[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6526-S6530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and 
        Mr. Daschle):
  S. 1075. A bill to extend and modify the Drug-Free Communities 
Support Program, to authorize a National Community Antidrug Coalition 
Institute, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
re-authorize the Drug Free Communities Act. I am pleased to be joined 
by my colleagues Senator Biden, Senator Smith, and Senator Daschle in 
introducing this legislation which will continue for another 5 years 
the successes that we have found with Drug Free Communities Program. In 
addition, it builds upon the successes that coalitions have had by 
encouraging them to establish a coalition mentoring program for nearby 
communities. Finally, this act will authorize funding for the National 
Anti-Drug Coalition Institute, which will provide education, training, 
and technical assistance to leaders of community coalitions.
  Substance abuse remains a problem in communities across the country. 
Substance abuse is the cause of or associated with many of today's 
problems, but is a preventable behavior. Community anti-drug coalitions 
are implementing long-term strategies to address the problem of 
substance abuse in their communities. By bringing together a cross-
section of the community to address a common problem, community 
coalitions are discovering and implementing unique community solutions 
to reduce and prevent the incidence of substance abuse in their 
communities. And that idea, that communities are best suited to address 
their own problems, is the underlying premise that has been proven with 
the success of the Drug Free Communities program.
  There are three key features to the Drug Free Communities Act. First, 
communities must take the initiative. In order to receive support, a 
community coalition must demonstrate that there is a long-term 
commitment to address teen-drug use. It must have a sustainable 
coalition that includes the involvement of representatives from a wide 
variety of community activists.
  In addition, every coalition must show that it can sustain itself. 
Community coalitions must be in existence for at least 6 months before 
applying. They are only eligible to receive support if they can match 
these donations dollar for dollar with non-Federal funding, up to 
$100,000 per coalition.
  An Advisory Commission, consisting of local community leaders, and 
State and national experts in the field of substance abuse, has worked 
closely with the Office of National Drug Control Policy to oversee the 
successful management and growth of this grant program. Because of this 
partnership, grants have gone to communities and programs that can make 
a difference in the lives of our children.
  Today, we have better evidence that coalitions are working, that they 
are making a difference. A recent study sponsored by the Annie E. Casey 
Foundation documented the difference that

[[Page S6527]]

eight community coalitions, all of which have received funding through 
the Drug Free Communities program, from around the country have made in 
their communities.
  In addition to continuing this successful program, this re-
authorization legislation adds the possibility for a supplemental grant 
to the Drug-Free Communities Grant Program. The supplemental grant is 
available to any coalition that has been in existence for at least 5 
years, achieved measurable results in youth substance abuse prevention 
and treatment, have staff or Coalition members willing to serve as 
mentors for persons interested in starting or expanding a Coalition in 
their community, identified demonstrable support from members of the 
identified community, and have created a detailed plan for mentoring 
either newly formed or developing Coalitions.
  Coalitions receiving the supplemental grant must use these funds to 
support and encourage the development of new, self-supporting community 
coalitions focused on the prevention and treatment of substance abuse 
in the new coalition's community. This supplemental grant can be 
renewed provided the recipient coalition continues to meet the 
underlying criteria and has made progress in the development of new 
coalitions.
  Starting a new anti-drug coalition is a difficult exercise, which 
makes the success of these coalitions I mentioned earlier all the more 
remarkable. But I also know this from personal experience. For the past 
4 years, I have worked with leaders from across my State of Iowa to 
start and grow the Face It Together Coalition, a State-wide, anti-drug 
coalition designed to bring together people from all walks of life, 
business leaders, doctors and nurses, law enforcement, school 
professionals, members of the media, and so on, to work together toward 
a common goal: keeping kids drug free.
  In working with FIT, it has become clear that by working together, 
everyone can accomplish more. This is a solid, grass-roots initiative 
that can work. But it hasn't been an easy process, and it will continue 
to require the dedication and commitment of all of our board members. 
One of the biggest challenges that we face has not been finding ideas 
of what to do, or even finding effective ongoing projects in the State, 
but identifying and securing funding to support the expansion of our 
activities. Much can and has been done by volunteers, and through the 
networking connections that the Board members are able to bring to the 
table.
