 
this legislation which provide for a windfall for God knows who for the 
Lord only knows how much and for any product which they put on the 
market which is protected by exclusivity.
  This is a most remarkable exercise. It is one which I would assume my 
Republican colleagues would practice only in an election year, because 
that is the only time that this kind of slovenly chicanery, sloppy 
legislation and irresponsibility needs to be practiced, unless my 
colleagues on the other side also choose to do so in odd-numbered 
years.

                              {time}  1700

  Having said this, reject the rule. Let the committees look at the 
bill. Give the committees opportunities to consider the things in this 
legislation in the light of the expertise of the committees. The 
committees are run by Republicans. There is no mention of task forces 
in the rules of the House.
  Bring the people into the process. Let us let sunshine work. Let us 
find out what the legislation does. Let us not go home and kid the 
people and say we passed a great piece of legislation without admitting 
that almost all of it is now being implemented by law and this whole 
exercise is related to the fact that the election is 7 weeks off.
  Follow the rules of the House of Representatives. They have been 
crafted by wiser men than any who sit here, and they work and they see 
to it that the public is well served in the light of day by careful 
consideration of the views of all the people and an understanding of 
what the legislation would do.
  Reject the rule, send it back to committee, let us have a proper look 
at it, and we will bring you a piece of legislation of which my 
colleagues could be proud instead of having to sneak home and lie to 
our people about how something was done which in fact was not done.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Of course, the gentleman's verbal assault that we have just listened 
to for the last 7 minutes if anything indicates it is an election year. 
It is his words. Put all that aside.
  Obviously, we are not disobeying the rules of the House. If we were 
disobeying the rules of the House or if we were not following the rules 
of the House, the Speaker would rule us out of order. It is within the 
rules of the House of exactly what we are doing, and we are dealing 
with the drug problem.
  I know that the gentleman is concerned; that he claims this was done 
in secrecy. This was not done in secrecy. This is not a defense secret. 
This is done in the public. We see it. We see everybody in the streets, 
the problem.
  The gentleman has every right to vote against this bill. The 
gentleman has every right to get the Members on his side of the aisle 
who, by the way, did not pass this kind of legislation, who did not do 
something about this, in my opinion, when they controlled both Houses 
and the Presidency.
  Instead, when we do, we get a few Members over there that take a 
verbal assault on what I think is a well-intended bill with lots of 
substance in it.
  Let us talk. The gentleman there spent 2 or 3 minutes on something 
about the provisions in the bill dealing with market incentives to 
pharmaceutical manufacturers. If the gentleman would read the manager's 
amendment and if the gentleman would vote the first amendment up, all 
his concerns spent in the first 3\1/2\ minutes of that verbal assault 
will be taken care of like that. That amendment handles it.
  It was a legitimate point that the gentleman brought up, but the 
staff needed to tell him, sir, this is covered in the first amendment 
if we vote for the first amendment, which I think will pass by a strong 
majority. It is taken care of. That is why we have that manager's 
amendment. We want to cleanse this bill to get it out there. But we do 
not want to delay the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) who has put a remarkable amount of time 
into this. We appreciate it very much. The gentleman understands this 
issue. He understands the significance of it. I think it is important 
we hear from him for a few minutes.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, certainly what we have before us this evening is the 
other half of a very important piece. If we are going to look at the 
totality of drug abuse in this country, we certainly have to look at 
the supply side where drugs come from, how they come across our 
borders, but we also have to look at the other issue, and that is the 
issue of demand, and how do we stop demand in our schools, in our 
neighborhoods, on our highways, in our prisons. How do we get at that?
  The gentleman who is the former chairman of the Committee on Commerce 
went at great length, and I think he has great concern, but we are 
trying to solve the problem. As the gentleman would know, this covers 
across the jurisdictions of six committees.
  Have there ever been hearings? Yes. I will tell my colleagues, in the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, we have had multiple 
hearings on this issue.
  This bill does entail areas and titles that deal with the National 
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Act. Yes, it is time that we probably 
ought to authorize something that we have appropriated for. That is the 
rule, and that is the law, and that probably ought to be done.
  We talk about a Drug-Free Workplace Act. That is certainly one of the 
components that we want to have in this country. We talk about Drug-
Free Teenage Drivers Act. We talk about the Drug-Free Prisons and Jails 
Act, Drug-Free Schools Quality Assurance Act. We talk about Drug-Free 
National Clearinghouse Act, a Drug-Free Parents Empowerment Act, and go 
on to Antiaddiction Medication Development Act, and also a Commission 
on Role of Medication Education in Reducing Substance Abuse.
  We all talk about Congressional leadership and community coalitions, 
and we talk about reduction and rejection of drug legalization that is 
rampant in this country and certainly moving further and further by 
some interest groups into our cities and the reorganization of the 
Federal demand reduction efforts.
  Yes, this bill certainly does have a wide jurisdiction. It covers a 
lot of issues. It covers cross-jurisdictional areas. We have been very 
pleased to have the chairmen of those committees have input, have their 
staffs have input, and to work through and make sure the resources are 
there to get this job done.
  But I have to tell my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan does 
bring up the exclusivity of drugs. We have taken that out. It is not in 
the bill. It is not in the manager's amendment and exonerated from 
there.
  I think that the process certainly has worked. We have perked up some 
of those issues. What we need to do now is move forward and to try to 
put together a holistic anti-drug program so that we can really have a 
drug-free America.
  What is a drug-free America? There is seven or eight areas that we 
have to look at. We have treatment. We have to deal with treatment. It 
is sad that those folks who already have been addicted by drugs need to 
be able to have the treatment.
  It also reduces demand. We need to do the community prevention that 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has worked on for years and has 
been a leader in this Congress in doing prevention and community 
prevention and school prevention. Years of work.
  We also have looked at the whole area of law enforcement. Yes, we 
need to have better communication between our law enforcement agencies, 
people working together and communicating together.
  We have to do a better job on our borders, and we talked about that 
in a bill earlier today. We have to do work on areas where these drugs 
come from.
  One of the things that neither this bill or the other bill does but 
we have to deal with, and it will be coming on

[[Page H7862]]

the floor of the House because it did go through multiple committees 
and we hope to have that bill on the floor before it is too late to 
move it, but it is money laundering.
  We would not have people growing coca plants or heroin through poppy 
plants, we would not have them manufacturing it, we would not have them 
smuggling it, we would not have them remanufacturing in Colombia and 
Mexico, we would not have them moving across the border, we would not 
have them distributing it, all those things cost a lot of money, if 
they did not get $50 billion or $60 billion off our street corners 
every year and half; that profit ending up in the pockets of drug lords 
outside this country.
  What would we have to do? The next step, and it is not in these two 
bills, is money laundering; and we have people working on that as well. 
But we have to look at the holistic approach.

  If we are going to stop drugs and we are going to be serious, instead 
of blathering about what is not in the bill, if we are going to be 
serious about stopping drugs in this country, we need to take a 
holistic approach, we need to do the demand side, which the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has done a great job at, but we have to do the 
supply side as well.
  So I commend the Committee on Rules for bringing forth this rule. I 
commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and other Members of the 
task force for putting in hours and days for trying to put a quality 
piece of legislation together. I certainly hope that we can pass this 
rule and pass legislation.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a gentleman who has spent a lot of 
time on this. He is very knowledgeable on this subject, and I think a 
lot of merit goes to him for the substance he has put together on this 
bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish that our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan 
had stayed around to hear a response to his many concerns on the 
legislation. But since my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
here, maybe he will pass along some specific answers to his questions.
  This may give him some comfort, or it may not, because the question 
is: Are we serious about this drug effort or not? If we are, I think we 
have got to try to be, not just bipartisan, but nonpartisan, and move 
forward and do the right thing.
  There are six committees of jurisdiction that we talk to on this 
issue. It would have been impossible, frankly, to go through those six 
committees and come up with this legislation in this legislative year. 
We thought it was an important issue, one that needed to come to the 
floor. We did consult with them extensively.
  In fact, the provisions in this bill which are cosponsored by my 
friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), Democrat, and 
myself are the result of a year-long consultation period, including 
with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the drug czar's 
office.
  There are other Democrats who are original cosponsors of the 
legislation. Committees waived their jurisdiction because, frankly, we 
solved their problems.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) focused on the anti-
addiction medication provision, which he found to be inappropriate.
  I will say two things about it. Number one, it is not in the 
legislation because his committee objected to it and instead there is a 
report, so we took the responsible course there along the lines that he 
would recommend. I will also say, though, that the National Academy of 
Sciences and the National Institute on Drug Abuse have both recommended 
the provision we had in the bill, and I hope that his committee will 
get busy on that kind of legislation because we do need to give 
companies more incentives to provide for anti-addiction medication.
  With regard to unfunded mandates, the point that he made, I will say 
that there are no unfunded mandates in this legislation and we have, 
indeed, checked with the Congressional Budget Office on that. Because 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) said that we had not, I 
thought it was important to set the record straight on that.
  I found it very curious that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) went on and on about how we need to stick to the Rules of the 
House and yet complained that in this legislation we are authorizing 
appropriations. That is what we are supposed to do, and that is why the 
drug-free media campaign, which is a $195 million expenditure, is being 
authorized for 4 years so that there is a sustained effort and a 
commitment by this House to move forward on that very important 
initiative.
  I think that is the right thing to do. It also happens to be within 
the Rules of the House, and I would think that instead of criticizing 
us for that and complaining that we are not following the rules, my 
friend, the gentleman from Michigan, and others on that side of the 
aisle would be pleased that we are indeed following the rules.
  The drug-free workplace language is one example that has gone through 
this House already. We put it in this legislation because, frankly, we 
want it to pass not just the House but also the Senate and be enacted 
into law by signature from the President. We think this is a better 
place for it. This is a vehicle that probably will go somewhere. So I 
think that is the responsible thing to do.
  I would just end by saying that we brought this legislation up under 
an open rule and I commend the Committee on Rules and the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for doing that so that Members would have 
an opportunity on the floor if they wanted to bring up any germane 
amendments to the legislation, and we will see some today, but I would 
also say that this issue must be addressed.
  I do think that this is going to be a nonpartisan exercise in the 
end, and I think that is the way, again, we must address this issue for 
the sake of our kids and future generations.
  Again, I want to commend the Committee on Rules for bringing this to 
the floor with an open rule to allow opportunity for amendment and 
comment.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that the problems 
that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) pointed out, I think, 
were misrepresented by the Republicans on the other side.
  Basically, what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) was saying, 
and I agree, is that there is not very much in this bill that is not 
already the law, and that it is being brought up at this time to try to 
give the impression during an election year that somehow the Republican 
majority is doing something significant with regard to this issue with 
regard to drug addiction.
  Secondly, he pointed out that we do have included in this bill a 
special interest provision which thankfully he caught and now the 
Republican side is saying that they are going to take out in a 
subsequent amendment.
  Let me say the problem with that is the mischief that we see when a 
bill like this does not go before the committee, does not see the light 
of day, does not have the opportunity for public debate and for input 
from the public. That is when we get these kinds of special interest 
provisions that thankfully were caught.
  What else might be in this bill because it did not go through the 
regular process? That is the point that he made.
  Let me just reiterate again the problem with this special interest 
provision if it is not taken out and if somehow this body does not 
approve to take it out, basically what it allows is an extension of 
this exclusivity for 6 months and what that means is that those who 
might want to produce these antiaddiction drugs in a generic sense, as 
a generic drug, would not have the opportunity to do so because of the 
extension of the exclusivity.
  What that means is that these drugs become more expensive, and the 
big issue before this House with regard to health care in general and 
certainly with regard to drugs is their affordability. People cannot 
afford a lot of drugs. They do not have access to them if they cannot 
afford it.
  One of the points we are making is if there was that extension of 
exclusivity

[[Page H7863]]

it would not allow generics and others to come in and produce a drug in 
a way that is less expensive and more available to the public. So this 
was a special interest provision that was put in there that was anti-
consumer, anti-public interest, and I am glad that it is now being 
taken out.
  What other mischief is in there that we have not had an opportunity 
to look at because of the fact that this did not go through the 
committee of jurisdiction and did not have an opportunity for hearing? 
That is the problem. We are not against the bill per se but we are 
against the way that the Republicans went about this.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) surprises 
me. If the gentleman thinks there is mischief in the bill, he should 
vote ``no.'' The gentleman says on the one hand there is mischief in 
the bill, and then says that he is not going to vote against this bill. 
If what the gentleman is saying is true, he ought to vote against it. 
He has an obligation to vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason the gentleman is not going to vote against it 
is because there is not mischief in the bill. The gentleman knows that 
this bill is a good bill that helps us fight this problem on the 
streets, and that is the drugs.
  Now, as far as the process, and we go back again, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) earlier, and now the gentleman from New Jersey, 
are suggesting some type of secret process. Hey, this is our fight. It 
is a Democrat fight. It is a Republican fight. We are all together on 
this. Our common enemy here are the illegal drugs on the street.
  This is not a battle in secret. The secrets are held by the drug 
cartels. We are going after them and we want the help of our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, and I hope they support us today and 
help us in that battle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), made a point earlier after my introduction that he was going 
to vote for the bill, and that is correct. I did not want to imply that 
he was not.
  I understand from sitting in the Committee on Rules and listening to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts last night, there is no question about 
his commitment to fight these drugs and to do whatever will effectively 
fight them, and I want to make sure that is of record.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 538 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4550.

                              {time}  1717


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4550) to provide for programs to facilitate a significant 
reduction in the incidence and prevalence of substance abuse through 
reducing the demand for illegal drugs and the inappropriate use of 
legal drugs, with Mr. Shimkus in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), or his 
designee, and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I designate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) to control my time.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, though I am not opposed to 
the bill, I ask unanimous consent to control the 30 minutes of general 
debate time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection of objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is recognized for 
30 minutes.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for 
allowing me, as his designee, to manage the legislation. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), who is going to control the time on the 
other side, is my original cosponsor on this legislation, and I want to 
thank him, particularly after we just saw a little display of something 
less than nonpartisanship. I guess we would call it partisanship.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for being willing 
to step up to the plate to address the concerns that we have all heard 
expressed this afternoon and this evening on the rising problem of 
illegal drugs in this country and for his willingness, frankly, to show 
leadership on this issue over the years and to cosponsor this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the rising tide of teenage drug use in this country is 
indeed a national tragedy, and I do not think there is anything this 
Congress could be doing this week that is more important. The facts 
speak for themselves, and we have heard a lot about them today. From 
the period of 1979 to 1991, we had a 72 percent reduction of teenage 
drug use in this country. Since that time, teenage drug use has more 
than doubled.
  Actually, it is worse than that in the sense that it is among younger 
and younger kids. We have a lot of data on that. The number of fourth 
through sixth graders, kids in elementary school, experimenting with 
marijuana has increased 71 percent just since 1993.
  Today, teenagers say they can obtain drugs within a day. LSD, 
marijuana, crack cocaine, methamphetamines and other drugs are more 
available now than ever.
  This translates into more addiction, more ruined lives, more lost 
dreams. And, of course it also leads to more violent crime, more school 
dropouts, more health problems, and many other quantifiable costs to 
our society.
  But this is not about statistics and numbers. It is about people. It 
is about people's lives. I am sure each Member in this Chamber knows 
constituents, maybe a friend, maybe a family member who has fallen into 
the trap of addiction and suffered the consequences.
  Mr. Chairman, shortly after I was elected 5 years ago, a 16-year-old 
in my district died of a combination of smoking marijuana and huffing 
gasoline. His name was Jeff Gardner. Jeff's mom came to see me in 
Washington and she had a very simple question for me: ``What are you 
going to do in my community to help me and other families so that they 
do not have to go through the pain that I am experiencing?'' I told her 
about the billions we were spending on criminal sanctions, on 
interdiction efforts that are so important to keep drugs out of the 
country. She asked me again, ``What are you doing in my school? In my 
neighborhood?''
  Mr. Chairman, I have got to say, I was not satisfied with the answer 
that I could give her. I got involved in this issue both at home 
through community coalitions and here through legislation in large part 
because I could not give her the response she deserved.
  The real tragedy is that based on sound research, we know what drives 
increases in drug use. It is not only the availability, but it is the 
attitude kids have about the dangers of drug use and the extent to 
which they believe that society, that society has accepted drug use.
  Wherever our kids turn for entertainment, TV, movies, music, they 
find drug use glamorized. And whenever they seek role models, 
professional athletes, Hollywood stars, musicians, they all too come 
away with the perception, not accurate, but the perception that drug 
use is accepted and there is no real consequences.
  Even here in Washington, young people have not been hearing a clear, 
consistent moral message that drugs are

[[Page H7864]]

dangerous and that they are wrong. I am not trying to suggest that the 
White House, this Congress, or any national figure can be held 
responsible for the drug habits of our children. But it is clear that 
we have not had the kind of sustained national moral leadership on this 
issue that was critical to the substantial reduction in teenage drug 
use back in the 1980s.
  We have also lost ground on the home front. Surveys show that many 
parents of the baby boom generation, my generation, approach this issue 
and approach their kids with great ambivalence. With all of these mixed 
messages, it should be no surprise to us that teenage drug use is on 
the rise.
  But there is a solution. In fact there are multiple solutions. The 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert), who spoke just a moment ago, have done a great job today 
in articulating the need to do more with regard to what is referred to 
as the ``supply side,'' such as enhanced interdiction, tightening 
border patrols, and eradicating drugs in source countries.
  The bill that we are discussing now, the Drug Demand Reduction Act of 
1998, recognizes that restricting supply is important, but it also 
recognizes that the supply efforts alone can never solve our problems 
here at home.
  Why? Well, first, of course, methamphetamines and other drugs can be 
produced in someone's basement. Marijuana can be grown in the backyard. 
But second and more importantly in my view is that as long as the 
demand is there, drugs, even those from outside our borders, will find 
their way onto our streets and into our neighborhoods.
  While the supply efforts are a very important part of the balanced 
approach, we as a Congress must do whatever we can to stop the growing 
demand for drugs. This bill does that. It takes steps toward that by 
expanding and increasing prevention, education, and treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an area where the United States 
Congress can and must help and play an important role. I think we have 
three important roles:
  First, as we did last year with the Drug-Free Communities Act that we 
are building on today, we can empower parents, teachers, local law 
enforcement, local communities, to address the drug problem and give 
them some of the tools that they need to do so at the grassroots.
  Second, Congress can ensure that the existing Federal anti-drug 
prevention and treatment programs work more effectively by reducing red 
tape and duplication, targeting funds to programs that really work, 
finding the best practices around the country and funding those 
practices.
  Finally, I think Congress has a very important role to play in 
sending that clear and consistent message that drug use is dangerous 
and wrong. Again, it has worked before. From 1979 to 1991, we saw a 72 
percent reduction. We need to look back at that. Why did that happen? 
We had a clear and consistent national message at that time. The ``Just 
Say No'' campaign was not just a slogan; it was a national movement and 
it included at the grassroots engaging parents, engaging teachers, 
coaches, law enforcement. That resulted in a substantial reduction of 
drugs because we changed attitude.

