[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 5, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H5345-H5353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2291) to extend the authorization of the Drug-Free
Communities Support Program for an additional 5 years, to authorize a
National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2291
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FIVE-YEAR 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) In 2000, the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater
Cincinnati surveyed more than 47,000 local students in grades
7 through 12. 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 schools and
communities, as well as facilitate the growth of anti-drug
coalitions in communities where such coalitions had not
existed.
(C) 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
[[Page H5346]]
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 over 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.
(D) 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.
(E) 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.
(F) Portland's Regional Drug Initiative (RDI) 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. As a result, there
has been a 5.5 percent decrease in positive workplace drug
tests.
(G) 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.
(H) 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.
(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) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
``(10) $99,000,000 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) 6 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 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 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.''.
(g) Treatment of Funds for Coalitions Representing Certain
Organizations.--Section 1032 of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1532) is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
[[Page H5347]]
``(c) Treatment of Funds for Coalitions Representing
Certain Organizations.--Funds appropriated for the substance
abuse activities of a coalition that includes a
representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian
Health Service, or a tribal government agency with expertise
in the field of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal
funds raised by the coalition for purposes of this
section.''.
(h) Priority in Awarding Grants.--Section 1032 of that Act
(21 U.S.C. 1532) is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) Priority in Awarding Grants.--In awarding grants
under subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), priority shall be given to a
coalition serving economically disadvantaged areas.''.
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;
``(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. Funds appropriated for
the substance abuse activities of a coalition that includes a
representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian
Health Service, or a tribal government agency with expertise
in the field of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal
funds raised by the coalition.
``(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.
``(i) Priority in Awarding Initial Grants.--In awarding
initial grants under this section, priority shall be given to
a coalition that expressly proposes to provide mentorship to
a coalition or aspiring coalition serving economically
disadvantaged areas.''.
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, with emphasis on
the development of coalitions serving economically
disadvantaged areas;
(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 and 2005, $1,000,000.
(3) For each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, $750,000.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATION OF EFFORT.
The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
shall ensure that the same or similar activities are not
carried out, through the use of funds for administrative
costs provided under subchapter II of the National Narcotics
Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.) or funds
provided under section 4 of this Act, by more than one
recipient of such funds.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
General Leave
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 2291.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, it is appropriate and an honor that the first
legislation we are to address upon our return is to fund community-
based drug prevention programs. Nothing is tearing at the social fabric
of our Nation like the abuse of illegal narcotics and alcohol.
Madam Speaker, the Drug-Free Communities Support Program
Reauthorization Act is one of the cornerstones of our national strategy
to reduce the demand for illegal drugs; and its reauthorization has
strong bipartisan support, not only here in the House, but also in
communities across the Nation.
The bill is also a priority for the Bush administration. The Drug-
Free Communities Support Program, administered by the Office of
National Drug Control Policy, works to prevent drug use among youth at
the community level by providing Federal financial incentives for
coalitions to join together at the local level to keep their children
from using drugs.
This legislation will reauthorize the program for 5 years through
fiscal year 2007 and improve the services provided to grantees in
several important ways.
I would like to thank the primary House sponsors of this bill, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), as well as the primary Senate sponsors, Senator Grassley and
Senator Biden, for their bipartisan and bicameral leadership on this
bill.
I would also like to thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), for his work on the bill, and particularly for
his efforts to ensure that drug-free communities' assistance reaches
economically disadvantaged areas.
Madam Speaker, prevention and treatment is probably the most
challenging area of our Nation's narcotic
[[Page H5348]]
strategy, largely because it remains so difficult to determine with
certainty which strategies and programs work and which do not.
The Drug-Free Communities Support Program, however, is one of the few
programs which have clearly had a meaningful impact on reducing drug
abuse by our youth, and it deserves not only our strong support but
also the significant increases in authorized funding which are provided
in the bill.