  In addition, this legislation will authorize $2 million in federal 
funding for two years for the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition 
Institute. Modeled after the success we have seen from the National 
Drug Court Institute, this national non-profit organization will 
represent, provide technical assistance and training, and have special 
expertise and broad, national-level experience in community anti-drug 
coalitions.
  The funding for the Institute will be to 1. provide education, 
training, and technical assistance to key members of community anti-
drug coalitions, 2. develop and disseminate evaluation tools, 
mechanisms, and measures to assess and document coalition performance, 
and 3. bridge the gap between research and practice by providing 
community coalitions with practical information based on the most 
current research on coalition-related issues. The Institute is expected 
to last for more than 2 years, and to pursue and obtain additional 
funding from sources other than the Federal Government.
  In conclusion, I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this legislation. It is supported by the Administration. It 
has the support of communities all across the Nation. The Drug Free 
Communities Program works. I look forward to working with my colleagues 
here and in the House to ensure quick passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1075

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In the next 15 years, the youth population in the 
     United States will grow by 21 percent, adding 6,500,000 youth 
     to the population of the United States. Even if drug use 
     rates remain constant, there will be a huge surge in drug-
     related problems, such as academic failure, drug-related 
     violence, and HIV incidence, simply due to this population 
     increase.
       (2) According to the 1994-1996 National Household Survey, 
     60 percent of students age 12 to 17 who frequently cut 
     classes and who reported delinquent behavior in the past 6 
     months used marijuana 52 days or more in the previous year.
       (3) The 2000 Washington Kids Count survey conducted by the 
     University of Washington reported that students whose peers 
     have little or no involvement with drinking and drugs have 
     higher math and reading scores than students whose peers had 
     low level drinking or drug use.
       (4) Substance abuse prevention works. In 1999, only 10 
     percent of teens saw marijuana users as popular, compared to 
     17 percent in 1998 and 19 percent in 1997. The rate of past-
     month use of any drug among 12 to 17 year olds declined 26 
     percent between 1997 and 1999. Marijuana use for sixth 
     through eighth graders is at the lowest point in 5 years, as 
     is use of cocaine, inhalants, and hallucinogens.
       (5) Community Anti-Drug Coalitions throughout the United 
     States are successfully developing and implementing 
     comprehensive, long-term strategies to reduce substance abuse 
     among youth on a sustained basis. For example:
       (A) The Boston Coalition brought college and university 
     presidents together to create the Cooperative Agreement on 
     Underage Drinking. This agreement represents the first 
     coordinated effort of Boston's many institutions of higher 
     education to address issues such as binge drinking, underage 
     drinking, and changing the norms surrounding alcohol abuse 
     that exist on college and university campuses.
       (B) The Miami Coalition used a three-part strategy to 
     decrease the percentage of high school seniors who reported 
     using marijuana at least once during the most recent 30-day 
     period. The development of a media strategy, the creation of 
     a network of prevention agencies, and discussions with high 
     school students about the dangers of marijuana all 
     contributed to a decrease in the percentage of seniors who 
     reported using marijuana from more than 22 percent in 1995 to 
     9 percent in 1997. The Miami Coalition was able to achieve 
     these results while national rates of marijuana use were 
     increasing.
       (C) The Nashville Prevention Partnership worked with 
     elementary and middle school children in an attempt to 
     influence them toward positive life goals and discourage them 
     from using substances. The Partnership targeted an area in 
     East Nashville and created after school programs, mentoring 
     opportunities, attendance initiatives, and safe passages to 
     and from school. Attendance and test scores increased as a 
     result of the program.
       (D) At a youth-led town meeting sponsored by the Bering 
     Strait Community Partnership in Nome, Alaska, youth 
     identified a need for a safe, substance-free space. With help 
     from a variety of community partners, the Partnership staff 
     and youth members created the Java Hut, a substance-free 
     coffeehouse designed for youth. The Java Hut is helping to 
     change norms in the community by providing a fun, youth-
     friendly atmosphere and activities that are not centered 
     around alcohol or marijuana.