  The act before us today is intended to reengage those parents, 
teenagers, teachers, and employers, law enforcement, health care 
professionals, and others to make existing Federal programs more 
effective and more accountable and to send that clear and unequivocal 
message again on the dangers of drug use.
  Among other features, the legislation will: Reinvigorate the parent 
movement that worked so well in the 1980s through targeted grants, 
training at work, and access to information that parents need.
  It will implement new initiatives to keep drugs out of schools and 
workplaces.
  It will give States incentives to require kids to be drug-free in 
order to get their driver's licenses. Nothing is more important to a 
16-year-old.
  It will give parents and other role models one-stop shopping, one 
national clearinghouse where they can go to get information. One 1-800 
number where any parent can call, any drug counselor can call, find out 
the answer to their question, and be connected with a local anti-drug 
organization or find substance abuse counselors in that person's area.
  As the next step, we require the President's drug czar, the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy, to recommend to Congress specific ways to 
eliminate duplication, to further streamline the Federal anti-drug 
bureaucracy which is currently spread, incidentally, over 54 different 
agencies and departments.
  Finally, at a time when 80 percent of the inmates in our jails and 
prisons are there because of substance abuse, and 50 percent of State 
parole and probation violators are under the influence of drugs, 
alcohol or both when they committed their new offense, this bill will 
put us on track toward eliminating the drug problem that festers in our 
jails and prisons. For the sake of our neighborhoods, and for the peace 
of mind of our constituents, we have to get at the revolving door of 
substance abuse in our criminal justice system.
  Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this bill, as I said earlier, were 
developed over the past year with the help of the President's drug 
czar, General Barry McCaffrey. They were also developed in conjunction 
with the Speaker's Task Force on a Drug-Free America, chaired by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). Members on both sides of the 
aisle had input from the relevant committees, and some people had good 
ideas who were not on the committees.
  Very importantly, we got a lot of input from outside groups, those 
groups that work in the trenches day in and day out on this issue. That 
would include CADCA, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; 
PRIDE, the Parents's Resource Institute for Drug Education; the 
Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace; CASA, Joe Califano's Center on 
Addiction and Substance Abuse; the Drug-Free America Foundation; the 
Partnership for a Drug-Free America; the National Council on Crime 
Prevention. These and other groups gave critical input to the 
legislation and we all owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.
  Mr. Chairman, the Drug Demand Reduction Act is not the end of the 
road in our effort to reduce the demand for drugs in this country. It 
is not a cure-all, but it is an important next step building on the 
Drug-Free Communities Act that this Congress passed, again on a 
nonpartisan basis last year, to ensure that our national drug control 
policy continues to focus on what we know works: Effective treatment, 
effective education, and effective prevention. Doing so at the local 
level, but doing so with a strong and unequivocal message from the 
national level.
  Mr. Chairman, if we keep the pressure on, if as a country we can 
maintain our vigilance, I am convinced that we can reverse the 
troubling trends of teenage drug abuse in this country. We can do so 
and in doing so we will save lives, we will restore dreams, and we will 
strengthen our communities for the next century.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for this anti-drug 
legislation. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) for his diligent work on an issue that is critical to the 
future of our Nation.
  Each year drug abuse kills 14,000 Americans and costs taxpayers 
nearly $70 billion. But beyond these statistics, drug abuse has caused 
immeasurable pain for millions of Americans of all ages, races, and 
income levels.
  This bill will focus the attention of Americans on this tremendous 
problem. Whether it is children when they are watching TV, parents when 
they go to work, or prison inmates when they are a captive audience.
  The drug-free prison and jails portion of this bill takes a 
significant step to reducing crime in our Nation's streets.

                              {time}  1730

  The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia 
University has reported that approximately 80 percent of the 1.7 
million inmates in American prisons and jails were either high on drugs 
when arrested, stole property to buy drugs, or had a history of drug 
and alcohol abuse.

[[Page H7865]]

  Because we know that even inmates who receive severe penalties for 
their crimes will eventually be released into our communities, we owe 
it to the people who live in those communities to ensure that these 
inmates are treated for their addictions when we have the opportunity. 
A Bureau of Prisons report released earlier this year indicates that 
Federal inmates who received drug treatment are 73 percent less likely 
to be arrested in the first 6 months after their release than inmates 
who did not receive treatment. This bill will create a demonstration 
program to create and evaluate model programs to test and treat inmate 
addictions. It is my hope that these programs will then be replicated 
throughout the Nation. I have sponsored separate legislation with the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to provide funding to do just 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased this bill includes a component to 
authorize the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. We know that 
young people who reach age 21 without using illegal drugs are unlikely 
to ever do so. The Media Campaign uses realistic hard-hitting messages 
to convince young people that drugs are the wrong way to go, and to 
encourage parents to talk to their children about this critical issue.
  I joined the Nation's drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, in pushing 
for the creation of this program last year. And since then, the 
campaign has been running in 12 pilot cities, including the City of 
Milwaukee in my Congressional District. We are already starting to see 
the campaign's impact in these cities. And just last month the campaign 
went nationwide. By the end of the year the Anti-Drug Media Campaign 
will be running at full force, with at least four advertising exposures 
reaching targeted audiences every week of the year.
  It is important this Congress shows its lasting commitment to keeping 
kids off drugs by authorizing this program. This bill will support the 
program through the year 2002.
  Through the inclusion of the Drug-Free Workplaces Act in this 
legislation, the bill will also provide drug-free working environments. 
This bill will create a demonstration program to make grants to 
nonprofit organizations that have expertise in this area. These 
organizations will then work with small businesses to develop 
comprehensive drug-free workplace programs. Because a majority of 
adults who use drugs are employed, and small businesses employ a 
majority of our Nation's work force, the workplace will be a critical 
battleground in our efforts against drugs.
  It is important to note that this bill will require that employees 
have access to treatment options. We must ensure that drug-free 
workplace programs allow and actively encourage American workers who 
have addiction problems to seek treatment. Drug-free workplaces should 
be focused not on punitive measures, but on helping employees overcome 
drug addictions.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will not end all drug abuse in America. It is 
not a Mark McGwire bill or a Sammy Sosa bill. One swing and a home run 
will not win this game. But this legislation will take steps to de-
glamorize drugs in the eyes of young people, to give parents the tools 
to keep themselves and their children drug free, and to keep drug-
addicted prisoners from continuing the cycle of drugs, crime and 
violence.
  While I support efforts to interdict drugs and to strengthen our 
borders, the real drug war is not being fought only in Colombia, it is 
not being fought only in Mexico, it is also being fought in the hearts 
and minds of children in the school yards and the parents at home. We 
will not drive down drug abuse unless we commit ourselves to a 
comprehensive approach of prevention, education, treatment and 
interdiction. We owe it to our constituents to take this comprehensive 
approach to drug use. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the chairman of the Speaker's Task Force on a 
Drug-Free America, and a real leader on this issue both on the supply 
and the demand side.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
for yielding me this time. I want to take a minute, I will not take 
long, and talk about the substance of the bill because I think the 
quality of this bill stands on its own.
  I just want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, who is cosponsor. 
He sits with me on a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, and we have had hours and hours and hours of hearings on 
this.
  I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Elijah 
Cummings), who is not here; that gentleman certainly has a passion 
about what are the problems in his area; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Rob Portman), who has done a wonderful job, and the other members, such 
as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mark Souder), and others on our 
committee who have worked at this not just days and months, but 
literally years to get something done.
  I think we are finally coming to fruition. There are two pieces to 
this issue, certainly the supply side, but the most important for our 
communities, so moms and dads and teachers and preachers can get 
together and get the job done, and that is demand.
  I salute all these gentlemen and look forward to voting on this bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, a leader on this issue for many years. We 
heard from him earlier today on the supply side.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4450, the Drug Demand 
Reduction Act, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) for his extensive work in preparing this measure, authoring 
it, and offering it today for our consideration.
  The threat posed by illegal drugs is one of the most critical 
national security threats confronting our Nation, and this is not mere 
rhetoric but the cold truth. The vast majority of illegal drugs in this 
Nation comes from overseas, and the sooner we recognize that drugs are 
as much a foreign as domestic problem, the more effective our response 
will be.
  There are many who say we, as a Nation, spend too much on combating 
drugs. I argue that those critics ignore the true cost of drug use on 
our society. In addition to the cost of supply and demand reduction, 
drug use costs billions each year in health care costs, lost 
productivity. Drug use also has intangible costs in terms of broken 
families and destroyed lives, many of them young lives.
  As chairman of our House Committee on International Relations, I have 
long been dedicated to fighting the scourge of illegal drugs. 
Regrettably, currently this is a battle which we as a Nation have been 
losing. Too many of our young people are following the seductive 
message advocating drug use only to find out too late that message 
leads to a future devoid of hope. Yes, drugs are not recreational and 
drugs are deadly.
  During the 1980s we made remarkable progress in reducing illegal drug 
use, eliminating the perception that drugs and drug abuse were socially 
acceptable. Between 1979 and 1992, there was a 50 percent drop in 
``past month'' drug users from over 25 million to just over 12 million. 
Our focus during that period was twofold and followed a dual-track of 
reducing both supply and demand.
  Regrettably, the current administration abandoned that approach and 
focused on reducing demand. The result has been a sharp increase in the 
supply of drugs, the highest purity levels ever encountered, and a 
resurgence of teenage drug use. From 1992 to 1996, teenage marijuana 
use doubled. More distressing is the data showing a significant rise in 
heroin use among our teenage population.
  In essence, this administration's policy of focusing on demand 
reduction is being overwhelmed by the current state of the drug market. 
And with many of our cities literally awash in heroin, the drug dealers 
are using supply to create demand.
  In order to effectively combat the problem of illegal drug use, we 
are going to have to employ a balanced approach of reducing supply and 
reducing

[[Page H7866]]

demand and doing it simultaneously. It also requires efforts from all 
levels of government and society.
  H.R. 4450 addresses the demand side of the drug equation by 
establishing several very important programs designed to reduce drug 
usage by children and adolescents. It does this through promoting anti-
drug, anti-addiction medications, renewing a national anti-drug message 
using key public figures, and providing parents with additional 
resources to combat drug usage in their communities through 
organizations created for that purpose.
  The third component is the most important part of this bill. Everyone 
knows the vital role parents play in instilling a sense of morals and 
values in their children. Government cannot solve the drug problem by 
itself. We need to return to the formula which worked in the 1980s, 
aggressive interdiction efforts at our borders and abroad, and a 
visible national ``zero-tolerance'' message here at home.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 
worthy legislation. For too long we have had a disjointed approach to 
combating illegal drug use. If we as a Nation are willing to reduce the 
use of tobacco, certainly we can do the same for the use of illegal 
drugs.
  This bill provides significant assistance in reducing demand by 
targeting an Anti-Media Campaign, by a Drug-Free Workplace program, by 
a Drug-Free Teenage Drivers Act, by a Drug-Free Prisons and Drug-Free 
Jails Act, by a Drug-Free Schools Quality Assurance Act, by a Drug-Free 
Information Clearinghouse Act, and by a Drug-Free Parent Empowerment 
program. Excellent ideas and excellent programs. Certainly by working 
on all of these, along with supply reduction, we can win this war 
against drugs.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a good friend and expert on this issue who 
handles the drug-free schools part of this for the Speaker's Task Force 
on a Drug-Free America so well.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
his leadership, as well as the Speaker, who by putting this at the top 
of his agenda and our Republican agenda, has forced us and enabled us 
to work in multiple different ways.
  I also want to pay tribute to former Congressman and chairman of the 
Committee on National Security, Mr. Bill Zeliff, who when the 
Republicans took over Congress, began these hearings 4 years ago, of 
which we have had over 30 in that subcommittee and have worked to 
follow up many years of effort of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), when he was with the Narcotics Select Committee. This is not 
something that just popped up in an election year. Many of us have been 
working for years and years.
  I want to illustrate, too, it is not just in this bill. Earlier we 
had the impression that, well, this is a few last-minute things thrown 
together. But, in fact, I have been working over in the higher 
education bill where we have a major breakthrough in student loans, 
where we are going to hold students accountable. If they are found 
guilty of using drugs, they can lose their loan for 1 year. They can 
get back by testing free during two drug tests. But then if they have a 
second drug offense, they lose it for 2 years. The third time and they 
are out. This is a major breakthrough.
  We also have in that bill awards, where we have worked with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Joe Kennedy), to establish some 
awards for colleges that have drug and alcohol abuse programs that are 
national models.
  We have had several bills in the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce where we have included anti-drug education as one of the 
things that we need to do with parents. As the Speaker said, this needs 
to be a full court press everywhere, and we are trying to do that in 
prevention and treatment efforts.
  In juvenile justice, as we heard in yesterday's debate, where we had 
accountability and prevention programs, the appropriations subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), included additional 
money for drug courts, a very creative effort to work with these 
different youth.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) had one of the most creative 
initiatives, which we just this past week have had the first grants for 
community-wide drug efforts, and we worked that through different 
committees.
  There was a reference earlier today, that we had not had hearings. 
There is a section in this bill, drug-free workplace, which is one of 
the largest sections. I know the subcommittee I chair is a small 
committee, it is called empowerment, it is dealing with people who do 
not have much power and how we can address these things. It is part of 
the Committee on Small Business that tends to get run over by some of 
the bigger committees, but the fact is we had a hearing, and we passed 
it through. The committee came in front of the House, but it is 
deadlocked in the Senate. And the only way to move that bill is to put 
it inside this bill. But just because we are not the Energy and 
Commerce Committee does not mean we did not have hearings.
  We also have a provision in here for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
Act, an award that deals with schools. Now, that authorization is not 
up. We have the money in the Labor-HHS. I have one perfecting amendment 
later in this that we have worked with the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling), but it is an interim step. Clearly, we are in the 
process of revising and need to work with the major reauthorization.
  The point here is that we are working for a comprehensive effort. I 
commend the gentleman's leadership. This bill also deals with the 
media, which is an important thing, which we have heard from the impact 
of Hollywood and the impact of the music industry, and I am proud to be 
associated with this. This is only part of a much larger effort but a 
part that if we did not put it here, it was not going to move.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), a good friend who has also been involved in the 
task force.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
his leadership in this critically important bill. Earlier today we 
addressed the other side of this problem, the supply side of this 
problem. The truth is if we were able to do everything we wanted to do 
in sealing our international borders, we would still have a drug 
problem. The truth is that the methamphetamine problem, the other 
domestic drug supply problem, is so great that no matter how effective 
a job we do on the important work we committed ourselves earlier today, 
we have to deal with this issue of demand. This is a great follow-up on 
the Drug-Free Communities Act that was passed last year. I was glad to 
hear our friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) mention that 
many of the things in this bill are things that we have given some 
funding to but have not fully authorized. And other things in this bill 
are items that have had hearings and have passed the House but have not 
gone further. We need to take all of those things and put them in such 
a powerful package that they can no longer resist becoming part of an 
overall effort to help parents, to help communities, to help schools in 
the fight against this problem.
  This is a problem that Americans pay a dramatic price for every 
single day. This kind of approach to the demand side from a media 
campaign to schoolhouses, to parental involvement, is the kind of 
approach it takes to make that difference. This is the kind of 
commitment this Congress needs to make. It is the kind of commitment we 
need to direct the Federal Government to make, and it is the kind of 
commitment the country needs to understand how broad and how deep the 
commitment has to go. I believe this legislation does that. I am proud 
to be part of it and certainly proud to really recommend it to my 
colleagues and encourage the great efforts of the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman) here.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger), another active member of the task force who also 
happens to have been the mayor of a major city in America and has seen 
these problems firsthand.

[[Page H7867]]

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Drug 
Demand Reduction Act of 1998. This common sense proposal has an 
uncommon approach to the battle against drugs. In the past we have 
focused our attention on stopping the supply of drugs but this 
legislation would reduce the demand for drugs. How does it work? It 
works by providing incentives to States to encourage teenagers to be 
drug-free before getting their driver's license. Who does it help? It 
helps parents by creating an 800 number that parents can call to learn 
about how to talk to their children about drugs. Why is it needed? 
Because approximately 80 percent of all crimes committed in this 
country are drug-related. And why will it work? Because we are 
empowering local communities to deal with their local drug problems in 
their own local way.
  When I was mayor of Fort Worth we mapped out a strategy for fighting 
drugs that worked in Fort Worth. But it might not work in Fort Wayne or 
Front Royal. Each community is different and each situation is 
distinct. The great thing about this bill is that it gives each 
community enough support to carry out the war on drugs but enough 
flexibility to fight their own battles in their own way.
  As I close, I remind my colleagues that Henry Kissinger once said of 
guerilla war, ``Your enemy wins if he does not lose.'' For too long we 
have been losing the war on drugs simply and only because we have not 
had the courage to win it. By attacking both the supply and demand side 
of this issue and by giving local officials the tools they need, we can 
win the war on drugs for our community, for our children and also for 
our future.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my distinguished colleague 
from Ohio, a fellow Dartmouth alumnus, who has had the foresight to 
bring forward a bill that is as important and good as this one. I 
represent a rural New Hampshire district, but drugs are a problem there 
just as much as they are in any other district around the country.
  I have a story here, just a couple of weeks ago from New Hampshire: 
Heroin, A Deadly Problem Statewide. We all share the same problems with 
drug abuse. As the father of a 7-year-old who has just entered the 
second grade at the Peterborough Elementary School and a son who is 4, 
it is shocking for me to understand now that children are first exposed 
to drugs and drug information when they enter the fourth grade.
  As the father of two children, I am particularly interested in the 
provision of the bill that provides for $10 million in each fiscal year 
after 1995 for community-based parent organizations to get grant money 
to help provide parent training for individuals. Mr. Chairman, parents 
are in denial in many instances as to the problems that their children 
face.
  As a Member of Congress in this last term, I have been able to offer 
at least two major conferences involving many members of communities 
with bringing parents in to teach them how to deal with drugs in their 
families and in their homes. I am hopeful that this particular 
provision, which is of great importance to me, will prevail, because 
parents just as much as children need to understand the problems of 
drug abuse, how to communicate with their children and how to keep 
their children off drugs. I strongly commend the individuals who have 
worked on this bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I rise in strong 
support of its passage.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time. I guess my message is, Drug dealers, while the economy 
is good, while there are jobs out there, you better start looking for 
another job, because here comes some aggressive legislation that is 
going to be serious about the war on drugs. These bills that we are 
passing today are going to be the beginning of a serious effort to get 
rid of a serious problem in this Nation.
  I have been holding drug forums across my district in Charlotte, in 
Battle Creek, in Jackson, in Adrian, in Hillsdale and Branch counties. 
What has impressed me the most is that if communities get involved, if 
parents start taking action, then it happens. We cannot do it just here 
in Washington, D.C., and that is why the Drug-Free Communities Act, 
that is why this kind of legislation that starts empowering local 
communities and parents makes a huge difference.
  Just a couple of statistics. If a youngster does not use drugs before 
they are 19 years old, then there is a 90 percent chance that they will 
never have a drug problem. If parents talk to their kids about the 
dangers of using drugs, then you reduce the chances of those kids ever 
having a drug problem by 33 percent. Parents might think they are 
talking to their kids but when you ask those kids, only one-third of 
those kids say their parents talk to them seriously about the problems 
of using drugs.
  I met a father at one of my drug forums. He said, ``My son was an 
athlete. He was on the starting line-up for the football team. He was 
getting A's. Then he got into drugs. Now, he is not in sports. He is 
moping around, doing bad in everything to do with school.''
  Drugs and alcohol are a major cause of crime, they are a major cause 
of a student not learning to their full potential. Parents and 
communities, just do it, get involved. This kind of legislation does 
it.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), my distinguished colleague and friend on 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of this legislation, because it takes concrete, practical steps that 
will help us reduce the demand for drugs in our country. It will better 
fund the antidrug message being televised in 12 pilot cities across the 
country. And it provides funds to parent groups and other community-
based groups to provide parent training on how to deal with drugs not 
only in their homes but also in their communities. If we are going to 
win the battle against drugs, we must involve parents, businesses, 
whole communities in the antidrug effort. And we must better 
understand, be more honest, be dead honest about the nature of 
addiction and the importance of treatment. Admitting that you have an 
addiction problem is the first and hardest step to overcoming chemical 
dependency. We should ensure that those who take this tough step have 
access to the resources they need to meet their goal successfully. That 
is why I also support the amendment that the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ramstad) plans to offer to this bill.
  Since 1956, the AMA has recognized alcoholism and drug addiction as 
diseases. Some 26 million, or 10 percent of the population, suffer from 
these diseases. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1995 
roughly 80 percent of American workers' health plans covered a minimum 
level of treatment for addiction. More than 70 percent of those using 
illicit drugs and 75 percent of alcoholics are employed.
  Substance abuse treatment saves health care dollars. It saves lives. 
It strengthens our work force. Companies that provide treatment have 
already achieved savings. Chevron reports saving $10 for every $1 spent 
on treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bill and I urge Members' 
support of the Ramstad amendment.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) another member of the task force who has started a 
successful antidrug coalition in his own area.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to indulge my colleague and 
cosponsor and see if perhaps we could get an additional 2 minutes on 
this side.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I would agree to a unanimous consent for an 
additional 2 minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) each will 
control 2 additional minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
support for the Drug Demand Reduction

[[Page H7868]]

Act of 1998. Shortly after the Speaker established his Task Force for a 
Drug-Free America, we drafted an aggressive legislative agenda to win 
the war on drugs. To reach our goal of a drug-free America by 2002, we 
need to fight this battle on three fronts: Stopping the supply, 
increasing accountability and deterring demand. H.R. 4550 helps in 
ending the demand for drugs in our communities. It will fight that 
battle in the school yard, workplace and the prisons.
  Last year, I started the Heartland Anti-Drug Coalition. Our mission 
is to bring together the grassroots antidrug organizations in my 
district so we can combine our efforts and resources to educate our 
youth about the dangers of drugs. Just as the Heartland Coalition has 
been successful in creating a unified effort to keep our children drug-
free, H.R. 4550 will end the demand for drugs by combining many 
existing efforts. Specifically H.R. 4550 establishes an aggressive 
antidrug media campaign and assists organizations that provide the 
necessary tools for parents to help keep their children drug-free. The 
bill also consolidates information clearinghouses to provide a single 
source of information on fighting drug abuse. Earlier today we passed 
legislation to increase our efforts to prevent the entry of illegal 
drugs into the U.S. Now, let us take another important step to win the 
war on drugs by passing H.R. 4550.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who has been a real 
fighter on our side of the aisle and I think in the entire House on 
this issue.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Barrett) and to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who with others 
including myself have taken a leading advocacy position on this issue, 
I congratulate all of them. This is a fight worth fighting. This is a 
fight we cannot lose. This fight against drug use is in danger of 
spreading to parts of the Nation which have not fully seen this, though 
in a sense every sector has seen it. There has been a denial on the 
part of many people that the problem exists. Hopefully this bill will 
be another step to take away that denial and to realize that this is a 
national problem that requires national action. Most of the work is 
going to have to be done in our communities, but surely we can lead.
  The most recent surveys indicate the depth of the problem that the 
use of some hard drugs is increasing. There is much misunderstanding 
within our country about marijuana use. There is more and more evidence 
that it is harmful. This bill draws on elements of the national 
strategy document put together by General McCaffrey. I have had the 
privilege of working with him on a number of drug issues, and I am 
proud to stand by his side. The record has not been perfect, but it has 
been a record of action.

