[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.
____________________