       (E) Portland's Regional Drug Initiative (RDI) has promoted 
     the establishment of drug-free workplaces among the city's 
     large and small employers. More than 3,000 employers have 
     attended an RDI training session, and of those, 92 percent 
     have instituted drug-free workplace policies. As a result, 
     there has been a 5.5 percent decrease in positive workplace 
     drug tests.
       (F) San Antonio Fighting Back worked to increase the age at 
     which youth first used illegal substances. Research suggests 
     that the later the age of first use, the lower the risk that 
     a young person will become a regular substance abuser. As a 
     result, the age of first illegal drug use increased from 9.4 
     years in 1992 to 13.5 years in 1997.
       (G) In 1990, multiple data sources confirmed a trend of 
     increased alcohol use by teenagers in the Troy community. 
     Using its ``multiple strategies over multiple sectors'' 
     approach, the Troy Coalition worked with parents, physicians, 
     students, coaches, and others to address this problem from 
     several angles. As a result, the rate of twelfth grade 
     students who had consumed alcohol in the past month decreased 
     from 62.1 percent to 53.3 percent between 1991 and 1998, and 
     the rate of eighth grade students decreased from 26.3 percent 
     to 17.4 percent. The Troy Coalition believes that this 
     decline represents not only a change in behavior on the part 
     of students, but also a change in the norms of the community.
       (H) In 2000, the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater 
     Cincinnati surveyed more than 47,000 local seventh through 
     twelfth graders. The results provided evidence that the 
     Coalition's initiatives are working. For the first time in a 
     decade, teen drug use in Greater Cincinnati appears to be 
     leveling off. The data collected from the survey has served 
     as a tool to strengthen relationships between

[[Page S6528]]

     schools and communities, as well as facilitate the growth of 
     anti-drug coalitions in communities where they had not 
     existed.
       (6) Despite these successes, drug use continues to be a 
     serious problem facing communities across the United States. 
     For example:
       (A) According to the Pulse Check: Trends in Drug Abuse Mid-
     Year 2000 report--
       (i) crack and powder cocaine remains the most serious drug 
     problem;
       (ii) marijuana remains the most widely available illicit 
     drug, and its potency is on the rise;
       (iii) treatment sources report an increase in admissions 
     with marijuana as the primary drug of abuse--and adolescents 
     outnumber other age groups entering treatment for marijuana;
       (iv) 80 percent of Pulse Check sources reported increased 
     availability of club drugs, with ecstasy (MDMA) and ketamine 
     the most widely cited club drugs and seven sources reporting 
     that powder cocaine is being used as a club drug by young 
     adults;
       (v) ecstasy abuse and trafficking is expanding, no longer 
     confined to the ``rave'' scene;
       (vi) the sale and use of club drugs has grown from 
     nightclubs and raves to high schools, the streets, 
     neighborhoods, open venues, and younger ages;
       (vii) ecstasy users often are unknowingly purchasing 
     adulterated tablets or some other substance sold as MDMA; and
       (viii) along with reports of increased heroin snorting as a 
     route of administration for initiates, there is also an 
     increase in injecting initiates and the negative health 
     consequences associated with injection (for example, 
     increases in HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C) suggesting that there 
     is a generational forgetting of the dangers of injection of 
     the drug.
       (B) The 2000 Parent's Resource Institute for Drug Education 
     study reported that 23.6 percent of children in the sixth 
     through twelfth grades used illicit drugs in the past year. 
     The same study found that monthly usage among this group was 
     15.3 percent.
       (C) According to the 2000 Monitoring the Future study, the 
     use of ecstasy among eighth graders increased from 1.7 
     percent in 1999 to 3.1 percent in 2000, among tenth graders 
     from 4.4 percent to 5.4 percent, and from 5.6 percent to 8.2 
     percent among twelfth graders.
       (D) A 1999 Mellman Group study found that--
       (i) 56 percent of the population in the United States 
     believed that drug use was increasing in 1999;
       (ii) 92 percent of the population viewed illegal drug use 
     as a serious problem in the United States; and
       (iii) 73 percent of the population viewed illegal drug use 
     as a serious problem in their communities.