The program today assists 307 communities in 49 States, from
Ketchikan, Alaska to Kauai, Hawaii; from Old Town, Maine to Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, and to San Juan, Puerto Rico, all of which raise
the majority of their funds from the private sector rather than from
government grants.
I would like to highlight two coalitions from my district with which
I am very familiar: Drug-Free Noble County and the United Way of Allen
County, both in northeast Indiana.
In Fort Wayne, multiple groups, including faith-based organizations,
have joined together to help prevent usage of illegal narcotics. Drug-
Free Noble County, under the commendable leadership of Judge Michael
Kramer and Barry Humble, won national recognition for the excellence of
his PRIDE program, which was supported by Drug-Free Communities Support
funds.
Rural communities often do not have the resources to adequately
address drug prevention issues, and the success of the Drug-Free Noble
County program demonstrates how this program helps build meaningful
partnerships between local grass roots coalitions and the Federal
government in such rural and small town areas.
We also know that the Drug-Free Communities Support Program can make
a meaningful difference from the results obtained by other coalitions
nationwide. In Miami, the percentage of seniors who reported using
marijuana dropped from over 22 percent in 1995 to 9 percent in 1997.
In San Antonio, the average age of first illegal drug use among teens
increased from 9.4 years in 1992 to 13.5 years in 1997. In Nashville,
school attendance and test scores rose measurably as a result of the
efforts of the Nashville Prevention Partnership.
All of these successes support not only the reauthorization of the
program, but also increased funding. This bill supports President
Bush's request to increase the authorization from $43.5 million to
$50.6 million in fiscal year 2002, accompanied by steady increases each
year through fiscal year 2007.
This program has had steadily increasing interest from communities
across the Nation looking for assistance with community anti-drug
efforts. Our purpose in increasing the authorized funding in this bill
was to ensure that adequate funds would be available for grants to
deserving communities.
We have also encouraged ONDCP, as well as our oversight committee, to
conduct careful evaluation and oversight to ensure that the increased
funding does not dilute the recognized quality of drug-free communities
support programs or coalitions.
The bill also provides for several improvements to the Drug-Free
Communities Support Program over the next 5 years, each of which is
aimed at improving the quality of services to be offered to grantees
and local coalitions.
First, we have provided for additional grants to be made available to
successful coalitions for the purpose of mentoring prospective new
coalitions. The program was always intended as one which would foster
grass roots anti-drug activity and interaction, and I believe that this
new provision will work to achieve that goal.
Also, experience has shown that successful coalitions have already
been enlisted to help others in neighboring areas build their own
program. It is not fair to ask the taxpayers of those areas to bear the
cost for others. I believe that Federal assistance is appropriate.
Second, the bill provides for the creation and modest funding to
initially support a new Community Antidrug Coalitions Institute to act
as a national clearinghouse for technical assistance and training to be
provided to local coalitions.
Just as with the grants to the coalitions themselves, the institute
is eventually intended to be financed entirely by the private sector.
Given the significant increase in the prospective number of coalitions,
the committee believed that the creation of the institute was a good
and prudent step to ensure the continued quality and effectiveness of
the work of the drug-free communities participants.
I would finally like to highlight a couple of additional issues which
were addressed in the subcommittee and full committee and are reflected
in the reported bill which is the committee amendment under
consideration this afternoon.
First, although each of the new entities we are creating to assist
grantees is needed and appropriate, it is important to ensure that
there is no duplication of effort among the several entities that will
now be providing assistance, and the committee amendment directs ONDCP
to take steps to prevent such duplication.
Second, the subcommittee has reduced the proposed increase in the
current 3 percent statuary cap for administrative expenses from 8
percent down to 6 percent. An analysis of this issue is available in
the committee's report. We wanted to ensure, however, that the maximum
possible amount of funding in fact is to go to community coalitions.
I very much appreciate the willingness of the bill's sponsors to work
with us on this issue.