                              {time}  1800

  This bill enhances elements of programs that were started before. One 
is the National Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign. I had the privilege of 
helping to launch it in my home district with the help of K-Mart. We 
had a number of youths there, and it was encouraging to have them stand 
up and talk about the dangers of drugs and to talk about the need for 
us to meet head on this problem with the youth of America.
  I saw the ads. I believe they are effective ones. The youth who were 
there thought they were effective, some more than others. But I 
remember them dramatically, I remember the reaction dramatically, and 
this bill will help us use the power of the media to give a clear 
message to kids and to ask them for their support.
  This bill also addresses the problem of drug abuse in our prisons. We 
need to address that. We need to make sure that people who go into 
prison in so many cases with a drug problem, when they leave, if they 
do, that their drug problem has been addressed.
  This bill also includes reference to a resolution regarding community 
anti-drug coalitions. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and I have 
been privileged to represent two districts that have been used as 
models; in the case of Cincinnati, a comprehensive program that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has helped to spark. In the case of 
the 12th District, it is a different model, of efforts from the grass 
roots up, and our office and our staff have tried to facilitate those 
coalitions.
  And I say this without any hesitation: All of the Members of this 
Congress should get involved in anti-drug coalitions in their 
community. Our staff goes to meetings of every one of those anti-drug 
coalitions, and I am proud to have been associated with all of these 
efforts.
  So, in a word, this bill is one not only worth supporting, it is 
worth advocating, and it is worth implementing. It is worth our 
personnel commitment to take a piece of legislation, take it back home 
and help make it work, and there is no greater responsibility.
  The world has changed since my generation went to school. We did not 
know these problems. We have no choice but for this generation, for my 
grandchildren's generation, that we help America address this problem. 
As I said before, this is a fight worth fighting, this is a fight that 
we must win. Let us vote for this bill and then help to implement it.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  In closing on this side, Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I 
think this is a bill that does some good things. For me, the most 
important part of this legislation is allowing us to have a new program 
in prisons so that we can treat prisoners before they get out on the 
streets. It does a very good job as well in creating incentives for 
drug-free workplaces, and I think it is extremely important for us to 
authorize the media campaign that is currently going on.
  For those reasons, I would again ask my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to in closing again thank my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Barrett) for being willing to cosponsor the legislation, help improve 
the legislation and get it to the floor today. I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for the work he has done in the 
Drug-free Communities Act and in implementing that legislation. As he 
indicated, that sometimes is the most important thing we do here is 
being sure that we can back home and make sure this legislation 
actually works.
  Let us take a step back for a moment, if we could, and reflect on 
what we are doing here this evening. And I think Bill Bennett wrote 
very articulately about the problem of substance abuse, and I would 
like to quote from him, former drug czar Bill Bennett. He said:

       Using drugs is wrong not simply because drugs create 
     medical problems, it is wrong because drugs destroy one's 
     moral sense. People addicted to drugs neglect their duties, 
     they want to neglect God, family, children, friends and jobs, 
     everything in life that is important, noble, and worthwhile, 
     for the sake of drugs.

  As a parent and as a colleague, I would urge all the Members of this 
House to support this nonpartisan legislation that really will make a 
difference in terms of taking commonsense steps to rid our society of 
the devastating impact of illegal drugs.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4550, The 
Drug Demand Reduction Act. Out nation's children are our most precious 
resource and we must protect them from the negative effects of illegal 
drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, the sad truth is, 50% of state parole and probation 
violators are under the influence of drugs, alcohol or both when they 
commit new offenses. This is unacceptable! The Drug Demand Reduction 
Act will take steps to reduce drug abuse in prisons and increase the 
effectiveness of drug treatment programs. H.R. 4550 is a step in the 
right direction. We can not waste more time or more young lives on 
ineffective drug programs.
  The issue of drug abuse can not be stopped from Washington, D.C. 
alone. It is critical that we involve communities. Parents know best 
what their children's needs are--not bureaucrats in Washington. The 
Drug Demand Reduction Act will empower parents, teachers, and 
communities to address the increased concern of teenage substance 
abuse. This legislation will go right to the heart of the drug problem 
by reducing the demand for drugs

[[Page H7869]]

through prevention, education and treatment at the local level.
  Drugs not only burn the minds of those who use them, but they also 
scorch the lives of the abuser's families and loved ones. Mr. Speaker, 
I rise to support H.R. 4550, and protect our nation's children and 
families. We must put a stop to the use of these life destroying 
substances.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, whatever its merits, the consideration of 
this bill at this time constitutes a gross dereliction of the care and 
due diligence this House owes to the consideration of our laws.
  The bill was introduced on Friday. It was referred to six committees 
for hearings and deliberations. But here it is, after just three 
working days, up for a vote by the full House.
  This bill is badly in need of scrutiny by the committees of 
jurisdiction. Let me give you an example of a very troubling, coercive 
provision. The Teen Drivers incentive program is intended to promote 
the voluntary drug testing of applicants for drivers licenses.
  But there is nothing voluntary about having to choose between taking 
the test or having the State inform your insurance company that you've 
refused to take the test. There is no question the insurance company 
will raise the rates on anyone--whether an adult or minor, drug user or 
drug-free citizen--who refuses to take a drug test.
  This is fundamental question of civil liberties. There are ample and 
leigitmate reasons why a citizen with no history of illicit drug use 
and who constitutes no threat to public safety, might wish to decline a 
drug test.
  If this provision were stricken, the States would still be free to 
develop model programs, with or without a notification requirements. If 
a State desires such a requirement, so be it. But we in Congress should 
not dictate the approach taken by the several States in such a 
sensitive and vital area of civil liberties and personal privacy. We 
should allow the States to develop programs without dictating only one 
model designees in Washington as if one size fits all.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to give another example of why this bill 
should be sent back to the committees of jurisdiction, consistent with 
the regular order.
  The original Title II of his bill was a multi-billion dollar 
boondoggle. Any company which developed a new anti-addiction drug would 
receive an additional 6 months of market exclusivity on any drug of its 
choice.
  That is an unbelievable gift to the drug industry. I can understand 
wanting to provide modest incentives for a worthy cause. But H.R. 4550 
would have sucked literally billions of dollars out of the pockets of 
American consumers and taxpayers. It would have given a blank check to 
the drug industry.
  At the last minute, Title II was changed by a manager's amendment. A 
study was substituted--a study, I might note, that duplicates two 
studies which are already done. Was the provision struck because people 
caught it in time and threatened to expose it for the boondoggle it 
was? I don't know. But I do know this is the wrong way to develop 
legislation.
  I support the War on Drugs and I support programs which end illicit 
drug use. But I cannot support legislation developed in this manner.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Ramstad 
amendment which would prohibit group and individual health plans from 
imposing treatment limitations or financial requirements on the 
coverage of alcohol and substance abuse benefits if similar limitations 
or requirements are not imposed on medical and surgical benefits. I am 
pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation which creates a 
level playing field for the provision of alcohol and drug treatment 
services.
  Alcohol and substance abuse are diseases just like cancer, diabetes, 
and heart disease, and alcohol and substance abuse can be effectively 
diagnosed and treated. Alcohol and drug treatment reduces health, 
criminal justice, and welfare costs. For example, data for the Center 
for Substance Abuse Treatment's (CSAT) Pregnant and Postpartum Women 
and Infant's programs in 1996 found that after treatment 67.4% of women 
were not using drugs or alcohol, 90.3% of women were not involved with 
the criminal justice system, 86.5% of children were living with their 
mothers, and employment of women increased by 820%.
  Unfortunately, unlike other medical conditions, health coverage 
discrimination against alcohol and substance abuse treatment services 
is widespread. Currently, just 2% of the 16 million alcoholics and 
substance abusers covered by health insurance plans are actually 
receiving treatment, notwithstanding the purported ``coverage'' of 
chemical dependency treatment by the plans. This important legislation 
would provide for nondiscriminatory coverage for alcohol and substance 
abuse treatment services under private group and individual health 
plans. It would not require insurers to offer a standard benefit; it 
would instead establish parity coverage for those plans that offer 
substance abuse treatment coverage.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Ramstad amendment. Let us take 
this important step to improve health insurance coverage for alcohol 
and drug treatment.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule for 3 hours.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in House Report 105-721 if offered by a 
Member designated in the report. That amendment shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.
  After disposition of the amendment, the provisions as then perfected 
shall be considered as original text for the purpose of further 
amendment and, without objection, considered as read.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an 
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Portman

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in House Report 105-721 offered by Mr. 
     Portman:
       Page 10, line 9, insert ``treatment,'' after ``referral,''.
       Page 11, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 
     14, line 2, and insert the following:
                   Subtitle C--Drug-Free Teen Drivers

     SEC. 121. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Drug Free Teenage 
     Drivers Act''.

     SEC. 122. MODEL PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish a model program to provide for the voluntary drug 
     testing of all teenage applicants for a driver's license and, 
     if a State adopting the model program elects, other first 
     time applicants for a driver's license regardless of age.
       (b) Minimum Elements.--The model program established under 
     this section shall provide, at a minimum--
       (1) that information respecting an applicant's choice not 
     to take a drug test under the program or the result of a drug 
     test on the applicant will be made available to the 
     applicant's automobile insurance company, if any, or the 
     parent of a teenage applicant, or both, as determined by a 
     State that adopts the program; and
       (2) if an applicant tests positive in the drug test, the 
     State will not issue a license to the applicant and will 
     require the applicant to complete a drug treatment program 
     approved by the State and not test positive in a drug test 
     before reapplying for a license.
       (c) Adoption by States.--The States may adopt and implement 
     the model program established under this section. If a State 
     adopts the model program, the State shall in carrying out 
     subsection (b)(2) provide the treatment described in such 
     subsection to low-income individuals who apply for drivers' 
     licenses.

     SEC. 123. INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish an incentive grant program to assist States in 
     improving their laws relating to controlled substances and 
     driving.
       (b) Grant Requirements.--To qualify for a grant under 
     subsection (a), a State shall meet each of the following 
     requirements:
       (1) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that makes 
     unlawful throughout the State the operation of a motor 
     vehicle if the driver has any measurable amount of an illegal 
     controlled substance in the driver's body. Individuals who 
     are convicted of a violation of such law shall be referred to 
     appropriate services, including intervention, counseling, and 
     treatment.
       (2) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that makes 
     unlawful throughout the State the operation of a motor 
     vehicle if the ability of the driver to operate the vehicle 
     is impaired by an illegal controlled substance.

[[Page H7870]]

     The State shall provide that in the enforcement of such law 
     the driver shall be tested for the presence of an illegal 
     controlled substance when there is evidence of impaired 
     driving. Individuals who are convicted of a violation of such 
     law shall have their driver's license suspended and shall be 
     referred to appropriate services, including intervention, 
     counseling, and treatment.
       (3) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that 
     requires the suspension of the driver's license of an 
     individual who is convicted of any criminal offense relating 
     to drugs.
       (4) Enact a law that provides that individuals applying 
     for, and individuals renewing, a driver's license will be 
     provided information about the laws referred to in paragraphs 
     (1), (2), and (3) and will be required to answer drug-related 
     questions on their applications.
       (c) Use.--A State may use a grant under subsection (a) only 
     to implement, enforce, and publicize laws described in 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Grant Amounts.--The amount of a grant made to a State 
     under this section in a fiscal year shall be determined by 
     multiplying the total amount of funds made available to carry 
     out this section for such fiscal year by the ratio of the 
     amount of funds made available to the State under section 402 
     of title 23, United States Code, for such fiscal year to the 
     aggregate amount of funds made available to carry out such 
     section 402 for such fiscal year to all States to which 
     grants will be made under this section in such fiscal year.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Controlled substances.--The term ``controlled 
     substances'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
       (2) Illegal controlled substance.--The term ``illegal 
     controlled substance'' means a controlled substance for which 
     an individual does not have a legal written prescription.

     SEC. 124. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall provide to the States 
     technical assistance for--
       (1) training law enforcement officers in the standardized 
     field sobriety testing techniques to detect impaired drivers;
       (2) expanding drug information and training by involving 
     prosecutors in community drugged driving prevention programs; 
     and
       (3) promoting uniform sanctions for drugged driving 
     offenses, referring drugged driving offenders to assessment 
     and treatment programs, and involving judges in community 
     drugged driving prevention programs.

     SEC. 125. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this subtitle for fiscal years 1999 
     and 2000.
       Page 30, strike line 19 and all that follows through page 
     36, line 15, and insert the following:

     SEC. 203. REPORT REGARDING INCENTIVES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 
                   ANTIADDICTION DRUGS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary''), in 
     collaboration with the officials specified in subsection (b), 
     shall conduct a study for the purpose of determining whether 
     there is a need to establish particularized incentives for 
     the development of drugs to treat dependence on alcohol or on 
     any controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (referred to in this section as 
     ``qualifying antiaddiction drugs'').
       (b) Collaboration Among Agencies.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a), the officials specified in this subsection 
     are as follows:
       (1) The Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
       (2) The Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse 
     and Alcoholism.
       (3) The Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
       (4) The Director of the National Institute of Mental 
     Health.
       (5) The Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services Administration.
       (c) Certain Elements of Study.--If in conducting the study 
     under subsection (a) the Secretary determines that there is a 
     need to establish particularized incentives for the 
     development of qualifying antiaddiction drugs, the Secretary 
     shall determine whether the incentives should include one or 
     both of the following:
       (1) Providing for increased cooperation among the agencies 
     referred to in subsection (b) in order to facilitate the 
     development and approval of such drugs.
       (2) Establishing under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act particularized financial incentives for the development 
     of such drugs.
       (d) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the study 
     required in subsection (a) and submit to the Committee on 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives, and to the 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, a 
     report describing the findings made in the study.
       Page 40, line 24, strike ``the presence'' and all that 
     follows through line 25 and insert ``the presence of six of 
     the members appointed under subsection (c)(2).''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, as we discussed earlier, the manager's 
amendment made in order by the rule provides for some technical and 
clarifying amendments and accommodates the concerns of two of the 
committees that have jurisdiction over aspects of this legislation. In 
the drug-free workplace provision, the amendment makes clear that an 
employee assistance program should offer access to treatment for 
employees.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure staff provided a 
substitute for our drug-free teen drivers provision in the bill that 
clarifies the organization of the program established under the 
legislation and provides an explicit authorization for appropriations 
under that part of the legislation.
  The Committee on Commerce had requested that we replace the incentive 
for the development of anti-addiction medication, an issue that came up 
earlier in our debate, and we have indeed replaced the legislation that 
we had with regard to anti-addiction medication with a study for the 
need for such incentives. The amendment, therefore, grants their 
request.
  Finally, the amendment sets the quorum for meetings of the Commission 
on Medical Education that is in the legislation so that the meetings of 
the Commission can take place without any concern of not having a 
quorum present.
  Those, Mr. Chairman, are the changes in this manager's amendment. 
They are straightforward, they are technical and clarifying in nature, 
and I would hope that my colleagues would support them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, very briefly, and I will not use the whole 5 minutes, I 
think that this is a good amendment, it addresses some of the concerns 
that have been raised, in particular the one pertaining to the anti-
addiction medications, and for that reason I support it.
  Also I should note that it also makes clear that treatment is an 
option in the drug-free workplace program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Again I want to thank my colleague for helping perfect this 
legislation, and that includes this manager's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The text of H.R. 4550, as amended by the amendment printed in House 
Report 105-721, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4550

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Drug 
     Demand Reduction Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

  TITLE I--TARGETED SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS

          Subtitle A--National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Requirement to conduct national media campaign.
Sec. 103. Use of funds.
Sec. 104. Reports to Congress.
Sec. 105. Authorization of appropriations.

                  Subtitle B--Drug-Free Workplace Act

Sec. 111. Short title.
Sec. 112. Findings; purposes.
Sec. 113. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 114. Drug-free workplace demonstration program.
Sec. 115. Small business development centers.
Sec. 116. Contract authority.

                   Subtitle C--Drug-Free Teen Drivers

Sec. 121. Short title.
Sec. 122. Demonstration program.
Sec. 123. Incentive grant program.
Sec. 124. Technical assistance.

                Subtitle D--Drug-Free Prisons and Jails

Sec. 131. Short title.
Sec. 132. Purpose.
Sec. 133. Program authorization.
Sec. 134. Grant application.
Sec. 135. Uses of funds.
Sec. 136. Evaluation and recommendation report to Congress.
Sec. 137. Definitions.
Sec. 138. Authorization of appropriations.

[[Page H7871]]

            Subtitle E--Drug-Free Schools Quality Assurance

Sec. 151. Short title.
Sec. 152. Amendment to Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.

              Subtitle F--Drug-Free National Clearinghouse

Sec. 161. Short title.
Sec. 162. Establishment of clearinghouse; functions.
Sec. 163. Director.
Sec. 164. Cooperation by national drug control program agencies.

               Subtitle G--Drug-Free Parents Empowerment

Sec. 171. Short title.
Sec. 172. Drug-free parents empowerment.

            TITLE II--PRIVATE SECTOR ANTI-DRUG PARTNERSHIPS

                 Subtitle A--Antiaddiction Medications

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Facilitation of approval for commercial distribution of 
              antiaddiction drugs developed by National Institute of 
              Drug Abuse.
Sec. 203. Incentives for development of qualifying antiaddiction drugs.

  Subtitle B--Commission on Role of Medication Education in Reducing 
                            Substance Abuse

Sec. 211. National Commission on the Role of Medical Education in 
              Reducing Substance Abuse.

            TITLE III--STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ANTIDRUG POLICY

      Subtitle A--Congressional Leadership in Community Coalitions

Sec. 301. Sense of Congress.

             Subtitle B--Rejection of Legalization of Drugs

Sec. 311. Sense of Congress.

  Subtitle C--Report on Streamlining Federal Prevention and Treatment 
                                Efforts

Sec. 321. Report on streamlining Federal prevention and treatment 
              efforts.
  TITLE I--TARGETED SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS
          Subtitle A--National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Drug-Free Media 
     Campaign Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 102. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy (in this subtitle referred to as the 
     ``Director'') shall conduct a national media campaign for the 
     purpose of reducing and preventing drug abuse among young 
     people in the United States.
       (b) Local Target Requirement.--The Director shall, to the 
     maximum extent feasible, use the funds appropriated pursuant 
     to the authorization in section 105 for media that focuses 
     on, or includes specific information on, prevention or 
     treatment resources for consumers within specific local 
     areas.