       (7) According to the 2001 report of the National Center on 
     Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University entitled 
     ``Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State 
     Budgets'', using the most conservative assumption, in 1998 
     States spent $77,900,000,000 to shovel up the wreckage of 
     substance abuse, only $3,000,000,000 to prevent and treat the 
     problem and $433,000,000 for alcohol and tobacco regulation 
     and compliance. This $77,900,000,000 burden was distributed 
     as follows:
       (A) $30,700,000,000 in the justice system (77 percent of 
     justice spending).
       (B) $16,500,000,000 in education costs (10 percent of 
     education spending).
       (C) $15,200,000,000 in health costs (25 percent of health 
     spending).
       (D) $7,700,000,000 in child and family assistance (32 
     percent of child and family assistance spending).
       (E) $5,900,000,000 in mental health and developmental 
     disabilities (31 percent of mental health spending).
       (F) $1,500,000,000 in public safety (26 percent of public 
     safety spending) and $400,000,000 for the state workforce.
       (8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination through 
     national, State, and local or tribal leadership and 
     partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of 
     substance abuse among youth in communities across the United 
     States.
       (9) Substance abuse is perceived as a much greater problem 
     nationally than at the community level. According to a 2001 
     study sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts, between 1994 
     and 2000--
       (A) there was a 43 percent increase in the percentage of 
     Americans who felt progress was being made in the war on 
     drugs at the community level;
       (B) only 9 percent of Americans say drug abuse is a 
     ``crisis'' in their neighborhood, compared to 27 percent who 
     say this about the nation; and
       (C) the percentage of those who felt we lost ground in the 
     war on drugs on a community level fell by more than a 
     quarter, from 51 percent in 1994 to 37 percent in 2000.
       (b) Extension and Increase of Program.--Section 1024(a) of 
     the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 
     1524(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4); and
       (2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(5) $50,600,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(6) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(7) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(8) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(9) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       ``(10) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
       (c) Extension of Limitation on Administrative Costs.--
     Section 1024(b) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1524(b)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new 
     paragraph (5):
       ``(5) 8 percent for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2007.''.
       (d) Additional Grants.--Section 1032(b) of that Act (21 
     U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph (3):
       ``(3) Additional grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (F), the 
     Administrator may award an additional grant under this 
     paragraph to an eligible coalition awarded a grant under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) for any first fiscal year after the end 
     of the 4-year period following the period of the initial 
     grant under paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be.
       ``(B) Scope of grants.--A coalition awarded a grant under 
     paragraph (1) or (2), including a renewal grant under such 
     paragraph, may not be awarded another grant under such 
     paragraph, and is eligible for an additional grant under this 
     section only under this paragraph.
       ``(C) No priority for applications.--The Administrator may 
     not afford a higher priority in the award of an additional 
     grant under this paragraph than the Administrator would 
     afford the applicant for the grant if the applicant were 
     submitting an application for an initial grant under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) rather than an application for a grant 
     under this paragraph.
       ``(D) Renewal grants.--Subject to subparagraph (F), the 
     Administrator may award a renewal grant to a grant recipient 
     under this paragraph for each of the fiscal years of the 4-
     fiscal year period following the fiscal year for which the 
     initial additional grant under subparagraph (A) is awarded in 
     an amount not to exceed amounts as follows:
       ``(i) For the first and second fiscal years of that 4-
     fiscal year period, the amount equal to 80 percent of the 
     non-Federal funds, including in-kind contributions, raised by 
     the coalition for the applicable fiscal year.
       ``(ii) For the second, third, and fourth fiscal years of 
     that 4-fiscal year period, the amount equal to 67 percent of 
     the non-Federal funds, including in-kind contributions, 
     raised by the coalition for the applicable fiscal year.
       ``(E) Suspension.--If a grant recipient under this 
     paragraph fails to continue to meet the criteria specified in 
     subsection (a), the Administrator may suspend the grant, 
     after providing written notice to the grant recipient and an 
     opportunity to appeal.
       ``(F) Limitation.--The amount of a grant award under this 
     paragraph may not exceed $100,000 for a fiscal year.''.
       (e) Data Collection and Dissemination.--Section 1033(b) of 
     that Act (21 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Consultation.--The Administrator shall carry out 
     activities under this subsection in consultation with the 
     Advisory Commission and the National Community Antidrug 
     Coalition Institute.''.