Third, the committee bill includes an amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), which I supported, to ensure
that drug-free communities assistance is targeted to economically
disadvantaged areas.
Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton), the chairman, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman
Tauzin), of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for working with us
to move this bill quickly to the floor.
Madam Speaker, I include for the Record an exchange of correspondence
regarding the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The material referred to is as follows:
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Burton: I am writing with regard to H.R.
2291, which the Committee on Government Reform ordered
reported on July 25, 2001. The Committee on Energy and
Commerce was named as an additional Committee of jurisdiction
upon the bill's introduction.
I recognize your desire to bring this bill before the House
in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not exercise
the Committee's right to exercise its referral. By agreeing
to waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy
and Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over
H.R. 2291. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee
reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of
the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference that may be convened on this or similar
legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request
by the Energy and Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R.
2291 or similar legislation.
I request that you include this letter as a part of the
Committee's report on H.R. 2291 and in the Congressional
Record during debate on its provisions. Thank you for your
attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 30,
2001, regarding H.R. 2291, a bill to extend the authorization
of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program.
I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions of this
legislation, and I appreciate your decision not to exercise
your referral in the interest of expediting consideration of
the bill. I agree that by foregoing your right to consider
this legislation, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not
waiving its jurisdiction. I will also support your
Committee's request to seek conferees on provisions of the
bill that fall within your jurisdiction, should the bill go
to a House-Senate conference. Further, as you requested, this
exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report
on the bill and in the Congressional Record as part of the
floor debate.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton,
Chairman.
Madam Speaker, the Drug-Free Communities Act is one of the most
successful demand reduction programs and
[[Page H5349]]
has had a meaningful impact on local communities across the country. I
strongly support its reauthorization and urge my colleagues to support
the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, as the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, it gives me great
pleasure to express my wholehearted support of H.R. 2291, which
authorizes the highly successful and highly popular Drug-Free
Communities Support Program for an additional 5 years.
From its original enactment in 1997, the Drug-Free Communities Act
has enjoyed remarkable bipartisan support in Congress. The concept of
providing direct matching grants and technical assistance to community-
based coalitions with a demonstrated will and capacity to combat
substance abuse has broad appeal to Members on both sides of the aisle.
Communities across the country have rallied to the challenge by
making a long-term commitment to fighting substance abuse through
broad-based community anti-drug coalitions. The Drug-Free Communities
Support Program is unique and important because it recognizes that
substance abuse does not just affect individual users and their loved
ones. Substance abuse has a cumulative impact on communities in every
aspect of community life.
No one has a better reason or incentive to fight the spread of
substance abuse than the people who live, work, and serve in those
communities.
The Drug-Free Communities Support Program reinforces this inherent
incentive, encouraging all sectors of a community to coalesce at the
grass roots level around the objective of substance abuse prevention
and anti-drug education. The bill before us both renews and amplifies
our commitment to this approach.
H.R. 2291 reflects a great deal of time and effort put forth by the
bill's authors, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and Senators Grassley and Biden, who have
worked hand-in-hand with the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the
Community Antidrug Coalitions of America to produce a bill that, like
the original Drug-Free Communities Act, deserves the support of all
Members in this body.
Their collective efforts have given us a bill that not only provides
for a 5-year extension of the existing Drug-Free Communities-based
Grant Program, but also significantly increases the funding levels for
the program in fiscal year 2002 and in each of the out-years.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) must be congratulated for his
efforts in making this a priority of our subcommittee; and I do
appreciate, and I know our entire committee and this Congress
appreciates, the bipartisan spirit in which he led us through the
process of bringing this bill.