     SEC. 103. USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) Authorized Uses.--The funds authorized to be 
     appropriated in section 105 for the support of a national 
     media campaign may be used to fund--
       (1) the purchase of media time and space;
       (2) reimbursement of out of pocket advertising production 
     costs for agencies that provide all creative development on a 
     pro bono basis;
       (3) the negotiated fee for the contract buying agency; and
       (4) the evaluation of the effectiveness of the national 
     media campaign.
       (b) Prohibitions.--None of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated in section 105 may be obligated or expended for 
     the following purposes:
       (1) To supplant current anti-drug community based 
     coalitions.
       (2) To supplant current pro bono public service time 
     donated by national and local broadcasting networks.
       (3) For partisan political purposes.
       (4) To fund media campaigns that feature any elected 
     officials, persons seeking elected office, cabinet level 
     officials, or other Federal officials employed pursuant to 
     section 213 of Schedule C of title 5, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, unless the Director provides advance notice to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate.
       (c) Matching Requirement.--Funds appropriated pursuant to 
     the authorization in section 105 shall be matched by an equal 
     amount of non-Federal funds for the campaign, or be matched 
     with in-kind contributions to the campaign of the same value.

     SEC. 104. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       The Director shall--
       (1) submit to Congress on a quarterly basis a report on the 
     activities for which funds appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization in section 105 have been obligated during the 
     preceding quarter, and on the specific parameters of the 
     national media campaign; and
       (2) not later than one year after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, submit to Congress a report on the effectiveness 
     of the national media campaign based on measurable outcomes 
     provided to Congress previously.

     SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy to carry out this subtitle 
     $195,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
                  Subtitle B--Drug-Free Workplace Act

     SEC. 111. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Drug-Free Workplace Act 
     of 1998''.

     SEC. 112. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) 74 percent of adults who use illegal drugs are 
     employed;
       (2) small business concerns employ over 50 percent of the 
     Nation's workforce;
       (3) in over 88 percent of families with children under the 
     age of 18, at least 1 parent is employed; and
       (4) employees who use drugs increase costs for businesses 
     and risk the health and safety of all employees because--
       (A) absenteeism is 66 percent higher among drug users than 
     nondrug users;
       (B) health benefit utilization is 300 percent higher among 
     drug users than nondrug users;
       (C) 47 percent of workplace accidents are drug-related;
       (D) disciplinary actions are 90 percent higher among drug 
     users than nondrug users; and
       (E) employee turnover is significantly higher among drug 
     users than nondrug users.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this subtitle are to--
       (1) educate small business concerns about the advantages of 
     a drug-free workplace;
       (2) provide financial incentives and technical assistance 
     to enable small business concerns to create a drug-free 
     workplace; and
       (3) assist working parents in keeping their children drug-
     free.

     SEC. 113. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) businesses should adopt drug-free workplace programs; 
     and
       (2) States should consider financial incentives, such as 
     reductions in workers' compensation premiums, to encourage 
     businesses to adopt drug-free workplace programs.

     SEC. 114. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636 et seq.) is amended 
     by--
       (1) redesignating sections (30) and (31) as sections (31) 
     and (32), respectively; and
       (2) inserting the following new section:

     ``SEC. 30. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established a drug-free 
     workplace demonstration program, under which the 
     Administration may make grants to eligible intermediaries for 
     the purpose of providing financial and technical 
     assistance to small business concerns seeking to start a 
     drug-free workplace program.
       ``(b) Eligibility for Participation.--An intermediary shall 
     be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a) if it 
     meets the following criteria:
       ``(1) It is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt from tax 
     under section 5(a) of such Act, a program of such 
     organization, or provides services to such organization.
       ``(2) Its primary purpose is to develop comprehensive drug-
     free workplace programs or to supply drug-free workplace 
     services.
       ``(3) It has at least 2 years of experience in drug-free 
     workplace programs.
       ``(4) It has a drug-free workplace policy in effect.
       ``(c) Requirements for Program.--Any drug-free workplace 
     program established as a result of this section shall 
     include--
       ``(1) a written policy, including a clear statement of 
     expectations for workplace behavior, prohibitions against 
     substances in the workplace, and the consequences of 
     violating such expectations and prohibitions;
       ``(2) training for at least 60 minutes for employees and 
     supervisors;
       ``(3) additional training for supervisors and employees who 
     are parents;
       ``(4) employee drug testing; and
       ``(5) employee access to an employee assistance program, 
     including assessment, referral, treatment, and problem 
     resolution.
       ``(d) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out the provisions of this section, 
     $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and such sums may remain 
     available until expended.

     SEC. 115. SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.

       Section 21(c)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     648(c)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (R) by striking ``and'';
       (2) in subparagraph (S) by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (S) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(T) providing information and assistance to small 
     business concerns with respect to developing drug-free 
     workplace programs.''.

     SEC. 116. CONTRACT AUTHORITY.

       The Small Business Administrator may contract with and 
     compensate government and private agencies or persons for 
     services related to carrying out the provisions of this 
     subtitle.
                   Subtitle C--Drug-Free Teen Drivers

     SEC. 121. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Drug Free Teenage 
     Drivers Act''.

     SEC. 122. MODEL PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish a model program to provide for the voluntary

[[Page H7872]]

     drug testing of all teenage applicants for a driver's license 
     and, if a State adopting the model program elects, other 
     first time applicants for a driver's license regardless of 
     age.
       (b) Minimum Elements.--The model program established under 
     this section shall provide, at a minimum--
       (1) that information respecting an applicant's choice not 
     to take a drug test under the program or the result of a drug 
     test on the applicant will be made available to the 
     applicant's automobile insurance company, if any, or the 
     parent of a teenage applicant, or both, as determined by a 
     State that adopts the program; and
       (2) if an applicant tests positive in the drug test, the 
     State will not issue a license to the applicant and will 
     require the applicant to complete a drug treatment program 
     approved by the State and not test positive in a drug test 
     before reapplying for a license.
       (c) Adoption by States.--The States may adopt and implement 
     the model program established under this section. If a State 
     adopts the model program, the State shall in carrying out 
     subsection (b)(2) provide the treatment described in such 
     subsection to low-income individuals who apply for drivers' 
     licenses.

     SEC. 123. INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish an incentive grant program to assist States in 
     improving their laws relating to controlled substances and 
     driving.
       (b) Grant Requirements.--To qualify for a grant under 
     subsection (a), a State shall meet each of the following 
     requirements:
       (1) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that makes 
     unlawful throughout the State the operation of a motor 
     vehicle if the driver has any measurable amount of an illegal 
     controlled substance in the driver's body. Individuals who 
     are convicted of a violation of such law shall be referred to 
     appropriate services, including intervention, counseling, and 
     treatment.
       (2) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that makes 
     unlawful throughout the State the operation of a motor 
     vehicle if the ability of the driver to operate the vehicle 
     is impaired by an illegal controlled substance. The State 
     shall provide that in the enforcement of such law the driver 
     shall be tested for the presence of an illegal controlled 
     substance when there is evidence of impaired driving. 
     Individuals who are convicted of a violation of such law 
     shall have their driver's license suspended and shall be 
     referred to appropriate services, including intervention, 
     counseling, and treatment.
       (3) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that 
     requires the suspension of the driver's license of an 
     individual who is convicted of any criminal offense relating 
     to drugs.
       (4) Enact a law that provides that individuals applying 
     for, and individuals renewing, a driver's license will be 
     provided information about the laws referred to in paragraphs 
     (1), (2), and (3) and will be required to answer drug-related 
     questions on their applications.
       (c) Use.--A State may only use a grant under subsection (a) 
     only to implement, enforce, and publicize laws described in 
     subsection (b).
       (d) Grant Amounts.--The amount of a grant made to a State 
     under this section in a fiscal year shall be determined by 
     multiplying the total amount of funds made available to carry 
     out this section for such fiscal year by the ratio of the 
     amount of funds made available to the State under section 402 
     of title 23, United States Code, for such fiscal year to the 
     aggregate amount of funds made available to carry out such 
     section 402 for such fiscal year to all States to which 
     grants will be made under this section in such fiscal year.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Controlled substances.--The term ``controlled 
     substances'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
       (2) Illegal controlled substance.--The term ``illegal 
     controlled substance'' means a controlled substance for which 
     an individual does not have a legal written prescription.

     SEC. 124. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall provide to the States 
     technical assistance for--
       (1) training law enforcement officers in the standardized 
     field sobriety testing techniques to detect impaired drivers;
       (2) expanding drug information and training by involving 
     prosecutors in community drugged driving prevention programs; 
     and
       (3) promoting uniform sanctions for drugged driving 
     offenses, referring drugged driving offenders to assessment 
     and treatment programs, and involving judges in community 
     drugged prevention programs.

     SEC. 125. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this subtitle for fiscal years 1999 
     and 2000.
                Subtitle D--Drug-Free Prisons and Jails

     SEC. 131. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Drug-Free Prisons and 
     Jails Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 132. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this subtitle is to provide model programs 
     for comprehensive treatment of substance-involved offenders 
     in the criminal justice system to reduce drug abuse and drug-
     related crime, and reduce the costs of the criminal justice 
     system, that can be successfully replicated by States and 
     local units of government through a comprehensive evaluation.

     SEC. 133. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Establishment.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance shall establish a model substance abuse treatment 
     program for substance-involved offenders by--
       (1) providing financial assistance to grant recipients 
     selected in accordance with section 134(b); and
       (2) evaluating the success of programs conducted pursuant 
     to this subtitle.
       (b) Grant Awards.--The Director may award not more than 5 
     grants to units of local government and not more than 5 
     grants to States.
       (c) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 percent of a 
     grant award made pursuant to this subtitle may be used for 
     administrative costs.

     SEC. 134. GRANT APPLICATION.

       (a) Contents.--An application submitted by a unit of local 
     government or a State for a grant award under this subtitle 
     shall include the following:
       (1) Strategy.--A strategy to coordinate programs and 
     services for substance-involved offenders provided by the 
     unit of local government or the State, as the case may be, 
     developed in consultation with representatives from all 
     components of the criminal justice system within the 
     jurisdiction, including judges, law enforcement personnel, 
     prosecutors, corrections personnel, probation personnel, 
     parole personnel, substance abuse treatment personnel, and 
     substance abuse prevention personnel.
       (2) Certification.--Certification that--
       (A) Federal funds made available under this subtitle will 
     not be used to supplant State or local funds, but will be 
     used to increase the amounts of such funds that would, in the 
     absence of Federal funds, be made available for law 
     enforcement activities; and
       (B) the programs developed pursuant to this subtitle meet 
     all requirements of this subtitle.
       (b) Review and Approval.--Subject to section 133(b), the 
     Director shall approve applications and make grant awards to 
     units of local governments and States that show the most 
     promise for accomplishing the purposes of this subtitle 
     consistent with the provisions of section 135.

     SEC. 135. USES OF FUNDS.

       A unit of local government or State that receives a grant 
     award under this subtitle shall use such funds to provide 
     comprehensive treatment programs to inmates in prisons or 
     jails, including not less than 3 of the following--
       (1) tailored treatment programs to meet the special needs 
     of different types of substance-involved offenders;
       (2) random and frequent drug testing, including a system of 
     sanctions;
       (3) training and assistance for corrections officers and 
     personnel to assist substance-involved offenders in 
     correctional facilities;
       (4) clinical assessment of incoming substance-involved 
     offenders;
       (5) availability of religious and spiritual activity and 
     counseling to provide an environment that encourages recovery 
     from substance involvement in correctional facilities;
       (6) education and vocational training; and
       (7) a substance-free correctional facility policy.

     SEC. 136. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Evaluation.--
       (1) In general.--The Director shall enter into a contract, 
     with an evaluating agency that has demonstrated experience in 
     the evaluation of substance abuse treatment, to conduct an 
     evaluation that incorporates the criteria described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Evaluation criteria.--The Director, in consultation 
     with the Directors of the appropriate National Institutes of 
     Health, shall establish minimum criteria for evaluating each 
     program. Such criteria shall include--
       (A) reducing substance abuse among participants;
       (B) reducing recidivism among participants;
       (C) cost effectiveness of providing services to 
     participants; and
       (D) a data collection system that will produce data 
     comparable to that used by the Office of Applied Studies of 
     the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
     and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Office of Justice 
     Programs.
       (b) Report.--The Director shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress, at the same time as the President's 
     budget for fiscal year 2001 is submitted, a report that--
       (1) describes the activities funded by grant awards under 
     this subtitle;
       (2) includes the evaluation submitted pursuant to 
     subsection (a); and
       (3) makes recommendations regarding revisions to the 
     authorization of the program, including extension, expansion, 
     application requirements, reduction, and termination.

     SEC. 137. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this subtitle:
       (1) Substance-involved offender.--The term ``substance-
     involved offender'' means an individual under the supervision 
     of a State or local criminal justice system, awaiting trial 
     or serving a sentence imposed by the criminal justice system, 
     who--
       (A) violated or has been arrested for violating a drug or 
     alcohol law;
       (B) was under the influence of alcohol or an illegal drug 
     at the time the crime was committed;
       (C) stole property to buy illegal drugs; or
       (D) has a history of substance abuse and addiction.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Bureau of Justice Assistance;

[[Page H7873]]

       (3) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local 
     government'' means any city, county, township, town, borough, 
     parish, village, or other general purpose political 
     subdivision of a State, an Indian tribe which performs law 
     enforcement functions as determined by the Secretary of the 
     Interior and any agency of the District of Columbia 
     government or the United States Government performing law 
     enforcement functions in and for the District of Columbia, 
     and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
       (4) Appropriate congressional committee.--The term 
     ``appropriate Congressional Committee'' means the Committees 
     on the Judiciary and the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate.

     SEC. 138. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this subtitle from the Violent Crime Reduction 
     Trust Fund as authorized by title 31 of the Violent Crime and 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) 
     (42 U.S.C. 14211)--
       (1) for fiscal year 1999, $30,000,000; and
       (2) for fiscal year 2000, $20,000,000.
       (b) Reservation.--The Director may reserve each fiscal year 
     not more than 20 percent of the funds appropriated pursuant 
     to subsection (a) for activities required under section 136.
            Subtitle E--Drug-Free Schools Quality Assurance

     SEC. 151. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Drug-Free Schools 
     Quality Assurance Act''.

     SEC. 152. AMENDMENT TO SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND 
                   COMMUNITIES ACT.

       Subpart 3 of title IV of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 4134. QUALITY RATING.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop a rating 
     system, or allow State educational agencies, to determine if 
     a public school has a drug program that meets the 
     qualification described in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Criteria.--The criteria to determine if a school has 
     a quality drug program shall include, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       ``(1) Needs assessment.--A thorough needs assessment before 
     implementation of a drug program.
       ``(2) Research.--Implementation of a research-based 
     program.
       ``(3) Parent and community Involvement.--Involvement of 
     parents and community members in program design and review of 
     existing community drug programs before implementation of a 
     school program.
       ``(c) Request for Quality Rating.--A school that wishes to 
     receive a quality rating shall submit a request and 
     documentation of compliance with this section to the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Public Notification.--Not less than once each year, 
     the Secretary shall report in the Federal Register the names 
     of schools that have received a quality rating as described 
     in this section. The Secretary shall also ensure that a list 
     of programs that received a quality rating is readily 
     available to any individual who requests it from the 
     Department of Education.''.
              Subtitle F--Drug-Free National Clearinghouse

     SEC. 161. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Drug-Free National 
     Clearinghouse Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 162. ESTABLISHMENT OF CLEARINGHOUSE; FUNCTIONS.

       (a) Establishment.--(1) There shall be established in the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy an office to be known 
     as Drug-Free National Clearinghouse (in this subtitle 
     referred to as the ``Clearinghouse'').
       (2) The Clearinghouse shall be established pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Functions.--The functions of the Clearinghouse shall 
     be--
       (1) to consolidate and assume the drug prevention and drug 
     treatment information clearinghouse roles currently performed 
     by National Drug Control Program agencies (as that term is 
     defined in section 1010(6) of the National Narcotics 
     Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1507(6))); and
       (2) to ensure that drug prevention and drug treatment 
     information is effectively disseminated by such agencies to 
     individuals, State and local governments, and nongovernmental 
     entities involved in demand reduction (as that term is 
     defined in section 1010(4) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 1507(4))).

     SEC. 163. DIRECTOR.

       (a) Appointment.--There shall be at the head of the 
     Clearinghouse a director, who shall be appointed by the 
     Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in 
     consultation with the Director of the National Institute on 
     Drug Abuse.
       (b) Duties.--The director of the Clearinghouse shall--
       (1) encourage consultation between any National Drug 
     Control Program agency that conducts or sponsors research on 
     drug prevention or drug treatment, and any National Drug 
     Control Program agency that disseminates such information;
       (2) encourage, as appropriate, National Drug Control 
     Program agencies to develop and implement drug prevention and 
     drug treatment information dissemination plans that 
     specifically target individuals, State and local governments, 
     and nongovernmental entities involved in demand reduction; 
     and
       (3) coordinate the dissemination of drug prevention and 
     drug treatment information by such agencies to individuals, 
     State and local governments, and nongovernmental entities 
     involved in demand reduction.

     SEC. 164. COOPERATION BY NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAM 
                   AGENCIES.

       Each National Drug Control Program agency shall cooperate 
     with the director of the Clearinghouse in carrying out the 
     provisions of this subtitle.
               Subtitle G--Drug-Free Parents Empowerment

     SEC. 171. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Drug-Free Parents 
     Empowerment Act''.

     SEC. 172. DRUG-FREE PARENTS EMPOWERMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall make grants to support the efforts of 
     parent organizations to develop and promote efforts to 
     reduce illegal drug use among children in their 
     communities.
       (b) Requirements.--A parent organization may receive a 
     grant under subsection (a) only if the following conditions 
     are met:
       (1) The organization is a nonprofit organization that is 
     exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (2) The organization is governed primarily by parents of 
     children who reside in the community involved.
       (3) The organization has not less than five years 
     experience in training, informing, and involving parents in 
     substance-abuse prevention activities within such community.
       (4) The application submitted pursuant to subsection (c) by 
     the organization includes a strategy for increasing the 
     involvement of parents in prevention activities, including 
     parent training, that are carried out in such community and 
     that complement the work of other parts of the community 
     regarding such activities.
       (5) The application contains an agreement by the 
     organization that the organization will not expend more than 
     10 percent of the grant for administrative expenses involved 
     in carrying out the purpose for which the grant is made.
       (6) Such application has been approved pursuant to a 
     process of peer review established by the Secretary.
       (c) Application for Grant.--The Secretary may make a grant 
     under subsection (a) only if an application for the grant is 
     submitted to the Secretary and the application is in such 
     form, is made in such manner, and contains such agreements, 
     assurances, and information as the Secretary determines to be 
     necessary to carry out this section.
       (d) Limitation on Amount of Grant.--A grant under 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year may not be made in an amount 
     exceeding $20,000.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999 
     through 2001.
            TITLE II--PRIVATE SECTOR ANTI-DRUG PARTNERSHIPS
                 Subtitle A--Antiaddiction Medications

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Antiaddiction 
     Medication Development Act''.

     SEC. 202. FACILITATION OF APPROVAL FOR COMMERCIAL 
                   DISTRIBUTION OF ANTIADDICTION DRUGS DEVELOPED 
                   BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DRUG ABUSE.

       (a) In General.--The Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the 
     Attorney General of the United States shall, respectively, 
     promptly provide to the Director of the National Institute on 
     Drug Abuse a response to any request described in subsection 
     (b) that is submitted to the Commissioner or the Attorney 
     General by the Director regarding a drug--
       (1) that is being developed by the Director as a 
     maintenance or detoxification treatment for addiction to one 
     or more narcotic substances;
       (2) for which clinical trials are being or have been 
     conducted to determine the safety and effectiveness of the 
     drug; and
       (3) for which the Director seeks or has approved a private 
     entity to submit for the drug an application under section 
     505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and
       (4) that likely will be added to one of the schedules of 
     controlled substances pursuant to section 201 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act.
       (b) Description of Request.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), a request by the Director is a request that, with 
     respect to a drug described in subsection (a), the 
     Commissioner and the Attorney General exercise their 
     discretion under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 
     and the Controlled Substances Act, to accomplish one or more 
     of the following (as applicable under the request):
       (1) To carry out promptly section 201(b) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act with respect to the drug (relating to the 
     decision regarding on which of the schedules of controlled 
     substances a drug is to be included).
       (2) To advise the Director, and the sponsor of the 
     application under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act, on the actions that can be taken by the 
     Director and the sponsor to facilitate the approval of the 
     application.
       (3) To designate the drug as a fast track product for 
     purposes of section 506 of such Act.