       (f) Limitation on Use of Certain Funds for Evaluation of 
     Program.--Section 1033(b) of that Act, as amended by 
     subsection (e) of this section, is further is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Limitation on use of certain funds for evaluation of 
     program.--Amounts for activities under paragraph (2)(B) may 
     not be derived from amounts under section 1024(a), except for 
     amounts that are available under section 1024(b) for 
     administrative costs.''.

     SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING 
                   ACTIVITIES UNDER DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Subchapter I of chapter 2 of the National Narcotics 
     Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1035. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Authority To Make Grants.--As part of the program 
     established under section 1031, the Director may award an 
     initial grant under this subsection, and renewal grants under 
     subsection (f), to any coalition awarded a grant under 
     section 1032 that meets the criteria specified in subsection 
     (d) in order to fund coalition mentoring activities by such 
     coalition in support of the program.
       ``(b) Treatment with Other Grants.--
       ``(1) Supplement.--A grant awarded to a coalition under 
     this section is in addition to any grant awarded to the 
     coalition under section 1032.
       ``(2) Requirement for basic grant.--A coalition may not be 
     awarded a grant under this section for a fiscal year unless 
     the coalition was awarded a grant or renewal grant under 
     section 1032(b) for that fiscal year.
       ``(c) Application.--A coalition seeking a grant under this 
     section shall submit to the Administrator an application for 
     the grant in such form and manner as the Administrator may 
     require.
       ``(d) Criteria.--A coalition meets the criteria specified 
     in this subsection if the coalition--
       ``(1) has been in existence for at least 5 years;
       ``(2) has achieved, by or through its own efforts, 
     measurable results in the prevention and treatment of 
     substance abuse among youth;
       ``(3) has staff or members willing to serve as mentors for 
     persons seeking to start or expand the activities of other 
     coalitions in the prevention and treatment of substance 
     abuse;

[[Page S6529]]

       ``(4) has demonstrable support from some members of the 
     community in which the coalition mentoring activities to be 
     supported by the grant under this section are to be carried 
     out; and
       ``(5) submits to the Administrator a detailed plan for the 
     coalition mentoring activities to be supported by the grant 
     under this section.
       ``(e) Use of Grant Funds.--A coalition awarded a grant 
     under this section shall use the grant amount for mentoring 
     activities to support and encourage the development of new, 
     self-supporting community coalitions that are focused on the 
     prevention and treatment of substance abuse in such new 
     coalitions' communities. The mentoring coalition shall 
     encourage such development in accordance with the plan 
     submitted by the mentoring coalition under subsection (d)(5).
       ``(f) Renewal Grants.--The Administrator may make a renewal 
     grant to any coalition awarded a grant under subsection (a), 
     or a previous renewal grant under this subsection, if the 
     coalition, at the time of application for such renewal 
     grant--
       ``(1) continues to meet the criteria specified in 
     subsection (d); and
       ``(2) has made demonstrable progress in the development of 
     one or more new, self-supporting community coalitions that 
     are focused on the prevention and treatment of substance 
     abuse.
       ``(g) Grant Amounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     total amount of grants awarded to a coalition under this 
     section for a fiscal year may not exceed the amount of non-
     Federal funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind 
     contributions, for that fiscal year.
       ``(2) Initial grants.--The amount of the initial grant 
     awarded to a coalition under subsection (a) may not exceed 
     $75,000.
       ``(3) Renewal grants.--The total amount of renewal grants 
     awarded to a coalition under subsection (f) for any fiscal 
     year may not exceed $75,000.
       ``(h) Fiscal Year Limitation on Amount Available For 
     Grants.--The total amount available for grants under this 
     section, including renewal grants under subsection (f), in 
     any fiscal year may not exceed the amount equal to five 
     percent of the amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 1024(a) for that fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 3. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DRUG-
                   FREE COMMUNITIES.

       Section 1048 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 
     1988 (21 U.S.C. 1548) is amended by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2007''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR NATIONAL COMMUNITY ANTIDRUG 
                   COALITION INSTITUTE.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy may, using amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by subsection (d), make a grant to an eligible 
     organization to provide for the establishment of a National 
     Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.