{time} 1430
As we put it out of committee, moreover, the bill incorporates an
amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a fellow member
of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, that further augments the
authorization levels for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Increasing the authorization levels will afford us the flexibility to
allow the program to expand, to meet greater-than-expected demands
should that circumstance arise. Apart from providing for additional
grant money, H.R. 2291 also augments the existing grant program in
three very important ways. First, it authorizes coalitions that have
completed the 5-year funding cycle to apply immediately for renewal
grants subject to an increased match requirement. Second, it creates a
new supplemental mentoring program to enable mature coalitions to
mentor young and emerging ones. Third, it provides an additional $2
million to establish a national community anti-drug coalition institute
for the purpose of stimulating new coalition activity and disseminating
state-of-the-art research and technical assistance to coalitions
nationally.
In my view, Madam Speaker, the goals of providing mentoring support
to emerging coalitions and stimulating new coalition activity are
especially important because, in spite of the program's success to
date, not all communities affected by the problems of substance abuse
have been able to participate in a drug-free community support program.
Indeed, even while the increased funding levels in H.R. 2291 will
enable more eligible coalitions to participate, more money alone will
not undo the hard truth described in the timeless song, ``God Bless the
Child.'' ``Them that's got shall have. Them that's not shall lose.''
Sadly, Madam Speaker, that poignant lyric aptly describes the tragic
plight of many economically disadvantaged communities that are in the
most desperate need of assistance in their fight against the dreadful
menace of substance abuse.
A case in point is my own district in Baltimore City. Few, if any,
areas in the Nation have been as severely affected by the scourge of
drugs as some of the neighborhoods that I represent in Baltimore. Yet
despite serious efforts to establish and maintain a community anti-drug
coalition capable of qualifying for a drug-free communities matching
grant, no funding has yet been awarded to a coalition in the Baltimore
area.
At the same time, Madam Speaker, it is plainly ironic and clearly
problematic from a public policy standpoint that the very devastation
caused by substance abuse also places communities like Baltimore City
at serious disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for matching
grants. I tell my colleagues firsthand that the lack of drug-free
communities coalition in Baltimore City is by no meanings a function of
insufficient will. Fundamentally, it is a question of resources.
We must find a way to enable disadvantaged communities to exercise
their will to make their neighborhoods and keep their young children
drug-free. An amendment that I authored during the mark up of H.R. 2291
in the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources seeks to address this problem. Quite simply, its provisions
amend the original bill to target base grants, supplemental mentoring
grants, and institute support to coalitions that seek to serve
economically disadvantaged areas.
By giving priorities to such coalitions, economically depressed areas
such as my own district in Baltimore City can begin to reap the
benefits that the drug-free community support program is providing
already to hundreds of communities across this great Nation.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I wanted to congratulate the bill's
authors for their hard work. I also thank the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Police and Human Resources, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), for his support of H.R. 2291 and
for assisting with my amendment.
I look forward to our moving H.R. 2291 a step closer to enactment
today. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this very, very
important and effective legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) whose efforts in Cincinnati were an
early model for this and who, without his persistence at a time when
Congress was not adapting too many new programs, managed to move this
bill through and is really the father of this legislation.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time and for his strong support of this program.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 2291, legislation introduced with
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) to reauthorize the Drug-free
Communities Act. This legislation is both bipartisan and bicameral. We
have worked very closely with Senator Grassley and Senator Biden to
draft this reauthorization. I would like to thank and credit all of
them for their efforts in bringing this consensus bill to the floor
today.
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr.
[[Page H5350]]
Souder) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) of the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources for
their strong personal commitment to reducing substance abuse in their
communities and around this country. They bring a lot of knowledge and
passion to this issue, also for their good work to improve this
legislation as it worked through the process. I would like to thank the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) to not just improve the legislation, but to move it
expeditiously through the subcommittee and through the committee and
also to achieve a waiver from another important committee of this
Congress to get this to the floor today.
Madam Speaker, almost every American family has felt the pain of
substance abuse. We are here to talk about a very positive, proactive
approach to lessening that pain. The Drug-free Communities Act is an
innovative program first established in 1997. It establishes a matching
grant program to support and encourage local communities that have
shown that they have a comprehensive, long-term commitment to reducing
substance abuse among young people. The grants which have to be matched
dollar for dollar with non-Federal resources, have now been awarded
directly to 307 of these community coalitions in 49 States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
The drug-fee communities act takes a very different approach than
this Congress has taken in the past on the so-called war on drugs.