[[Page H7874]]

       (4) To provide the drug to physicians who request the drug 
     for treatment purposes under section 561 of such Act 
     (relating to the provision of investigational new drugs to 
     patients who are not participating in clinical trials).
       (5) To advise the Director and the sponsor of the 
     application on the actions that can be taken to facilitate 
     the designation of the drug under section 526 of such Act as 
     being a drug for a rare disease or condition (commonly 
     referred to as an orphan drug).
       (c) Procedures Regarding Submission of Request; Response to 
     Request.--
       (1) Request.--In making a request described in subsection 
     (b), the Director shall--
       (A) provide such information as the Commissioner or the 
     Attorney General (as applicable) determines is necessary with 
     respect to the request; and
       (B) if the request is described in any of paragraphs (3) 
     through (5) of such subsection, state the reasons underlying 
     the determination of the Director that the drug involved may 
     qualify for the status described in the paragraph involved.
       (2) Response.--In providing a response to a request 
     described in subsection (b), the Commissioner and the 
     Attorney General shall state the reasons underlying the 
     response, including as applicable, the reasons underlying any 
     determination by the Secretary that providing a status 
     described in any of paragraphs (3) through (5) of such 
     subsection for the drug involved would be inconsistent with 
     applicable law.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Commissioner'' means the Commissioner of 
     Food and Drugs.
       (2) The term ``Director'' means the Director of the 
     National Institute on Drug Abuse.
       (3) The term ``Attorney General'' means the Attorney 
     General of the United States.

     SEC. 203. REPORT REGARDING INCENTIVES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 
                   ANTIADDICTION DRUGS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary''), in 
     collaboration with the officials specified in subsection (b), 
     shall conduct a study for the purpose of determining whether 
     there is a need to establish particularized incentives for 
     the development of drugs to treat dependence on alcohol or on 
     any controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (referred to in this section as 
     ``qualifying antiaddiction drugs'').
       (b) Collaboration Among Agencies.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a), the officials specified in this subsection 
     are as follows:
       (1) The Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
       (2) The Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse 
     and Alcoholism.
       (3) The Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
       (4) The Director of the National Institute of Mental 
     Health.
       (5) The Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services Administration.
       (c) Certain Elements of Study.--If in conducting the study 
     under subsection (a) the Secretary determines that there is a 
     need to establish particularized incentives for the 
     development of qualifying antiaddiction drugs, the Secretary 
     shall determine whether the incentives should include one or 
     both of the following:
       (1) Providing for increased cooperation among the agencies 
     referred to in subsection (b) in order to facilitate the 
     development and approval of such drugs.
       (2) Establishing under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act particularized financial incentives for the development 
     of such drugs.
       (d) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the study 
     required in subsection (a) and submit to the Committee on 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives, and to the 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, a 
     report describing the findings made in the study.
  Subtitle B--Commission on Role of Medication Education in Reducing 
                            Substance Abuse

     SEC. 211. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE ROLE OF MEDICAL 
                   EDUCATION IN REDUCING SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall establish an advisory commission to be known as the 
     National Commission on the Role of Medical Education in 
     Reducing Substance Abuse.
       (b) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a study for 
     the purpose of determining the manner in which programs of 
     initial and continuing medical education can be modified to 
     improve the efforts of health professionals in preventing, 
     diagnosing, and treating cases of substance abuse.
       (2) Date certain for completion.--Not later than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission 
     shall complete the study required in paragraph (1).
       (3) Report.--Upon completing the study required in 
     paragraph (1), the Commission shall prepare a report 
     describing the findings made as a result of the study. The 
     report shall be submitted to the President, to the 
     appropriate departments and Federal agencies, and to the 
     appropriate committees of the Congress. The Commission may 
     include in the report any recommendations of the Commission 
     regarding administrative or legislative actions. The 
     Secretary shall disseminate the report to the public health 
     officers of the States with the request that the States 
     disseminate the report to public and private programs within 
     the State that provide education in the health professions.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 
     voting members appointed in accordance with paragraph (2) and 
     the nonvoting, ex officio members designated under paragraph 
     (3).
       (2) Appointment of non-federal individuals.--Subject to 
     paragraph (3), the voting members of the Commission under 
     paragraph (1) shall be appointed by the Secretary, and shall 
     be appointed from among individuals who on the day before 
     being appointed were not officers or employees of the Federal 
     Government. Of such members--
       (A) one shall be a representative of the American College 
     of Physicians;
       (B) one shall be a representative of the American Medical 
     Association;
       (C) one shall be a representative of the Association of 
     Professors of Medicine;
       (D) one shall be a representative of the American Academy 
     of Pediatrics;
       (E) one shall be a representative of the Association of 
     American Medical Colleges;
       (F) one shall be a representative of the Association for 
     Substance Abuse Medicine;
       (G) one shall be a representative of the American Society 
     of Addiction Medicine;
       (H) one shall be a representative of the American Academy 
     of Family Physicians;
       (I) one shall be a representative of the American Academy 
     of Neurology; and
       (J) one shall be a representative of the American College 
     of Preventive Medicine.
       (3) Ex officio members.--Each of the following officials 
     (or the designees of the officials) shall serve as the ex 
     officio members of the Commission under paragraph (1):
       (A) The Director of the National Institutes of Health.
       (B) The Director of National Drug Control Policy.
       (C) The Director of the Center on Substance Abuse 
     Prevention.
       (D) The Director of the Center on Substance Abuse 
     Treatment.
       (E) The Surgeon General of the Public Health Service.
       (d) Chair.--The Commission shall, from among the members 
     appointed under subsection (c)(2), designate an individual to 
     serve as the chair of the Commission.
       (e) Terms.--The term of a member of the Commission 
     appointed under subsection (c)(2) is for the duration of the 
     Commission.
       (f) Vacancies.--
       (1) Authority of commission.--A vacancy in the membership 
     of the Commission does not affect the power of the remaining 
     members to carry out the duties under subsection (b).
       (2) Appointment of successors.--A vacancy in the membership 
     of the Commission shall be filled in the manner in which the 
     original appointment was made.
       (3) Incomplete term.--If a member of the Commission does 
     not serve the full term applicable to the member, the 
     individual appointed to fill the resulting vacancy shall be 
     appointed for the remainder of the term of the predecessor of 
     the individual.
       (g) Meetings.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall meet at the call of 
     the Chair or a majority of the members. The Commission shall 
     meet no fewer than four times.
       (2) Quorum.--A quorum for meetings of the Commission is 
     constituted by the presence of six of the members appointed 
     under subsection (c)(2).
       (h) Compensation; Reimbursement of Expenses.--
       (1) Appointed members.--Members of the Commission appointed 
     under subsection (c)(2) shall receive compensation for each 
     day (including traveltime) engaged in carrying out the duties 
     of the Committee. Such compensation may not be in an amount 
     in excess of the daily equivalent of the annual maximum rate 
     of basic pay payable under the General Schedule (under title 
     5, United States Code) for positions above GS-15.
       (2) Ex officio members.--Members of the Commission who are 
     designated under subsection (a)(4) may not receive 
     compensation for service on the Commission in addition to the 
     compensation otherwise received for duties carried out as 
     Federal officers or employees.
       (3) Reimbursement.--Members of the Commission may, in 
     accordance with chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, be 
     reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary 
     expenses incurred in carrying out the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (i) Staff and Consultants.--
       (1) Staff.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission may appoint and determine 
     the compensation of such staff as may be necessary to carry 
     out the duties of the Commission, including an executive 
     director. Such appointments and compensation may be made 
     without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States 
     Code, that govern appointments in the competitive services, 
     and the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of 
     chapter 53 of such title that relate to classifications and 
     the General Schedule pay rates.
       (B) Limitation.--Staff members appointed under paragraph 
     (1) may not be compensated in excess of the maximum rate of 
     basic pay payable for GS-15, except that the executive 
     director may not be compensated in an amount exceeding the 
     maximum rate of basic pay payable under the General Schedule 
     for positions above GS-15.

[[Page H7875]]

       (2) Consultants.--The Commission may procure such temporary 
     and intermittent services of consultants under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, as the Commission may 
     determine to be appropriate in carrying out the duties under 
     subsection (b). The Commission may not procure services under 
     this subsection at any rate in excess of the daily equivalent 
     of the maximum annual rate of basic pay payable under the 
     General Schedule for positions above GS-15. Consultants under 
     this subsection may, in accordance with chapter 57 of title 
     5, United States Code, be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, 
     and other necessary expenses incurred for activities carried 
     out on behalf of the Commission pursuant to subsection (b).
       (j) Administrative Support.--The Administrator of General 
     Services shall, on a reimbursable basis, provide for the 
     Commission such quarters and administrative support as may be 
     necessary for the Commission to carry out the duties under 
     subsection (b).
       (k) Duration of Commission.--The Commission terminates 45 
     days after the date on which the report under subsection 
     (b)(3) is submitted under such subsection.
       (l) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Commission'' means the National Commission 
     on the Role of Medical Education in Reducing Substance Abuse.
       (2) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services
       (m) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, to remain 
     available until the termination of the Commission under 
     subsection (k).
            TITLE III--STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ANTIDRUG POLICY
      Subtitle A--Congressional Leadership in Community Coalitions

     SEC. 301. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Illegal drug use is dangerous to the physical well-
     being of the Nation's youth.
       (2) Illegal drug use can destroy the lives of the Nation's 
     youth by diminishing their sense of morality and with it 
     everything in life that is important and worthwhile.
       (3) According to recently released national surveys, drug 
     use among the Nation's youth remains at alarmingly high 
     levels.
       (4) National leadership is critical to conveying to the 
     Nation's youth the message that drug use is dangerous and 
     wrong.
       (5) National leadership can help mobilize every sector of 
     the community to support the implementation of comprehensive, 
     sustainable, and effective programs to reduce drug abuse.
       (6) As of September 1, 1998, 76 Members of the House of 
     Representatives were establishing community-based anti-drug 
     coalitions in their congressional districts or were actively 
     supporting such coalitions that already existed.
       (7) The individual Members of the House of Representatives 
     can best help their constituents prevent drug use among the 
     Nation's youth by establishing community-based anti-drug 
     coalitions in their congressional districts or by actively 
     supporting such coalitions that already exist.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the individual Members of the House of Representatives, 
     including the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner, should 
     establish community-based anti-drug coalitions in their 
     congressional districts or should actively support such 
     coalitions that already exist.
             Subtitle B--Rejection of Legalization of Drugs

     SEC. 311. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Illegal drug use is harmful and wrong.
       (2) Illegal drug use can kill the individuals involved or 
     cause the individuals to hurt or kill others, and such use 
     strips the individuals of their moral sense.
       (3) The greatest threat presented by such use is to the 
     youth of the United States, who are illegally using drugs in 
     increasingly greater numbers.
       (4) The people of the United States are more concerned 
     about illegal drug use and crimes associated with such use 
     than with any other current social problem.
       (5) Efforts to legalize or otherwise legitimize drug use 
     present a message to the youth of the United States that drug 
     use is acceptable.
       (6) Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United 
     States states that ``[t]his Constitution, and the laws of the 
     United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and 
     all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the 
     authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of 
     the land; and judges in every state shall be bound thereby, 
     any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the 
     contrary notwithstanding.''.
       (7) The courts of the United States have repeatedly found 
     that any State law that conflicts with a Federal law or 
     treaty is preempted by such law or treaty.
       (8) The Controlled Substances Act (title II of Public Law 
     91-513; 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) strictly regulates the use and 
     possession of drugs.
       (9) The United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic 
     in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Treaty 
     similarly regulates the use and possession of drugs.
       (10) Any attempt to authorize under State law an activity 
     prohibited under such Treaty or the Controlled Substances Act 
     would conflict with that Treaty or Act.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the several States, and the citizens of such States, 
     should reject the legalization of drugs through legislation, 
     ballot proposition, constitutional amendment, or any other 
     means; and
       (2) every State should make efforts to be a drug-free 
     State.
  Subtitle C--Report on Streamlining Federal Prevention and Treatment 
                                Efforts

     SEC. 321. REPORT ON STREAMLINING FEDERAL PREVENTION AND 
                   TREATMENT EFFORTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the efforts of the Federal Government to reduce the 
     demand for illegal drugs in the United States are frustrated 
     by the fragmentation of those efforts across multiple 
     departments and agencies; and
       (2) improvement of those efforts can best be achieved 
     through consolidation and coordination.
       (b) Report Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug Control 
     Policy shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committee 
     a report evaluating options for increasing the efficacy of 
     drug prevention and treatment programs and activities by the 
     Federal Government. Such option shall include the merits of a 
     consolidation of programs into a single agency, transferring 
     programs from one agency to another, and improving 
     coordinating mechanisms and authorities.
       (2) Recommendation and explanatory statement.--The study 
     submitted under paragraph (1) shall identify options the 
     Director deems have merit, and an explanation which options 
     should be implemented.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--For purposes of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Director of National Drug Control Policy 
     $1,000,000 for contracting, policy research, and related 
     costs.
       (c) Appropriate Committee Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``appropriate committees'' means the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the Committee on Commerce, and the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Appropriations, and 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in support of the bill.
  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                 Amendment Offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:
       Page 26, line 16, strike ``$20,000'' and insert 
     ``$50,000''.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, as an educator and as a parent of two 
daughters, I know firsthand that children learn most from their 
parents. Educating parents to teach children about the dangers of drugs 
has always been and continues to be the single most effective way of 
preventing children from using drugs.
  Nancy Reagan, as a mother and as a First Lady, became an active and 
vocal crusader to empower the parent. By 1991, with the help of 
involved parents leading the war against drugs, Mr. Chairman, drug use 
dropped by 50 percent. Since then, drug use has once again increased 
despite the many funds we continue to pour into fighting this battle.
  One of the problems is that we have failed to understand and take 
seriously the role of the parent as the leader in the drug war, and we 
have failed to identify the parent as the person in power.
  I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), for 
taking the initiative in introducing legislation that will authorize 
funds and encourage States to get parents involved in our battle 
against drugs. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is regarded by the 
Congress as the leader in getting grass roots involvement in the drug 
battle. We all appreciate our colleague's effort and leadership. His 
bill merits an increase in limitation funds for grants awarded, and 
that is what my amendment would do. It would increase the competitive 
grant limitation amount from 20,000 to $50,000 to establish and improve 
programs that seek to educate and prepare parents to teach their 
children about the hazard

[[Page H7876]]

of drugs. In the past, the lack of funding and proper training has 
inhibited the parental empowerment movement. Parents are our first line 
of defense in this national drug war, and so I ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment to bring us one step closer to victory.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want my colleagues to know that this side 
accepts the amendment.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her help on this legislation. She is a champion 
for the parent movement around the country, and I think this is an 
improvement to the legislation. My colleague agrees, we support the 
amendment, and we urge our colleagues to do the same thing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin:
       Page 10, line 7, insert after ``employee drug testing'' the 
     following: ``by a drug testing laboratory certified by the 
     Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, or 
     the College of American Pathologists, and each positive test 
     result shall be reviewed by a Licensed Medical Review 
     Officer''.

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply makes 
the language in this bill identical to the language in a bill passed 
earlier this year, the Drug-free Workplace Act of 1998. That bill 
passed the House on June 23 by a 402-to-9 vote. It makes it clear that 
in those drug-free workplace grants that companies obtain or that 
nonprofits obtain, that the employee drug testing has to be done by a 
drug testing laboratory certified by the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration, the College of American Pathologists, 
and each positive test result shall be reviewed by a licensed medical 
review officer. Those are quality concerns.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that I very much support this 
amendment. I think it again improves the legislation. It clarifies the 
intent of the legislation. It also is consistent, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) says, with the changes which were made in the 
previous authorization which did pass the House with an overwhelming 
bipartisan margin.
  So we would certainly accept that amendment, and I appreciate the 
gentleman's help in improving it.

                              {time}  1815

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Beginning on page 21, strike lines 7 and all that follows 
     through page 22, line 9, and insert the following:
       ``(a) In General.--The chief executive officer of each 
     State, or in the case of a State in which the constitution or 
     law of such State designates another individual, entity, or 
     agency in the State to be responsible for education 
     activities, such individual, entity, or agency shall--
       ``(1) establish a standard of quality for drug prevention 
     programs implemented in public schools in the States in 
     accordance with subsection (b); and
       ``(2) identify and designate, upon application by a school, 
     any public school that achieves such standard as a quality 
     program school.
       ``(b) Criteria.--The standard referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall address, at a minimum--
       ``(1) a comparison of the rate of illegal use of alcohol, 
     tobacco, and drugs by students enrolled in the school for a 
     period of time to be determined by the chief executive 
     officer of the State;
       ``(2) the rate of suspensions or expulsions of students 
     enrolled in the school for drug or alcohol related offenses;
       ``(3) the effectiveness of the program as proven by 
     research;
       ``(4) the involvement of parents and community members in 
     the design of the drug prevention program; and
       ``(5) the extent of review of existing community drug 
     prevention programs before implementation of a public school 
     program.
       ``(c) Request for Quality Program Designation.--A school 
     that wishes to receive a quality program designation shall 
     submit a request and documentation of compliance with this 
     section to the chief executive officer of the State or the 
     individual, entity, or agency described in subsection (a), as 
     the case may be.
       ``(d) Public Notification.--Not less than once a year, the 
     chief executive officer of each State or the individual, 
     entity, or agency described in subsection (a), as the case 
     may be, shall make available to the public a list of the 
     names of each public school in the State that has received a 
     quality program designation in accordance with this 
     section.''.

  Mr. SOUDER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a perfecting 
amendment to this bill.
  Let me be perfectly clear. I support the bill as it is currently 
drafted, and I am one of 14 original cosponsors. I believe, however, 
that the bill could be perfected with the minor adjustment my amendment 
offers.
  As the bill stands now, the subtitle that amends Safe and Drug Free 
Schools would allow the Secretary of Education to develop a rating 
system to determine whether a public school has a quality drug program. 
My perfecting amendment would change this provision to require that 
States, rather than the bureaucrats inside Washington, establish their 
own standard of quality for drug prevention programs within their 
borders.
  My rationale in offering this change is simple. It would ensure that 
authority over education programs be maintained where it should be: at 
the State level.
  It is important to keep in mind that while this amendment would 
require States to establish their own standards, my amendment would 
still require modest criteria to be considered by States in their 
determination of quality. At a minimum, the criteria required would be 
the following:
  The rate of illegal use of alcohol, tobacco or drugs by the students 
enrolled in the school; the rate of suspensions or expulsions of 
students enrolled in the school for drug or alcohol-related offenses; 
the effectiveness of the program as proven by research; the involvement 
of parents and community members in the design of the drug prevention 
program; and the extent of review of existing community prevention 
programs before the implementation of a public school program.
  While not being overly prescriptive for States, I believe these 
criteria will encourage schools to rely on necessary tools that will 
help them craft effective programs, such as: parental and community 
input into their drug prevention programs; an accurate assessment of 
the scope and the frequency of the problem in their school districts; 
and reliance on reliable research.
  Additionally, my amendment continues the bill's current emphasis on 
the importance of publicly disclosing and highlighting effective 
programs. The amendment would require State authorities to open up for 
public inspection at least once per year the names of all schools that 
have been designated as having formulated quality drug programs.
  As we all work in our home districts and our home States, we see that 
one of the things we need to encourage is the development and 
widespread dissemination of those programs that have been effective at 
tackling the problems.
  In requiring public notification, I believe we close that loop of 
what we are trying to accomplish. Public notification is a vital part 
of the process.
  Additionally, open information will facilitate the dissemination of 
the message to students that the use of illicit drugs and illegal 
alcohol and tobacco use will not be tolerated, either in schools or 
outside of them.

[[Page H7877]]

  I believe my perfecting amendment, which I worked on with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, and much of this was developed at his 
suggestion and his leadership, is in the process of formulating a 
highly effective piece of legislation. The students of America deserve 
nothing less.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Indiana would engage me perhaps 
on a couple of questions, I would request of the gentleman to tell me a 
little bit more about what his intent is, what his problem is with the 
current law.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the discussion we had as part of this 
process in not going through the full Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, I talked with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), the chairman of the committee, as did the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman), and we tried to work this out yesterday and did not 
get to the Committee on Rules in time, because there is a strong 
feeling that this decision should be at the State level and we should 
encourage each State to develop the standards with these guidelines. It 
is a pattern that we have done in the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, is to set national guidelines of what we expect, but leave 
the final decision-making to the States rather than the Department of 
Education.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, could the 
gentleman inform me as to his problem with the current system?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
do not have a current system. This is just an amendment to the new bill 
that we have in.
  In that bill, in our first draft we had the Department of Education 
doing it, and we felt, consistent with everything else we have been 
doing, it would be better to encourage the States to do it. It is not 
just saying hey, come up with a word. It is saying, here are the 
criteria. The criteria did not change. We merely moved the agency where 
the public dissemination will occur and where the awards will be given 
to the governors as opposed to the Secretary of Education.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just try to further clarify.
  I think under the legislation it is fair to say that the Secretary 
had the discretion either to do it at the Federal level or the State 
level. This change would say that indeed, it should be done at the 
State level, which I think is consistent generally speaking with the 
legislation in the sense that we are trying to focus on State and local 
communities. It also happens to be something important to the chairman, 
and he gained a waiver. This is something that was raised with me.
  This is a good provision. The quality assurance is going to enable 
parents to know whether these schools are using drug-free school money 
appropriately and forces them to have a needs assessment and forces 
them to bring parents in and have research-based programming. The 
question is just whether that will be a requirement at the State level 
or something at the Federal level.
  Our legislation frankly left it open originally, and this would say 
it should be done at the State level.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I think it is also consistent 
with how we do the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act and this brings it 
all together. It is not that the other was bad, that is why I was an 
original cosponsor of this. It just clarifies it further.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
       Add at the end of the bill the following title:

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. DRUG TESTING AS CONDITION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT.