       (b) Eligible Organizations.--An organization eligible for 
     the grant under subsection (a) is any national nonprofit 
     organization that represents, provides technical assistance 
     and training to, and has special expertise and broad, 
     national-level experience in community antidrug coalitions 
     under section 1032 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act 
     of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1532).
       (c) Use of Grant Amount.--The organization receiving the 
     grant under subsection (a) shall establish a National 
     Community Antidrug Coalition Institute to--
       (1) provide education, training, and technical assistance 
     for coalition leaders and community teams;
       (2) develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, 
     and measures to better assess and document coalition 
     performance measures and outcomes; and
       (3) bridge the gap between research and practice by 
     translating knowledge from research into practical 
     information.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for purposes of activities under this 
     section, including the grant under subsection (a), amounts as 
     follows:
       (1) For each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, $2,000,000.
       (2) For each of fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, 
     such sums as may be necessary for such activities.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to 
reauthorize the Drug Free Communities Act, a program which currently 
funds more than 300 community coalitions across the country that work 
to reduce drug, alcohol, and tobacco use.
  Four years ago, I worked with Senator Grassley, Representatives Sandy 
Levin and Rob Portman, and others to create this important program to 
fund coalitions of citizens--parents, youth, businesses, media, law 
enforcement, religious organizations, civic groups, doctors, nurses, 
and others--working to reduce youth substance abuse.
  Community coalitions across the country--including two in my home 
State of Delaware--are galvanizing tremendous support for prevention 
efforts. They are helping fellow citizens make a difference in their 
communities. And they are helping all sectors of the community send a 
consistent message about alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.
  I have been fighting for this type of anti-drug program for local 
communities for over a decade because I believe that prevention is a 
critical--but too often overlooked--part of an effective drug strategy.
  Substance abuse is one of our Nation's most pervasive problems. 
Addiction is a disease that does not discriminate on the basis of age, 
gender, socioeconomic status, race or creed. And while we tend to 
stereotype drug abuse as an urban problem, the steadily growing number 
of heroin and methamphetamine addicts in rural villages and suburban 
towns shows that is simply not the case.
  We have nearly 15 million drug users in this country, 4 million of 
whom are hard-core addicts. We all know someone--a family member, 
neighbor, colleague or friend--who has become addicted to drugs or 
alcohol. And we are all affected by the undeniable correlation between 
substance abuse and crime--an overwhelming 80 percent of the 2 million 
men and women behind bars today have a history of drug and alcohol 
abuse or addiction or were arrested for a drug-related crime.
  All of this comes at a hefty price. Drug abuse and addiction cost 
this Nation $110 billion in law enforcement and other criminal justice 
expenses, medical bills, lost earnings and other costs each year. 
Illegal drugs are responsible for thousands of deaths each year and for 
the spread of a number of communicable diseases, including AIDS and 
Hepatitis C. And a study by the National Center on Addiction and 
Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA) shows that 7 out of 10 
cases of child abuse and neglect are caused or exacerbated by substance 
abuse and addiction.
  Another CASA study recently revealed that for each dollar that States 
spend on substance-abuse related programs, 96 cents goes to dealing 
with the consequences of substance abuse and only 4 cents to preventing 
and treating it. Investing more in prevention and treatment is cost-
effective because it will decrease much of the street crime, child 
abuse, domestic violence, and other social ills that can result from 
substance abuse.
  If we can get kids through age 21 without smoking, abusing alcohol, 
or using drugs, they are unlikely to have a substance abuse problem in 
the future. But there are still those who shrug their shoulders and say 
``kids are kids--they are going to experiment.'' Others find the 
thought of keeping kids drug-free too daunting a task, and they give up 
too soon.
  But the truth is that we are learning more and more about drug 
prevention as researchers isolate the so-called ``risk'' and 
``protective'' factors for drug use. In other words, we now know that 
if a child has low self-esteem or emotional problems; has a substance 
abuser for a parent; is a victim of child abuse; or is exposed to pro-
drug media messages, that child is at a higher risk of smoking, 
drinking and using illegal drugs. But the good news is that we are also 
learning what decreases a child's risk of substance abuse.