Instead of trading new Federal bureaucracies, instead of looking for
solutions outside of our borders, this legislation and program deals
directly with local coalitions working to reduce the demand for drugs
in communities through effective education and prevention. And it is
working.
Coalitions are successful because they devise prevention strategies
and methods specific to the communities and because they are inclusive,
involving all of those who influence a young person's decisions.
In his Rose Garden speech announcing the new nominee for ONDCP
director, the President made the point well that the most effective way
to reduce the supply of drugs to America is to dry up the demand. He
specifically mentioned the Drug-free Communities Act as an effective
tool to achieve demand reduction.
I am pleased to say that these community-based coalitions around the
country are making real progress. In my own community in Cincinnati,
the coalition for drug-free Greater Cincinnati has now trained over
6,000 parents in how to talk to their children about drugs and have
launched a new program to reach even more parents. We have partnered
with local TV, radio and print media to implement one of the most
aggressive anti-drug media campaigns in the country. Last year alone,
over $1 million of free public-service time was donated to our effort.
We also fielded the most comprehensive drug use survey ever done in
our area to make sure our efforts are truly targeted. Our own survey
shows there is a very strong correlation between the number of ads our
teens see, these public-service ads, and their choice to remain
substance free. We have also spearheaded the faith community initiative
which has trained over 100 local congregations to implement substance
abuse prevention programs in their churches, mosques and synagogues.
Our student Congress now involves young people from over 25 junior
and senior high schools. They are ambassadors who go back to their
schools and promote Teen Institute and other good programs in the
schools at the peer level. Our drug-free work-place task force has led
to over 100 new certified drug-free work places in our area alone.
These are the types of efforts, Madam Speaker, this legislation can
help spread throughout our Nation.
H.R. 2291 continues funding for the Drug-Free Communities Act through
fiscal year 2007. It also authorizes a new national anti-drug coalition
institute which provides needed education, training and technical
assistance to coalitions. The institute will be vital, I believe, in
developing and disseminating evaluation and testing mechanisms to
assist coalitions in the very important and sometimes overlooked area
of measuring and assessing our performance in the area of prevention.
The ultimate goal of the Drug-free Communities Act is to get as much
bang for the buck as possible and to send dollars and assistance
directly into community efforts with a minimal amount being spent on
administrative expenses. I am thus pleased that the bill continues to
cap administrative costs at a modest level, although some adjustments
were made that I think were probably necessary.
It is important to keep in mind that the Drug-free Communities Act
was intended to be a catalyst for communities and not a steady stream
of funding to cover coalition operating expenses. Therefore, coalitions
must start over and reapply for drug-free community grants after an
initial 5-year period and must match 125 percent of any new grants, not
just 100 percent. Thereafter, it goes up to a 150 percent march. This
in effect will encourage coalitions to grow their programs and become
less reliant on Federal dollars.
Madam Speaker, some of our larger, more successful coalitions spend a
lot of time sharing information and practices with smaller, sometimes-
struggling coalitions. That, and trying to get off the ground by these
smaller coalitions, is a real struggle.
I am pleased this bill acknowledges this and builds on it. H.R. 2291
includes an optional $75,000 supplemental to the drug-free communities
grant application that would foster mentoring among these coalitions.
These grants are meant to supercede the basic drug-free communities
grant program, and only those meeting very strict criteria will be
eligible to be mentors. By the way, this is capped at 5 percent of the
total funding.
The bill also includes language suggested by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) that will ensure that economically depressed
areas will continue to be served by the drug-free communities program.