       Each individual appointed to an employment position with 
     the Federal Government after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act is appointed with the employment condition that the 
     individual is subject to random, unannounced testing for the 
     illegal use of any controlled substance (as defined in 
     section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act).

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, earlier today we voted to 
increase the effort on the war on drugs by about $2 billion. We have in 
different States, including my home State of Mississippi, some of the 
toughest laws on Earth with regard to drug dealers, a law that with 
others I helped pass in Mississippi, which says that if one sells 2 
ounces of cocaine, 2 ounces of heroin, 100 pills or 10 pounds of 
marijuana over the course of a year, if one is caught and convicted, 
one will spend the rest of one's life in prison.
  I have flown counterdrug missions with the Colombian National Police, 
the helicopters that go out and fly cover for the crop dusters. We have 
SEALs and special forces on the ground in Central America right now 
training their people in counternarcotics operations. We have a 
riverine school in Iquitos, Peru, using our Marines and our SEALs to 
train them in drug interdiction. We have had submarines off the coast, 
P-3s, E-3s, AWACS, just about everything in the American inventory 
involved in the war against drugs, and it is not working.
  The reason it is not working is that we have this incredible double 
standard in America where we say, it is bad to sell drugs, but somehow 
it is all right to use them. It is not all right to use them.
  I happened to enlist in the Coast Guard about the time that our armed 
forces hit rock bottom as far as drug usage. It was fairly common every 
night for our barracks to smell like the Marrakesh Express. 
Incidentally, almost every barracks around the world where there were 
American troops back then smelled like the Marrakesh Express, it was so 
common for marijuana and other illegal narcotics to be used.
  By 1973 or so the military got serious about it and they implemented 
drug testing. First, it was a fairly lenient program that says, if we 
catch you, we are going to put you through treatment, we are going to 
give you a second chance, maybe even a third chance. That over the 
years has gotten tighter now to where if they catch someone using 
drugs, they are immediately removed from the force.
  Guess what? The closest thing we have in America to a drug-free 
society is the American military, because they know that justice is 
sure and it is swift and if they are caught using drugs, they are going 
to be removed from the military.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone who works for our Nation should 
be using drugs, illegal drugs, taking their Federal paycheck, paid for 
by the taxpayers of this country, and buying illegal drugs. I think 
this is a first step towards sending the message that we are not going 
to tolerate drug use in America.
  For this reason I offer this amendment. I think it is just a first 
step. It would allow the supervisors to, if they have reason to believe 
one of their employees is using drugs, to demand a drug test. It does 
not call for them to be fired. But I would hope that the executive 
branch of the government would follow this up with hard and fast rules 
calling for treatment, calling for some way of getting people off 
drugs, and eventually tighten up those rules to where people who are 
caught using drugs, after adequate warning, are removed from the 
Federal payroll.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, although well intentioned, is clearly 
unconstitutional. The courts have consistently held that when 
addressing the privacy considerations of Federal employees, that they 
have to be measured in a context that provides for a reasonable search. 
And in making the determination as to whether the search is reasonable, 
they look at the security

[[Page H7878]]

risks. That is why when the gentleman from Mississippi talked about the 
military, there clearly is a security risk dealing with military 
personnel.
  Just last year there was a case, Stigile v. Clinton, decided by the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, decided 
April 15, 1997, and in that case, the Court held that employees of the 
White House who worked with the President and the Vice President on 
security could be subject to random drug searches. But it also went on 
to talk about the need for a nexus.
  Clearly, there is no nexus provided by simply being a Federal 
employee and having the drug test. There has to be a nexus, there has 
to be a test as to whether it is reasonable. Simply working for the 
Federal Government, being an employee for the Federal Government in and 
of itself does not provide that nexus.
  So this provision is clearly unconstitutional. It violates 
individuals' Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and it would be a huge 
mistake for this House to adopt this amendment. It not only would be 
unconstitutional, but I am sure it would doom this bill, and I ask my 
colleagues to strongly defeat this measure.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to point out that I do not think this is 
a good idea for various constitutional reasons and other reasons. Also, 
we have to think about the cost, the fact that there would be a high 
error ratio; the fact that there would be retesting that would be 
necessary. It is the kind of issue we have discussed before and have 
stricken, and I think that it should be stricken again.
  Because of the camaraderie, conviviality, nonpartisan situation in 
this Congress that I hope for, I yield to the gentleman who is the 
sponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Maryland, particularly for giving her thoughts on this measure.

                              {time}  1830

  In response to what has been said earlier, we are getting ready to 
have drug testing of teenage drivers just to get a driver's license. We 
are encouraging private sector employers through this bill, which is 
the main thrust of this bill, because are encouraging private sector 
employers to test their employees for drugs.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we are the largest employer in America. Why on 
Earth would we tell all the other smaller employers that we think this 
is a great idea for them if we do not think it is a great idea for us?
  There is a real war being fought on drugs. I visited a Colombian 
Lansero, that is their word for Ranger, battalion in February on a 
Thursday. They went out the following Tuesday. There was 125 of them. 
By the following Thursday, only 18 of them were still alive or not 
captured. It is a real war.
  You read in the paper of American crop dust pilots in training 
accidents over Colombia. Who is kidding who? They were shot down 
because there is a bounty on people who fly the crop dusters to 
eradicate the heroin in the coca fields, $5,000 a plane. If you are a 
Colombian peasant, $5,000 looks like a heck of a lot of money, and it 
is certainly worth taking a few potshots at an American pilot for.
  It is a real war. I do not think it is fair to ask some Americans to 
put their lives on the line when we are not even going to ask other 
Americans who worked for this Nation to just be subject to a test to 
let us know that they are on our side, not on their side, on our side, 
that they are living within the law.
  That is what the congressional inquiry into the President is all 
about: Is the highest elected official living by the law? Yes? No? I 
think every single Federal employee, Congressman, every one of us ought 
to live by the law and be subject to testing to make sure that we are 
living by the law.
  That is why I offered this amendment. It is not enough to send troops 
all over Latin America, because when you solve the problem in Peru, it 
goes to Colombia. When you fix it in Colombia, it is going to go to 
Belize.
  A lot of the heroin has come out of southeast Asia. We have tried to 
go over there and tell them our will. They did not like the idea. I do 
not think anyone is a proponent of sending more Americans over to 
Southeast Asia right now.
  The problem is in America. It is not in Colombia. It is not in Peru. 
It is not in Belize. It is not in Thailand. It is here in America. I 
think the way we start solving the problem in America is by telling our 
employees, the people that work for America, do not use illegal drugs. 
It is real simple.
  All the death sentences and drug kingpin laws are not going to do 
anything because there is so much money to be made; because if you go 
after this kingpin, he is just going to be replaced by another.
  The way you solve the problem is one at a time when you start telling 
Americans we are not going to tolerate drug use. The bill says to the 
private sector we are going to encourage you, we are going to give you 
grants, we are going to do all these great things for you if you will 
ask your employees to quit using drugs.
  Doggone it, if it is a good idea for them, it is a good idea for us. 
The bill is clearly constitutional. We have drug testing for any number 
of reasons in this country. I think everyone who works in our 
government in some way contributes to our national security.
  The amendment has been ruled in order by the Parliamentarian, and I 
will be asking for a vote on it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment a 
question, and I will yield to him in a moment once I get the question 
asked.
  I read the amendment. During the gentleman's discussion, he said that 
the way this thing would work is that if a supervisor had some kind of 
cause to believe, I think he said, and he can correct me if I am wrong, 
to believe that someone might be using drugs, that that might be the 
reason for a drug test, so that might be the cause; is that correct?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
to answer that question.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, right now, we have no means 
of asking someone who shows up at work apparently stoned out of their 
mind, there is absolutely nothing right now their supervisor can do. I 
would like to give him the opportunity to say, I think you ought to 
take a drug test.
  Let me make this perfectly clear. In order to make it constitutional, 
since the gentleman did have a question, this is for new hires as a 
subject of a condition of employment. When someone walks in, from the 
passage of this bill forward, they know that if they accept a job with 
the Federal Government, as a condition of employment they are subject 
to drug testing. That is clearly constitutional, because it is done 
every day in the private sector as a condition of employment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time for another question. I 
guess the gentleman is still not answering my question. What I am going 
to ask is exactly the practicality of how this works.
  In the gentleman's amendment, it talks about random unannounced 
testing. I am just asking, is there something; but in the gentleman's 
statement of explanation of the amendment, he talked about having some 
kind of cause to believe that this person, and he just did it again, as 
having some cause to believe that this person is using drugs.
  I guess my question is, when the gentleman talks about random and 
unannounced, as I read this amendment, that means that we do not even 
have to have any kind of cause. I mean, is it one or the other, or is 
it both? Is the gentleman following me?
  First of all, I believe that the gentleman's intentions are good, and 
I know the gentleman is concerned, because I know we have talked about 
this subject before. I guess I am trying to look at the practicality 
and trying to make sure that when the Members vote on the amendment, 
they understand what they are voting for.
  It is one thing if the gentleman is saying that having some kind of a 
reasonable belief that this person is using drugs, that is one thing; 
to say that it

[[Page H7879]]

is just random and unannounced for anybody at any time, that is a whole 
other thing.
  So I am asking the gentleman for clarification so that all of us will 
know what we are voting on, what the gentleman's intent of the 
amendment is.
  Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman to answer.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, it can be done at any time 
as a condition of employment, just as my daughter, the college athlete, 
is subject to a random drug test and it is on a regular basis a 
condition of an athlete at the college.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. So the gentleman is 
telling me, contrary to what he said a little bit earlier, there does 
not have to be any kind of cause. There does not have to be any kind of 
reason for believing or suspecting that that person may be using drugs. 
Is that correct?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi to answer.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, this is a democracy. We are 
a work in progress. If during the course of the debate of this bill, if 
during the conference the gentleman thinks it needs to be perfected, I 
would welcome that. But we have to start somewhere.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the reason why I ask 
those questions is because, when the gentleman talked about having a 
reasonable belief that the person may be using drugs, I think that is a 
very, very tough determination to make.
  I mean, it is one thing when somebody comes in stoned; it is another 
thing if somebody perhaps wants, and I have seen this in my State where 
there has been random drug testing and testing for cause, the kind of 
cause that the gentleman talked about a little bit earlier and what 
happened. There has been some abuse of that where a supervisor may have 
wanted to get rid of an employee or whatever, that kind of thing.
  The other thing that I am concerned about is, once they discover the 
person is on drugs, having some kind of way so the person does not lose 
their job, I know that is the gentleman's intent, so that the person 
can get some type of treatment as opposed to that person losing their 
job.
  We have seen that come up, like I said, in many instances in our 
Workman's Compensation laws in Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that 
this bill does not require drug testing for other employees. What it 
does have is it has a voluntary program, a demonstration program. In 
that program, companies who take advantage of it as one of the 
components must have a drug testing provision, but it does not 
necessarily apply to all employees. It does not necessarily apply to 
new employees. It can be simply enacted for repeat offenders for an 
individual who has a drug problem. So let me make it very clear that 
this bill does not require drug testing for anyone who is in an 
employment situation.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment came as a surprise to us today. I just 
listened to the debate carefully and I have to say a couple of things. 
One is, I am very sympathetic in general to the idea that has been 
raised by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), which is to have 
drug testing at the Federal Government level.
  We already have drug testing, as I think my colleagues know, for 
safety-sensitive positions in the Federal Government. There are some 
concerns that have been raised today, including the fiscal impact. We 
would have not only a bureaucracy to administer this but we would have, 
I think necessarily, an employee assistance program. I certainly would 
think that that would be required. We would have to have some treatment 
options, which is in the legislation for the small business aspect of 
this. We would also have to have the costs of the test borne by the 
taxpayer.
  I know CBO has not yet done an estimate of this legislation, but I 
would like to see what those costs are. I think that would be 
appropriate for the Congress to review before we acted on it.
  The constitutional issues have been raised. I think there is some 
gray area here, but probably there would be a constitutional issue 
based on the case law that we have seen, looking at the issue of drug 
testing here in this Chamber. So I think that is a real issue, 
certainly. I am not saying that that is a reason not to do it. It would 
then become a test case, but it is certainly not clear at all.
  In the legislation, we have the ability for small businesses to get 
technical assistance to put in place drug testing, but the legislation 
only requires that it be some kind of testing, including pre-employment 
drug testing, including employment drug testing for cause; in other 
words, after there has been an accident where there is some suspicion 
of use that there be drug testing. It would not require the small 
companies that took advantage of the program have unannounced or random 
drug testing. So this does go further than the legislation before us in 
that respect.
  I guess what I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor), who I am sympathetic with on this issue, I would like to 
work with him on it. Maybe there is something we can put together 
through a more thoughtful process where we look at some of these 
issues, get the costs, figure out whether there is a way to narrow it 
so it is more targeted. Yet, I think to add it to this legislation at 
this time is not something that I personally would be able to support.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I too want to say that I am very much in sympathy with 
this and, generally speaking, since the time I was a staff member in 
the other House and worked with Senator Coats in drafting the first 
drug testing in schools, allowable use of it for safe and drug-free 
schools, it is working in the drug testing clause in the higher ed bill 
that we are moving through right now and through my subcommittee we 
moved the workplace bill.
  Among the things we heard in the hearings, however, is that unless 
the chief executives were being tested along with their employees, 
there was sort of a double standard. This obviously raises another 
question in the bill offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
about drug testing Members of Congress. What I have learned as I have 
had myself drug tested, that in putting these things in, we cannot even 
use our staff allowances to do the drug testing.
  It is not clear in this bill, and I understand why the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) does not have it, that we do not have it for 
the heads of the agencies rather than just the people coming in.
  In addition to the concerns that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) read, I have to sort through what I am going to do on the 
bill, but I am concerned that we might wind up in a situation where we 
actually set back drug testing, when I ultimately agree with the 
gentleman's point that what we want to do is advance how we effectively 
do this.
  When we drug test, it is the best prevention program. It is the way 
to have people be clean. Because the larger companies in this country 
are, in fact, doing drug testing, abusers have moved to the smaller 
companies. If we are not careful, they are going to move into Federal 
employment.
  Like the gentleman has mentioned in his statement, that is one of the 
reasons the military has become clean. I am very empathetic to the 
gentleman's point, but I wish we could work together in trying to 
figure out how to do this in the most effective way. I remain uncertain 
how I am going to vote, but I am very sympathetic with the goals, and I 
want to make sure we can do it in the most effective way and make sure 
we actually have drug testing programs that work.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) for his excellent work on the base bill. He has done a 
tremendous job.
  I am rising specifically to support the amendment of the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) and I have been working in this Congress to implement the 
House rule that

[[Page H7880]]

says all Members of Congress and the congressional staff shall be drug 
tested. We have a House rule that is ready to come to the floor. We 
have to honor the Speaker's request that there be a Republican 
conference on the proposed implementation of the House rule before we 
bring it to the floor, and I am still hopeful that we can hold that 
conference and bring that rule, House rule, to the floor in the next 3 
weeks.
  In the meantime, the amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor) that would require as a condition of employment all Federal 
employees to be drug tested is a giant step in the right direction.
  I have a drug testing plan in my office for myself and my 
congressional staff. I have had it since 1989. I have extensively 
worked with the business community, the social welfare community, on 
making sure that any drug testing plans, first that they are accurate, 
and second that they are confidential, and that they are implemented in 
a fair fashion.

                              {time}  1845

  As has been pointed out, drug testing does work. It identifies the 
people that have the problem. It also in most plans gives an 
opportunity to go into drug counseling rehabilitation. And if we were 
to pass the Taylor amendment, which I will enthusiastically support, it 
would help combat the drug problem that faces our country.
  So, again, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) 
for bringing the base bill to the floor, and I thank the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for taking the advantage of putting the 
amendment on, and I hope that we adopt this by unanimous consent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ramstad

  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Ramstad:
       At the end of title I, insert the following new subtitle 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):
           Subtitle H--Addiction Reduction Through Treatment

     SEC. 181. SHORT TITLE OF SUBTITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Addiction Reduction Act 
     of 1998''.

     SEC. 182. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Substance abuse, if left untreated, is a medical 
     emergency.
       (2) Parity should apply to benefits for treatment sought 
     voluntarily, including treatment for substance abuse.
       (3) Nothing in this subtitle should be construed as 
     prohibiting application of the concept of parity to substance 
     abuse treatment provided by faith-based treatment providers.

     SEC. 183. PARITY IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT BENEFITS.

       (a) Group Health Plans Under the Public Health Service 
     Act.--(1) Subpart 2 of part A of title XXVII of the Public 
     Health Service Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 2706. PARITY IN THE APPLICATION OF TREATMENT 
                   LIMITATIONS AND FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS TO 
                   SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT BENEFITS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of a group health plan (or 
     health insurance coverage offered in connection with such a 
     plan) that provides both medical and surgical benefits and 
     substance abuse treatment benefits, the plan or coverage 
     shall not impose treatment limitations or financial 
     requirements on the substance abuse treatment benefits unless 
     similar limitations or requirements are imposed for medical 
     and surgical benefits.
       ``(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       ``(1) as requiring a group health plan (or health insurance 
     coverage offered in connection with such a plan) to provide 
     any substance abuse treatment benefits; or
       ``(2) to prevent a group health plan or a health insurance 
     issuer offering group health insurance coverage from 
     negotiating the level and type of reimbursement with a 
     provider for care provided in accordance with this section.
       ``(c) Exemptions.--
       ``(1) Small employer exemption.--
       ``(A) In general.--This section shall not apply to any 
     group health plan (and group health insurance coverage 
     offered in connection with a group health plan) for any plan 
     year of a small employer.
       ``(B) Small employer.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     the term `small employer' means, in connection with a group 
     health plan with respect to a calendar year and a plan year, 
     an employer who employed an average of at least 2 but not 
     more than 50 employees on business days during the preceding 
     calendar year and who employs at least 2 employees on the 
     first day of the plan year.
       ``(C) Application of certain rules in determination of 
     employer size.--For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) Application of aggregation rule for employers.--Rules 
     similar to the rules under subsections (b), (c), (m), and (o) 
     of section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall 
     apply for purposes of treating persons as a single employer.
       ``(ii) Employers not in existence in preceding year.--In 
     the case of an employer which was not in existence throughout 
     the preceding calendar year, the determination of whether 
     such employer is a small employer shall be based on the 
     average number of employees that it is reasonably expected 
     such employer will employ on business days in the current 
     calendar year.
       ``(iii) Predecessors.--Any reference in this paragraph to 
     an employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of 
     such employer.
       ``(2) Increased cost exemption.--This section shall not 
     apply with respect to a group health plan (or health 
     insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health 
     plan) if the application of this section to such plan (or to 
     such coverage) results in an increase in the cost under the 
     plan (or for such coverage) of at least 1 percent.
       ``(d) Separate Application to Each Option Offered.--In the 
     case of a group health plan that offers a participant or 
     beneficiary two or more benefit package options under the 
     plan, the requirements of this section shall be applied 
     separately with respect to each such option.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Treatment limitation.--The term `treatment 
     limitation' means, with respect to benefits under a group 
     health plan or health insurance coverage, any day or visit 
     limits imposed on coverage of benefits under the plan or 
     coverage during a period of time.
       ``(2) Financial requirement.--The term `financial 
     requirement' means, with respect to benefits under a group 
     health plan or health insurance coverage, any deductible, 
     coinsurance, or cost-sharing or an annual or lifetime dollar 
     limit imposed with respect to the benefits under the plan or 
     coverage.
       ``(3) Medical or surgical benefits.--The term `medical or 
     surgical benefits' means benefits with respect to 
     medical or surgical services, as defined under the terms of 
     the plan or coverage (as the case may be), but does not 
     include substance abuse treatment benefits.
       ``(4) Substance abuse treatment benefits.--The term 
     `substance abuse treatment benefits' means benefits with 
     respect to substance abuse treatment services but only 
     insofar as such treatment services are abstinence-based.
       ``(5) Substance abuse treatment services.--The term 
     `substance abuse services' means any of the following items 
     and services provided for the treatment of substance abuse:
       ``(A) Inpatient treatment, including detoxification.
       ``(B) Non-hospital residential treatment.
       ``(C) Outpatient treatment, including screening and 
     assessment, medication management, individual, group, and 
     family counseling, and relapse prevention.
       ``(D) Prevention services, including health education and 
     individual and group counseling to encourage the reduction of 
     risk factors for substance abuse.
       ``(6) Substance abuse.--The term `substance abuse' includes 
     chemical dependency.
       ``(f) Notice.A group health plan under this part shall 
     comply with the notice requirement under section 711(d) of 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with 
     respect to the requirements of this section as if such 
     section applied to such plan.
       ``(g) Sunset.--This section shall not apply to benefits for 
     services furnished on or after September 30, 2002.''.
       (2) Section 2723(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-23(c)), as 
     amended by section 604(b)(2) of Public Law 104-204, is 
     amended by striking ``section 2704'' and inserting ``sections 
     2704 and 2706''.
       (b) Individual Health Insurance.--(1) Part B of title XXVII 
     of the Public Health Service Act is amended by inserting 
     after section 2751 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 2752. PARITY IN THE APPLICATION OF TREATMENT 
                   LIMITATIONS AND FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS TO 
                   SUBSTANCE ABUSE BENEFITS.