  The Drug Free Communities program allows coalitions to put prevention 
research into action in cities and towns nationwide by funding 
initiatives tailored to a community's individual needs.
  In my home State of Delaware, both the New Castle County Community 
Partnership and the Delaware Prevention Coalition's Southern 
Partnership are working to prevent youth substance abuse by helping 
kids do better in school, addressing their behavioral problems, and 
teaching them the dangers associated with drug, alcohol, and tobacco 
use. The Delaware coalitions know that teachers who have high 
expectations of their students and help them develop good social skills 
also help to prevent substance use. And they know that if kids think 
that drugs, alcohol, and tobacco are bad for them, they will be less 
likely to use them.
  Other coalitions are working to engage the religious community. In 
Florida, the Miami Coalition for a Safe and Drug Free Community has 
developed a substance abuse manual for religious leaders so that they 
will know how to identify substance abuse and help people who need 
treatment find it. They are also teaching religious leaders how to 
incorporate messages about substance abuse into their sermons.

[[Page S6530]]

  Still other groups are working with the business community. A 
coalition in Troy, MI, is working with the Chamber of Commerce to form 
an Employee Assistance Program for a consortium of small businesses who 
could not otherwise afford to have one.
  These are just a few examples of the efforts that are making a 
difference and just a few of the reasons why I am proud to support 
community coalitions.
  Drug abuse plagues the entire community. We all feel the 
consequences--crime, homelessness, domestic violence, child abuse, 
despair--and we all need to do something about it. Prevention messages 
must come from all sectors of the community, from a number of different 
voices. Coalitions bring those groups together, give them information 
they need, help develop programs that work, and nurture them to 
success.
  I believe that the Drug Free Communities program is a powerful 
prevention initiative and I urge my colleagues to support its 
reauthorization.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join my 
distinguished colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Drug-
Free Communities Support Program. Drug-Free Community grants have had 
an extremely positive impact on my home State of Oregon, and I know 
that the program has benefitted a great number of communities all 
across this country. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this 
important bill.
  Federal Drug-Free Community grants serve programs in 14 Oregon 
communities in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike. All Drug-Free 
Community grants go directly to communities to support a wide variety 
of innovative drug-abuse prevention programs, ranging from community 
education programs and after-school programs to parenting classes and 
youth camps. Communities are invested in the process through a dollar-
for-dollar match requirement, ensuring their interest in getting 
results, and they are getting results. With help from Federal Drug-Free 
Community dollars, Oregon drug abuse prevention groups are increasing 
citizen participation and they have produced a measurable decrease in 
both adult and youth substance abuse.
  Portland's Regional Drug Initiative, RDI, for example, has promoted 
the establishment of drug-free workplaces among the city's large and 
small employers. Over 3,000 employers have attended an RDI training 
session, and of those, 92 percent have instituted drug-free workplace 
policies, resulting in a 5.5 percent decrease in positive workplace 
drug tests. At the Southern Oregon Drug Awareness program in Medford, 
OR, 320 young people have participated in its violence prevention 
course, and upon completion, two-thirds of those students report having 
no additional discipline referrals in school. These are two fine 
examples of how the Drug-Free Communities Support Program is directly 
responsible for positively impacting lives in Oregon and all across our 
Nation.
  This bill will reauthorize the Drug-Free Communities Support Program 
to provide grants for an additional five years. The bill will also 
authorize the creation of a National Community Anti-Drug Coalition 
Institute, which will serve as a valuable information clearing house 
for programs seeking to improve themselves by using the best practices 
of other successful community programs. The bill also establishes a new 
coalition mentoring program which will enable established coalitions 
like the Oregon Partnership to help communities develop their own local 
drug prevention coalitions.
  Substance prevention works, and drug abuse is becoming less common 
through community prevention efforts, but this is no time to rest on 
our laurels. Over the next fifteen years, the youth population in the 
United States will grow by 21 percent, and we must ensure that the 
programs are in place to prevent these youths from succumbing to drug-
related problems, such as academic failure, drug-related violence, and 
HIV infection. The Drug-Free Communities Support Program is an 
important partner in local efforts to prevent these problems, and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its reauthorization.

                          ____________________