We talked about that a moment ago. Specifically, that will be helpful
when it comes to mentoring. I applaud the gentleman for his efforts in
this area.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to thank once again the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), Senator Grassley and Senator Biden, and of
course my partner in this, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for
crafting a bill that will continue to redo the demand for drugs in
America through what we know works. I urge my colleagues to join us in
supporting the continuation of this effective approach to substance
abuse.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I begin by thanking the sponsors of this
legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for their leadership on this very critical
issue.
I am very pleased today to rise in support of this legislation
because it truly has bipartisan support.
H.R. 2291, the Drug-free Communities Support Program Reauthorization
Act, address one of the most serious problems we have in America today,
the scourge of drug use and drug abuse. Unfortunately, many of our
efforts in the war against drugs have been very disappointing.
Fortunately, however, this program is a notable expect. It focus on two
very important elements: first, it focuses on children, early
intervention to prevent young people from getting involved in drugs,
prevent young people from developing the drug habit. Second and
critically and we have heard talk about this today, it focuses on local
communities. Not all the knowledge resides here in Washington. And it
is very important that we allow local communities, coalitions to come
together to provide solutions that make sense in their neighborhoods.
At the heart of this program are grants to broad-based local
coalition groups composed of representatives of children, parents,
businesses, the media, law enforcement, religious and other civic
groups, health care professionals and others all working together to
combat drug abuse in their communities.
[[Page H5351]]
In my own district, an organization called the Community Services
Coalition receives Federal funds which they match to serve these useful
purposes. According to the project director, the program has identified
some of the risk factors that lead to drug abuse and drug use. It has
been a benefit not just to the individuals who are affected but also to
their families and to the larger community. The grant helps identify
successful programs and also helps identify gaps in services because
sometimes our intentions do not meet our efforts. We also need to
identify areas which require further monitoring.
Madam Speaker, I think this program is an excellent program. I am
very pleased to support it on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1445
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a cosponsor of this legislation.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, this program is rooted in real local
experience. About 5 years ago the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and
I were preparing notes. We told each other how successful our efforts
were in our local communities. In.
My case, one community in particular, where there had been a
coalition which had brought together a very diverse group of people
from law enforcement, from schools, elected officials, from the
religious community, businessmen, parents and students, we asked
ourselves in this battle against substance abuse if these were examples
of success in Cincinnati and in my case in Troy, Michigan, how could we
spread this success throughout the country. So it was the local
experience that was the germination of this idea and which led with the
help of so many others to the 1997 law.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for working with
us in taking this program farther down the road because now, instead of
a few coalitions, there are over 300, well over 300, which have been
supported with seed money, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman)
indicated.
This is not an effort to give people or coalitions or groups money
and then they use that money; they have to use their own resources,
their own talents, their own imagination. This is seed money.
So now, while 10 years ago there was one coalition in the district I
represent, now there are seven, plus two umbrella organizations. We
have learned from this experience, and the gentleman from Indiana and
the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Ohio have enumerated
that.
We have expanded the authorization levels and we have encouraged
self-sufficiency by making sure if there is a further grant, there is
additional match. We have also made sure that there is a mentoring
program here so that successful entities can parent those that are in
their infancy.
Madam Speaker, as mentioned, we have added a new idea, a training and
technical assistance institute. I also want to congratulate the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) or say a word about that because
it is so important that this effort spread in those communities, often
so much in need where there is not perhaps the immediate access to
resources, receive the support that is necessary. So the amendment of
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is an important amendment.
Let me just close by saying, we all know there is no magic wand to
this effort against drug abuse. We all know there is no single answer.
We all know that we have to strive to find the answers. We owe it to
our children, to our grandchildren, to our friends, to people of all
ages at all places, in all circumstances. This is an effort to say to
the country, this Congress is serious.
We extend a hand. We extend some resources. Ultimately the job is up
to the community. So far so good; and we hope with the help of this
program there will be more good efforts in this country to tackle this
continuing serious problem, drug abuse.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who has been at the
forefront of this fight.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I thank the gentleman for his excellent bipartisan work with
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) on this important bill which
sailed through the Committee on Government Reform, on its merits, for
good reason.