       ``(a) In General.--The provisions of section 2706 (other 
     than subsection (e)) shall apply to health insurance coverage 
     offered by a health insurance issuer in the individual market 
     in the same manner as it applies to health insurance coverage 
     offered by a health insurance issuer in connection with a 
     group health plan in the small or large group market.
       ``(b) Notice.--A health insurance issuer under this part 
     shall comply with the notice

[[Page H7881]]

     requirement under section 713(f) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the requirements 
     referred to in subsection (a) as if such section applied to 
     such issuer and such issuer were a group health plan.''.
       (2) Section 2762(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-
     62(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``section 2751'' and 
     inserting ``sections 2751 and 2752''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--(1) Subject to paragraph (3), the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) apply with respect to group 
     health plans for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 
     2000.
       (2) The amendments made by subsection (b) apply with 
     respect to health insurance coverage offered, sold, issued, 
     renewed, in effect, or operated in the individual market on 
     or after such date.
       (3) In the case of a group health plan maintained pursuant 
     to 1 or more collective bargaining agreements between 
     employee representatives and 1 or more employers ratified 
     before the date of enactment of this Act, the amendments made 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to plan years beginning before 
     the later of--
       (A) the date on which the last collective bargaining 
     agreements relating to the plan terminates (determined 
     without regard to any extension thereof agreed to after the 
     date of enactment of this Act), or
       (B) January 1, 2000.
     For purposes of subparagraph (A), any plan amendment made 
     pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement relating to the 
     plan which amends the plan solely to conform to any 
     requirement added by subsection (a) shall not be treated as a 
     termination of such collective bargaining agreement.

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois reserves a point of order.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a critical missing 
component to the bill before us today. In an attempt to overcome 
germaneness hurdles, I have modified this amendment so it will not 
amend ERISA. However, I am aware that other parliamentary concerns have 
now been raised and I may be forced to withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say this. While the goals of this anti-drug 
package before us today are certainly laudable, we will never even come 
close to a drug-free America until we knock down the barriers to 
chemical dependency treatment for the 26 million Americans out there 
tonight suffering the ravages of drug and alcohol addiction. Twenty-six 
million American addicts already today.
  Since 1956, as we all know, the American Medical Association has said 
addiction is a disease. We all pay lip service to it, but only 2 
percent, only 2 percent of the 16 million Americans covered by health 
insurance plans which purport to cover chemical dependency treatment 
are able to get effective treatment. Ninety-eight percent of those 
covered by insurance plans cannot get effective treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, that is because treatment for addiction is 
discriminated against, unlike treatment for any other diseases. 
Barriers to chemical dependency treatment that the insurance companies 
erect include discriminatory caps, artificially high deductibles and 
copayments, as well as other restrictions on treatments such as limited 
treatment stays that are not imposed on other diseases.
  In fact, the average treatment stay allowed by health insurance plans 
is from 2 to 7 days. Every treatment professional in America, and every 
one of the 1.7 million Americans who are recovering from addiction, 
knows that no one can get effective treatment in less than one week. It 
is a fraud on the American people.
  Truly, to reduce illegal drug use in America we must address the 
disease of addiction by putting chemical dependency treatment on par 
with treatment for other diseases. That is what this amendment does. It 
just says we should not discriminate against alcohol and drug addiction 
treatment any more than we would discriminate against treatment for 
diabetes or kidney failure, renal failure, heart disease, or any other 
disease.
  We have all the empirical data in the world and all the actuarial 
studies to prove that parity for chemical dependency treatment will 
actually save money. For every dollar that we invest, it will save $7 
down the road. Health care costs for untreated alcoholics and addicts 
are 100 percent higher, as all the studies show, than for the cost of 
those who have been treated.
  Mr. Chairman, we can build all the fences on our borders that money 
can buy. We can hire all the border guards that we can find. But simply 
dealing with the supply side of this problem and paying lip service to 
the demand side will not solve the problem of addiction.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to continue to be back here year after 
year with drug bills and we are not going to make a dent in the 
problem.
  Mr. Chairman, as a recovering alcoholic myself, I know firsthand the 
value of treatment. As someone who stays close to other recovering 
people and addicts, alcoholics and addicts, I am alarmed by the 
dwindling access to treatment in America. Sixty percent of the 
adolescent treatment beds over the last 10 years are gone. Fifty 
percent of the treatment beds for adults over the last 10 years are 
gone because we continue to allow this discrimination, these barriers 
against treatment.
  That is why we have, and I say ``thank you'' to them, my 93 
colleagues, cosponsors from across the ideological spectrum here who 
have cosponsored this bill. Twenty called my office in the last 2 days 
to speak on this important amendment to provide access to treatment.
  We must, Mr. Chairman, at some time listen to the experts, the 
experts about our Nation's number one public health and public safety 
problem. Addiction in America must be addressed before we will ever 
make significant progress in the illegal drug and alcohol abuse 
problem.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to listen to the 93 colleagues who are 
cosponsors of my treatment parity legislation. We need to listen to 
General Barry McCaffrey, who said this is the single most important 
element in addressing the illegal drug problem. The single most 
important element is substance abuse treatment parity.
  We need to listen to President and Mrs. Ford, who came to Washington 
to plead with us to pass drug and alcoholism treatment parity. We need 
to listen to the 17,000 treatment professionals who comprise the 
National Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors, treatment 
professionals in the trenches and the field every day dealing with sick 
people who need help.
  We need to listen to the physicians of the American Society of 
Addiction Medicine who support treatment parity, physicians like Navy 
Captain Ronald E. Smith and Captain Joseph A. Pursch, who support 
treatment parity.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a life-or-death issue for 26 million Americans. 
This is not another political issue, and it should not be that. It 
clearly should be included in this package. I am deeply saddened that 
as we consider the bill designed to reduce demand for drugs in this 
country, I cannot offer this amendment.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
Representative Ramstad's amendment which prohibits health insurance 
plans from providing lower levels of benefits for substance abuse 
treatment services than for medical and surgical benefits.
  Illegal drug use is taking an enormous toll on our society--both 
financially and emotionally. Over 26 million Americans suffer from 
alcoholism and drug addiction and illegal drug use and alcohol abuse 
reduces workplace productivity, devastates families and contributes to 
a high crime rate. We must address this serious problem
  Today, we are considering a number of bills intended to end the 
scourge of drugs. A great deal of effort is focused on eliminating the 
flow of drugs into this country. But ending the flow of drugs is not 
enough. If we are truly committed to a drug-free society, we must also 
stop the demand for drugs. This means educating people, especially our 
children, on drug prevention. It also means treating those who are 
already suffering from drug and alcohol addition. As a nurse, I know 
substance abuse addiction is a complicated disease. But I also know 
that treatment programs work. For every dollar invested in treatment, 
there are significant savings in health care costs. The statistics are 
clear--addicts who undergo treatment are less likely to require 
emergency room visits or hospitalization. They are also less likely to 
suffer the long-term medical complications that accompany drug and 
alcohol abuse. And treatment not only reduces health care costs, it 
reduces crime and increases workplace productivity.
  Comprehensive substance abuse treatment just makes sense. But 
treatment is only effective if it is affordable and accessible. That is 
why I support Representative Ramstad's amendment. By extending parity 
in health care plans for substance abuse treatment to the private 
sector, Representative Ramstad's

[[Page H7882]]

amendment reinforces the overall goal of H.R. 4450. It ensures that all 
people who are suffering from the ravages of alcoholism or drug abuse 
have access to effective medical treatment.
  As a nurse, I know that substance abuse treatment works. If we are 
truly serious about winning the war on drugs in this country, we must 
ensure that all addicts have access to effective treatment. That is why 
I urge all of my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which 
I believe will take an important first step toward ensuring that 
Americans have more meaningful and effective access to substance abuse 
treatment through their private insurance plans.
  I am a cosponsor of the gentleman from Minnesota's bill because I 
believe that substance abuse treatment is an essential component of our 
overall drug strategy. As I said in this morning's debate on the drug 
interdiction bill, I have traveled to several of the major drug source 
countries and had the opportunity to have extensive discussions with 
the leaders of those countries whose citizens are fighting and dying to 
keep drugs out of the United States. And a major theme that keeps 
coming up in these discussions is the concern of those leaders that 
America also has to do its part to stop the demand for drugs that is 
creating the international drug trade.
  Effective treatment is one of our most critical tools to help people 
who have become addicted to drugs stop the cycle of abuse. I recently 
visited the Northeastern Center in Kendallville, Indiana in my 
district. The patients told me without exception how the treatment had 
made a powerful difference in their lives and enabled them through 
fellowship and therapy to understand their addictions and learn how to 
resist the temptations to go back to drug abuse that come back hour 
after hour, day after day. For them, the struggle to stay away from 
substance abuse was constant, and that only the help they had received 
in treatment programs gave them the tools to stay away from drugs.
  Many of the people who enter treatment have had their lives so 
destroyed by drugs that they are almost literally at the end of the 
line. Many patients face jail or losing their jobs if they could not 
successfully complete the program. Others have had their families and 
family life completely destroyed by their drug abuse. Some work in 
positions of critical public safety, like airplane pilots.
  I believe that this amendment is an important first step toward 
improving the availability of substance abuse treatment. I want to make 
clear that neither this amendment or the gentleman's bill on which it 
is based would force any company or insurer to provide coverage or 
benefits for substance abuse treatment. Instead, it only says that 
those health plans that do include substance abuse benefits cannot 
place discriminatory caps, limits, or other conditions on treatment 
that they do not place on the other benefits in their insurance 
package. And the amendment before us today would not even go that far, 
because for parliamentary reasons it would only apply to between 20% 
and 35% of the insured population--those who are not covered by federal 
regulation under ERISA.
  This amendment is necessary because many patients who seek treatment 
cannot receive a full and effective treatment program because of policy 
limits even though their insurance covers drug treatment and would not 
put the same limits on a hospital stay. Because of this, the dedicated 
patients who are devoted to treatment will go as far as selling their 
cars and other assets in order to be able to afford it. The less 
dedicated patients will give up on the treatment altogether and 
continue to abuse drugs.
  This amendment will be an important first step--a demonstration of 
the benefits of facilitating access to substance abuse treatment. Some 
have raised legitimate issues for discussion on the question of whether 
we yet have effective means to make sure that we fully track the 
effectiveness of drug treatment outcomes, as well as questions about 
the most effective methods of treatment and problems with recidivism. 
All of these are important matters that we should continue to review 
and discuss as we go forward. But there can be little doubt that 
helping at least a few people have better access to ways of saving them 
from drug abuse is far better than doing it for none.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.


           AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. KENNEDY OF MASSACHUSETTS

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
       Page 4, after line 13, insert the following subsection:
       (c) Activities Regarding Alcohol Abuse.--The national media 
     campaign under subsection (a) shall include media activities 
     for the purpose of reducing and preventing alcohol abuse 
     among young people in the United States.
       Page 4, line 6, strike ``drug abuse'' and insert ``drug and 
     alcohol abuse''.
       Page 5, line 4, insert ``and anti-alcohol'' after ``anti-
     drug''.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple 
amendment to offer. This measure would require the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy to include alcohol abuse in its $195 million media 
campaign against drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, the fight against substance abuse is a never-ending 
battle and in waging this campaign, we must not cede ground on any 
front to end the scourge that costs America so many lives and wastes so 
much human and economic potential. The fact is that while waging a $10 
billion annual war on drugs, we risk losing sight of the biggest drug 
threat to our health and safety and that is alcohol. In this war, we 
simply must include alcohol in the campaign by the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy to raise the awareness of drug abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require the agency to target 
alcohol abuse in its $195 million ad campaign. Every day it seems that 
there is another reminder in the headlines of our newspapers, or on the 
evening news, reporting on the dangers of alcohol abuse. Alcohol is the 
number one killer of individuals in this country under the age of 24. 
It is the number one killer. It kills more people than all other 
illegal drugs combined. We spend $10 billion fighting a war on drugs, 
and yet the number one drug of choice by young Americans is alcohol.
  We say, oh, no, alcohol is somehow different because it is legal. But 
the truth of the matter is there are over 21 million Americans that 
claim that they are addicted to alcohol. Of those, there are about 4.5 
million children that are addicted to alcohol.
  Alcohol is the number one drug of choice of young people in America. 
It is also, in a bizarre world that we live in today, the one drug that 
we allow to be advertised in an unfettered manner on our television 
sets telling my sons, telling everybody's kids across America, that if 
they want to get a pretty girl or a good looking guy, if they want to 
be the first on the mountain, if they want to win a bicycle race, if 
they want to play touch football what should they do? Go out and have a 
drink.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of kids listen to those ads and they go out and 
have a drink and as a result we have so many kids that are finally 
addicted to alcohol.
  If we are going to go ahead and anoint a campaign to get rid of 
drugs, then let us not take some arbitrary differentiation that says 
this is a legal drug and this is an illegal drug, so we are not going 
to go after the legal drug, despite the amount of carnage that is left 
on our streets, the amount of young people that are killed in driving 
accidents, the amount of people across our country that are arbitrarily 
killed as a result of people that drink and drive or use heavy 
equipment and drink.
  What I am trying to suggest is that it is very, very important that 
America as a Nation comes to grips with the not-talked-about abuse of 
drugs that is centered around alcohol abuse. I believe very, very 
strongly that not only is this a position that I hold, but it is a 
position that I just have got off the phone with General McCaffrey, 
that he holds as well.
  I understand that there are a lot of forces at work in this Capitol 
that have the ability of limiting the amount of legislation or the kind 
of legislation that gets passed. The alcohol companies have more clout 
in this city than

[[Page H7883]]

just about any other lobby. Particularly, when we recognize the fact 
that they not only have power themselves, but they have the power of 
convincing the television stations, the radio stations, the newspapers 
and everybody else to join up with them. So, we cannot get to a point 
where we can include alcohol abuse in a national advertising campaign 
on drugs, because if we do that it could threaten the whole bill.
  Mr. Chairman, that kind of logic is the kind of bizarre logic that 
gets the whole country to think that everybody in Washington has got 
their head screwed on wrong. But nevertheless, that is what we are up 
against. So, I have been asked to not follow through and call for a 
vote on this amendment because it will threaten the entire package. I 
think it is hogwash. I do not think it is the truth. But I recognize 
that if we call for this vote and we end up in a situation where 
everybody does what always happens around here, which is that we lose 
to the alcohol lobby, then in fact we will take a step backwards.
  So, with that I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) if he 
has something nice to say about my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
expired. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) wish to insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Briefly, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) for what he has done, not just today but over the years, to 
focus on the alcoholism issue. He has been particularly involved in 
college campus alcoholism and he has taken this issue around the 
country and he is to be commended for that.
  Mr. Chairman, in this legislation we do address alcohol. I was 
looking through the various provisions. The Drug-Free Parent 
Empowerment Act would include alcohol in the sense that it is for 
illegal substances, which of course would include alcohol for minors. 
In the Drug-Free Communities Act this Congress passed last year it was 
not just illegal drugs, it was illegal substances which would include 
alcoholism.
  Many of the groups and organizations that will benefit from this 
legislation are involved also in teenage alcohol abuse. All of the 
various things we do here to try to make the Federal prevention effort 
work better, including a national clearinghouse, would be involved in 
alcoholism for our young people.
  So, it is very much addressed in this legislation. The question is 
whether under subtitle (a) the anti-drug media campaign should be 
broadened to include alcohol. The gentleman is right, there are a lot 
of forces at work. They are not the alcohol forces, pro or con. It is 
the people at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the 
President's capable Drug Czar, Barry McCaffrey; it is the appropriators 
here in this Congress; it is those of us on the authorization side who 
are trying to make this anti-drug media campaign work.
  It is very simple. We want this to focus primarily on drugs so that 
it makes a difference. That is what the $195 million has been 
appropriated for and all we did in this bill was finally authorize that 
appropriation and make it last for 4 years. Earlier today there was 
some discussion about whether that was necessary. I think it is 
absolutely necessary for this Congress to go on record supporting the 
campaign and being sure that it is indeed sustained over time, because 
if it is not it will not make a difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for what he is doing and I 
would tell him that alcoholism is addressed in various ways here, I 
think even indirectly in the media campaign that General McCaffrey is 
heading up, but because the language in this legislation has been 
carefully crafted with General McCaffrey, with the appropriators, we 
would not be able to accept an amendment to change it at this time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would just like to point out that I 
did, on the gentleman's advice, go and talk with General McCaffrey, and 
he, I think, would be the first to recognize the fact that the 
gentleman has personally been involved in attempts to try to broaden 
and expand and recognize the whole issue of alcohol abuse in the 
country.
  However, I should point out that we are spending, on the lowest 
estimate I have ever read, $10 billion fighting a war on drugs. More 
like $40 or $50 billion, if we count all the other dollars that go into 
the war on drugs. None of those dollars are spent dealing with alcohol 
abuse. And, in fact, what we do in this country is we expand and 
promote alcohol use on our airwaves.
  So my point is that while, yes, it is important to fight illegal 
drugs, and I do not mean to in any way diminish the fight against 
illegal drugs, but if we are sitting there and there is one drug that 
is killing more people than all of the other illegal drugs combined, 
then to have an advertising campaign that just focuses on illegal drugs 
is a little bizarre when so many more people are addicted to alcohol 
and so many more people are ultimately killed as a result of alcohol 
abuse, and there is nothing coming across our airwaves telling kids in 
America that they should not drink. That is what the real problem is, I 
believe.
  But I very much appreciate and understand the limitations that my 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), has outlined. I would 
just say that General McCaffrey indicated he very much wants to include 
alcohol in this campaign, but recognizes, I think, some of the 
limitations that I was referring to as a reason why he could not 
support this at this time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the 
gentleman, will he continue to press for the amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I have indicated that I am willing to 
withdraw it, but if someone else wants to speak about the amendment, I 
would be happy to have them speak on it.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) has approximately 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that if the gentleman has 
already withdrawn the amendment, I will withdraw my point of order, and 
I appreciate the dialogue.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I did not withdraw my 
amendment as yet, but I only did not because I thought the gentlewoman 
from Texas wanted to speak on it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. First, the Chair will ascertain if the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is going to reserve his point of 
order.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I suppose I must, Mr. Chairman, until the gentleman 
withdraws his amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I first of all rise to support the Drug Demand Reduction Act of 1998, 
but I wanted to come to the floor and join my colleague, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and also the words of the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) on this very important issue dealing with 
alcohol.
  As I look at the Drug Demand Reduction Act, I cannot disagree both 
with my good friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) that we have an obligation to again 
get back on the record with America dealing with a media effort to say 
no. Obviously, as we move from the Reagan era, I believe that we looked 
at other issues which this bill still does not address, and I want to 
mention those as I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment on 
alcohol.
  First of all, I think a key element is treatment, and although this 
bill works very well with telling people what not to do, it is 
difficult not to match this with treatment. It also is difficult when I 
see the very large numbers. On that premise, the fact that this is a 
``say no'' bill, I think the reasonableness of the Kennedy amendment 
makes so much sense.
  Though we do not have hard liquor on our airwaves, we do have them on

[[Page H7884]]

our billboards. And in my community in particular, in the 18th 
Congressional District in Houston, an inner city district, we have them 
on our radio programs. We have them hosting various good neighbor 
events. And let me say to all the good friends in the alcohol industry 
that I do not condemn them as public servants, but their message is 
everywhere.
  If we are going to talk about eliminating the devastation of driving 
while intoxicated, whether an individual is intoxicated through drugs 
or through alcohol, I think it is important to match those enormous 
dollars with the recognition that alcohol is killing people in America. 
And to do that, it is likewise important to have an alcohol-free 
workplace. It is important to get teenagers not to drive while taking 
alcohol.
  This subtitle C is a very important incentive to get teens to take a 
drug test and to determine that they are drug free. At the same time, I 
think it is key that we have the opportunity to do that with alcohol. 
Drug-free schools, drug-free prisons, this whole idea of anti-addiction 
medication is a unique provision that deals with the question of trying 
to get medicines not to be addictive, such as some of the over-the-
counter medicines that appeal to those who take drugs, but they appeal 
also to those who take alcohol.
  I would only say to the authors of this bill, it will be hard to say 
no to the bill, but I raise the question of concern of this very 
serious issue with the treatment question. I wish General McCaffrey 
would have come and we could have embraced an encompassing bill that 
talks about prevention and treatment. One of the reasons, of course, is 
that part of this whole aspect of drugs in inner-city communities. And 
this is not an inner city bill, I recognize this is a bill for America 
and I am supporting it, but there are unique concerns in our urban 
centers, and one of them happens to be HIV that happens to be 
transmitted by dirty needles. I wish General McCaffrey had been able to 
see the light on the dirty needles issue and that the Drug Demand 
Reduction Act could have included a viable policy that has been 
excluded.
  And lastly, as I close, let me say it is important we not ignore, not 
ignore the devastation of alcohol and that we come again around the 
circle, whether it is General McCaffrey, or maybe we need a drug czar 
on alcohol. I am sorry to hear we might have had our friends in the 
alcohol lobby that disagree with us, because responsible drinking is 
important, but we cannot do it without the backdrop of explaining to 
people the devastation of drinking. Kids can go get 12 cans of beer, a 
six pack, let me not exaggerate, and be just as high as if they were 
using drugs.
  So I would thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I thank the 
proponents of this bill. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will come around 
to making this a complete bill in the years to come, but I do support 
the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of this bill, which 
authorizes funds to be used to reduce the demand of drugs throughout 
the country through the use of innovative programs.
  This bill represents a strong attempt to tackle the drug problem at 
its most important stage, the beginning. It includes a $195 million 
anti-drug media campaign, to further encourage our young children and 
teens to stay away from drugs.
  H.R. 4550 also seeks to protect our children by instituting a 
voluntary drug testing program, to be used in conjunction with the 
issuance of driver's licenses to teenagers. This is an important 
element to this piece of legislation, simply because it places an 
extra, precautionary step in the process of giving a car, which we all 
know can be extremely dangerous in the hands of an intoxicated person, 
to a teenager.
  Furthermore, this bill authorizes funds to be used by schools and 
non-profit parent groups for the purposes of reducing the use of drugs 
amongst children and teens. This measure is extremely important because 
it puts further power in the hands of the people that directly 
supervise our children--parents, and school authorities who stand in 
loco parentis.
  Children are not the only beneficiaries of this bill. H.R. 4550 also 
includes a $10 million commitment to prevent the use of drugs in the 
workplace, and especially in small businesses. This is important 
because it gives small business owners incentive to enact some of the 
same programs and policies being used effectively by larger businesses 
and government entities around the country.
  I also strongly support this bill because it shows a newfound 
committment to drug treatment. Treatment and recovery programs are 
crucial to fighting the war on drugs. Not only does it help stem the 
recidivism that plagues our criminal justice system, and therefore, 
save the taxpayers their hand earned money, it also stays true to the 
concept that we do not leave our wounded on the battlefield of this 
terrible war.
  I firmly believe that to have a strong, comprehensive, and national 
drug policy, we must fully engage in efforts to prevent children and 
adults from wanting to take drugs in the first place. We must also 
extend our hands to help our fellow citizens whose momentarily lapse of 
strength has led them to drugs, and who want to recover to be 
participants in our society once again. I believe that this bill does 
all of those things, and urge you all to vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Latham

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Latham:
       Page 49, after line 19, insert the following:


                    TITLE IV--DRUG DEALER LIABILITY

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Drug Dealer Liability Act of 
     1998''.

     SEC. 402. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DRUG DEALER LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Part E of the Controlled Substances Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 521. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DRUG DEALER 
                   LIABILITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     any person who manufactures or distributes a controlled 
     substance in violation of this title or title III shall be 
     liable in a civil action to any party harmed, directly or 
     indirectly, by the use of that controlled substance.
       ``(b) Exception.--An individual user of a controlled 
     substance may not bring an or maintain an action under this 
     section unless all of the following conditions are met:
       ``(1) The individual personally discloses to narcotics 
     enforcement authorities all of the information known to the 
     individual regarding all that individual's sources of illegal 
     controlled substances.
       ``(2) The individual has not used an illegal controlled 
     substance within the 90 days before filing the action.
       ``(3) The individual continues to remain free of the use of 
     an illegal controlled substance throughout the pendency of 
     the action.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for the 
     Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 
     is amended by inserting after the time relating to section 
     520 the following new item:

       ``Sec. 521. Federal cause of action for drug dealer 
           liability.''.

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) is recognized.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Speaker's Task Force For 
a Drug-Free America, I commend my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman), for providing a platform to address the national tragedy 
of drug trafficking and abuse. Unfortunately, this is a growing trend 
across the Nation. For years, the Midwest States thought themselves 
immune from the drug problems on America's coasts and in the big 
cities. However, that is no longer the case.
  In fact, nowhere is the drug problem growing faster than in America's 
heartland. As the Speaker noted earlier today, my home State of Iowa is 
experiencing an unprecedented influx of methamphetamine from Mexico and 
regional clandestine laboratories.
  Meth is as addictive as crack cocaine and the stimulation, or high, 
is sustained much longer. Violent crime, destruction of families, and 
the greater likelihood for damage to the fetus of a meth-abusing mother 
make this an epidemic that has much more severe monetary costs as well, 
creating additional problems and challenges for law enforcement and 
human service providers in the Midwest.
  Drug-addicted babies are clearly the most innocent and vulnerable of 
those affected by illegal drug use and are often the most physically 
and mentally

[[Page H7885]]

damaged due to the existence of the illegal drug market in a community. 
For many of the addicts, babies and adults alike, the only hope is 
extensive medical and psychological treatment, physical therapy, and 
special education.
  All of these potential remedies are very expensive. These babies, 
through their legal guardians and through court-appointed guardians, 
should be able to recover damages from those in the community who have 
entered and participated in the marketing of the types of illegal drugs 
that have caused their injuries.
  The amendment I am offering today, based on my bill H.R. 4204, The 
Drug Dealer Liability Act, is modeled after similar legislation 
recently enacted in the States of California, Arkansas, Illinois, 
Michigan, Utah, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Hawaii, South Dakota and 
Oklahoma. The amendment is intended to provide a civil remedy for 
damages to persons in a community injured as a result of illegal drug 
use. These persons include parents, employers, insurers, health care 
and drug treatment providers, as well as drug-addicted babies. This 
amendment would enable them to recover damages from those persons in 
the illegal drug market who profited from their pain or loss.
  It is my hope that the prospect of substantial monetary loss made 
possible by The Drug Dealer Liability Act would also act as a deterrent 
to entering the narcotics market. In addition, this amendment would 
establish an incentive for users to identify and seek payment for their 
own drug treatment from those dealers who have sold the drugs to the 
user in the past. While this legislation is not intended to be a silver 
bullet, it is another tool to combat and deter drug abuse and 
trafficking.
  Today, in 39 States, it is not clear under established law that 
families who lose a child to drugs or a drug baby needing treatment and 
special education can compel dealers to pay for the injuries they 
cause. This is true even though in most States a producer of a product 
that injures a consumer can be liable for the injuries resulting from 
the use of that product. The Drug Dealer Liability Act fills the gap to 
make drug dealers liable, under civil law, for the injuries to the 
families of drug users.
  The first lawsuit brought under a drug dealer liability law resulted 
in a judgment of $1 million in favor of a Michigan drug baby, and more 
than $7 million to the City of Detroit's expenses for providing drug 
treatment for the city's prison inmates.
  In addition, this bill could fill a possible gap in asset forfeitures 
by law enforcement resulting from the decision handed down by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in June that may, under some circumstances, rule total 
forfeiture of a defendant's assets as an excessive fine under the 
eighth amendment's excessive fines clause.
  Let us pass this amendment and give the victims of the illegal drug 
market an opportunity to hold the dealers of this poison accountable 
under criminal and civil law.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support the Latham amendment.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Barrett) insist on his point of order?
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. It is not germane 
to this bill, and I cite clause 7 of rule XVI. The subject matter of 
civil liability is not broached by the underlying bill and, 
consequently, this amendment is not germane to the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. LATHAM. Well, I will concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman. 
But, quite honestly, when we look at the entire situation we have, we 
have to find some way of holding people accountable for their actions.
  I think this is an opportunity that we will be missing by this point 
of order to hold people who are destroying children, babies, people all 
over this country, with no consequences as far as their civil 
liability. They are able to profit. Unfortunately, I understand the 
point of order, but I think it really is very unfortunate that it be 
insisted upon.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman concedes the point of order? 
Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order? Hearing 
none, the point of order is conceded and sustained.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I was hoping to rise before the point of order was 
ruled upon to support the amendment offered by my colleague on the Drug 
Task Force, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Under current Federal law, individuals who are injured by the Federal 
drug trade have only one remedy and that is criminal prosecution. The 
problem with this is that while the drug dealer goes to jail, the 
victim or victims have no personal civil remedy. The Latham amendment 
would have changed that. The gentleman's amendment introduced the 
concept of civil liability to the Federal drug code.

                              {time}  1915

  The amendment is modeled after civil liability laws in 11 States. In 
those States not only do the dealers face jail time, they open 
themselves up to civil judgments every time they sell drugs. Parents of 
drug users, drug babies, employers, health insurers and local 
governments in those 11 States now have legal standing to recover the 
negative costs associated with drug use. Under this law, as the 
gentleman from Iowa stated, the city of Detroit recently was awarded $7 
million in damages for drug treatment expenses in its jails.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier today we passed the Western Hemisphere Drug 
Elimination Act. I was a cosponsor of that bill because I believe we 
need to dedicate more resources to the interdiction of drugs before 
they get to the United States. But I also believe that Congress needs 
to focus more attention on reducing the demand for drugs stateside. One 
way to address the drug demand is to ensure that drug dealers are 
punished more severely, both criminally and personally. The Latham 
amendment does that. It says to the drug dealer that you will be held 
both criminally and civilly liable for the drugs you deal.
  This amendment is not about abdicating the responsibility of the drug 
user. Under this amendment, a drug user could pursue a civil remedy, a 
civil suit against the drug dealer only if the user cooperates with 
authorities, has not used drugs within the 90 days prior to the filing 
of the lawsuit and remained drug-free during the duration of the 
lawsuit.
  Mr. Chairman, the Latham amendment reduces the incentive for 
individuals to become involved in the drug trade. It was a good 
amendment. It is a good amendment. I would hope that it will receive 
further attention and widespread support.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to commend the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham) for his efforts on the task force and also for his 
amendment today which I think would provide an additional reason for 
people not to get involved with drugs and it would be a powerful remedy 
for victims of drug abuse. I understand that the point of order has 
been sustained, but I wanted to add to what the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) said about the importance of this 
legislation. Perhaps we can work on it in the future.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday the majority decided to subvert the 
legislative process and turn a much supported and noncontroversial 
bill, the reauthorization of the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children, into a controversial bill grounded in bad juvenile 
crime policy. Today we find ourselves about to pass another allegedly 
noncontroversial bill, the Drug Demand Reduction Act, but without the 
opportunity for public review or comments so we cannot be sure whether 
it is controversial or not.
  Yesterday when we passed the bill that increased the number of 
juveniles to be treated as adults, we ignored the fact that the adult 
time that the juveniles will get for their adult crime will for the 
affected juveniles be actually less time as an adult rather than more 
time as an adult.
  We need to subject these ideas to public scrutiny and comment rather

[[Page H7886]]

than basing our decision solely on soundbites. Needless to say, this 
bill has been introduced very recently. It was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, the Committee on Small Business, the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, but none of those committees have 
had hearings. There has been no opportunity for our people to subject 
the bill to scrutiny. No input from criminologists or medical doctors 
or sociologists or victims or budget analysts. No opportunity to 
prioritize this spending as opposed to other ideas that people may 
have.
  Because there might be some good ideas, I am going to vote for the 
bill, but it is no way to legislate.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Portman

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Portman: 
       Page 39, after line 8, insert the following the following 
     subparagraphs:
       (K) one shall be a representative of the American 
     Psychiatric Association;
       (L) one shall be a representative of the American Academy 
     of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; and
       (M) one shall be a representative of the American Academy 
     of Addiction Psychiatry.
       Page 38, line 3, strike ``10 voting members'' and insert 
     ``13 voting members''.
       Page 39, line 6, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
       In section 211(g)(2), strike ``the presence of'' and all 
     that follows and insert ``the presence of 7 members.''.

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment to add to 
the Commission on Medical Education three psychiatric group 
representatives whose opinions and views will be very important to the 
commission. This commission is established under our legislation which 
in essence helps bring together the representatives from all the 
leading medical groups to help study and report on methods to enhance 
prevention, diagnosis and treatment of substance abuse by medical 
professionals through initial and continuing medical education.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed this 
amendment and it is acceptable to our side.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his working with us 
on this. I think this is a very important aspect of the legislation to 
help medical professionals diagnose and treat addiction, and I think it 
is appropriate and important that we add the perspective of the 
psychiatric groups. I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. 
Roukema) for bringing this to our attention.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I am most pleased that Representative 
Portman offered my amendment since a television interview preceded my 
being on the floor, my amendment would add three important groups to 
the Commission created in this bill that is charged with studying the 
role of medical education in reducing substance abuse.
  The National Commission is responsible for making recommendations on 
how medical education can be improved to better respond to the needs of 
patients with substance use disorders.
  My amendment would add the American Psychiatric Association, the 
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American 
Academy of Addiction Psychiatry to this Commission.
  The American Psychiatric Association is the national medical 
speciality society representing more than 40,000 psychiatric 
physicians. Through education, training, and clinical experience 
psychiatrists are among those on the front lines of the diagnosis and 
treatment of substance use disorders.
  The second organization, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent 
Psychiatry, is the national organization representing more than 6,000 
physicians with at least 5 years of additional training beyond medical 
school in both general and child and adolescent psychiatry.
  And the third organization, the American Academy of Addiction 
Psychiatry, is the national organization representing more than 1,000 
board certified psychiatrists who have specialized in addiction 
psychiatry.
  All three of these organization make vital contributions to the 
diagnosis and treatment of substance use disorders across the general 
population, as well as in particular at risk populations such as 
children and adolescents.
  As a result, this Commission would be well-served to have the benefit 
of input from these three commendable organizations.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 123, 
noes 281, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 443]

                               AYES--123

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cunningham
     Deal
     Dickey
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jones
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LoBiondo
     Maloney (CT)
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pickering
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White

                               NOES--281

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Christensen
     Clement
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan

[[Page H7887]]


     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Bateman
     Blunt
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Danner
     Dicks
     Fazio
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Harman
     Hefner
     Horn
     John
     Lantos
     Meeks (NY)
     Peterson (PA)
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Schumer
     Stokes
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Waters
     Wexler
     Yates

                              {time}  1943

  Messrs. LINDER, LEWIS of California, BERRY, DIAZ-BALART and WATTS of 
Oklahoma changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PARKER, DICKEY, ADERHOLT, GILMAN, GALLEGLY, JONES, BARTLETT 
of Maryland and INGLIS of South Carolina changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, illegal drug use is the single most 
serious problem facing the United States and I am proud to support this 
bill which will reduce the demand for illegal drugs in this country.
  Strong interdiction and law enforcement programs alone cannot win the 
war on drugs. We must possess an effective effort to reduce the demand 
for illegal drugs and I commend Mr. Portman for moving this very 
important bill.
  This bill enhances the ability to test employees for illegal drugs.
  This bill also improves the effectiveness of drug awareness programs 
in schools and ensures that the money we spend to make children aware 
of the dangers of illegal drug use is used wisely.
  Illegal drug use is the common denominator in the problems facing 
America. Illegal drugs are the reason why our health care costs are so 
high--with emergency room visits from drug overdoses and the victims of 
drive-by shootings.
  Thousands of babies are born each year addicted to illegal drugs and 
illegal drug use contributes to the rapid spread of AIDS.
  Illegal drug use is also behind most of the violence in this country. 
Over 50% of all men arrested for homicide test positive for illicit 
drugs at the time of arrest and illegal drugs are a factor in half of 
all family violence, most of it directed against women and children.
  Illegal drugs are also the single most serious problem facing 
America's educational system. It has always bewildered me how President 
Clinton can claim to be the education President when drug use by school 
age children has doubled since he was elected president.
  There is an obvious connection between the increase in illegal drug 
use which has occurred since President Clinton first took office and 
the educational problems facing our nation.
  Illegal drug use has doubled since this President took office and 
according to the most recent reports drug use is still on the rise 
among eighth graders.
  A person who uses illegal drugs is five times more likely to drop out 
of school than a non drug user. Scientific studies show that illegal 
drugs--including marijuana--rob students of their motivation and self-
esteem, leaving them unable to concentrate and indifferent to learning.
  A recent study of 11th graders in our major cities showed that over 
half of the heavy drug users dropped out--twice the rate of those who 
are drug-free.
  During the Reagan/Bush years drug use dropped, from 24 million in 
1979 to 11 million in 1992. These hard fought gains were wasted by 
President Clinton.
  There is not a parent in America who sends their children off to 
school without worrying that they will become exposed to illegal drugs. 
And it is not just teenagers anymore. Parents now need to be very 
concerned about 7th and 8th grade children getting involved with 
illegal drugs.
  Today in America one third of all high school kids smoke marijuana.
  Today, more than half of all high school seniors have admitted to 
using illegal drugs. Since President Clinton was first elected the 
trends of casual drug use for high schools students have reversed and 
increased for virtually every illegal drug, including heroin, crack, 
cocaine, LSD and marijuana. This rise in teenage drug use also 
correlates closely with rising violence in our schools.
  A recent study has also shown that students with the lowest grades 
were four times more likely to use marijuana in the past month than 
those with the highest grade point average.
  Since 1992, marijuana use has jumped 150% among 12 and 13 year old 
students and 200% among high school students. Nearly 1.5 million more 
middle school and high school students use illegal drugs than when 
President Clinton was first elected.
  I repeat, you cannot claim to be a President who cares about the 
education of our youth and not care about the illegal drug problem in 
this country. And President Clinton has demonstrated by his words--or 
lack of words--and by his deeds that he is not serious about winning 
the war on drugs. And our school systems have the casualties to prove 
it!
  I commend Congressman Portman for his find work on this demand 
reduction legislation and ask my colleagues to support the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Under the rule, the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Dickey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gibbons, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4550) to provide for programs to facilitate a significant reduction in 
the incidence and prevalence of substance abuse through reducing the 
demand for illegal drugs and the inappropriate use of legal drugs, 
pursuant to House Resolution 538, he reported the bill back to the 
House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair would 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 396, 
noes 9, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 444]

                               AYES--396

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner

[[Page H7888]]


     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--9

     Conyers
     Dingell
     Frank (MA)
     Nadler
     Obey
     Paul
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Waxman

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Blunt
     Brady (TX)
     Buyer
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Danner
     Dicks
     Fazio
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Harman
     Hefner
     Horn
     John
     Lantos
     Meeks (NY)
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Riggs
     Schumer
     Stokes
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Waters
     Wexler
     Yates

                              {time}  2006

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________