Madam Speaker, I am indebted to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for taking a good idea
and nationalizing it. This bill deals with alcohol abuse, drug abuse,
tobacco abuse, and researchers know, perhaps it is in the biology of
young people, to get a person hooked, get them hooked when they are
young. So it is impossible to overemphasize the importance of reaching
people early.
This is an extraordinary bill for the way it leverages almost
nothing. It essentially goes into communities and says, here is a
little bit of money, let the community do it. What we are doing here
with these grants is to say that communities can do far more cheaply
and devotedly what it takes a lot more professionals to do if we do not
get in there early.
I want to mention a grant that we have in the District of Columbia.
We have only one; it is a $100,000 grant. The grants are very
competitive. The grant in the District of Columbia is an example of
what the faith-based community can do. We have an enormously
controversial faith-based bill here, full of constitutional traps,
discriminatory patterns.
But look at what the D.C. Community Prevention Partnership is doing
with none of that controversy. It increases awareness of faith-based
institutions and effective prevention principles.
So take the churches and the faith-based organizations and teach them
about the principles, and the churches will do the rest. It also links
community-based youth-serving organizations with neighborhood faith-
based institutions. Again, none of the controversy, but leveraging
faith-based institutions.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate Members on their authorship of this
bill.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), who sits on the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy and Human Resources, and was very instrumental in making
sure that this legislation was appropriately amended.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
2291, the Drug-Free Communities Support Program reauthorization. I also
commend the sponsors, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). I also commend the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for
their cooperation in moving this legislation to the floor.
Madam Speaker, I also acknowledge and thank the recently appointed
drug czar, former Representative Hutchinson, for visiting with me to
discuss these issues back at home in Illinois.
I am pleased to support the reauthorization of this vital program
because it goes a long way towards reducing drug use in our
communities.
All of us are aware of the tremendous drug use problems. We are aware
of the fact that even young people today are beginning to use habit-
forming drugs at an early age. When we talk about getting a bang for
the buck or getting the most for the dollars that we spend, what we are
really doing is taking a little bit of money, no more than $100,000,
but we are empowering large numbers of people to become engaged, to
become involved, to interact with each other, to discuss issues, to
find ways to combat a problem.
Madam Speaker, I suggest this is one of the most effective
utilizations of small amounts of money that we could ever have. I thank
the Committee on Government Reform for accepting my amendment. I thank
the chairman and ranking member for their tremendous leadership in
moving this legislation.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H5352]]
Madam Speaker, in closing, not long after we held a hearing on this
legislation, Judge Michael Kramer of Noble County, Indiana, sent me a
note. He testified at our hearing. He talked about how he had to step
out of the role as a judge and do things in the community, to do some
prevention-type things because he had seen so much pain come before
him. One of the things that he said in his note was he said, we have
been doing a pretty good job, and he happens to be from the district of
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), and we want to share what we
are doing with people in Baltimore and other areas.
Going back to what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) talked
about, the whole idea of people working together to address this
problem, here was a wonderful judge in, I am sure, a rural area of our
country extending his hand to help us out in the City of Baltimore. The
fact is that this is what this is all about: trying to give people an
opportunity to affect their lives, to be empowered in their own
community and take control of situations.
Madam Speaker, as I listened to the many witnesses that came before
us, it was clear that there are so many people that want to do
something, and they have two problems: One, they need a limited amount
of resources; two, a lot of times they need somebody to help them, to
show them how to do what they have to do. This legislation addresses
both of those issues very effectively.
As I said in the Committee on Government Reform, and I will say it no
matter where I go, out of the many things that I have been a part of in
this Congress, this is one of the most important things. One of the
things that this legislation does, Madam Speaker, is clearly it saves a
lot of lives and it saves a lot of pain. So I am very, very pleased to
urge this House to support this legislation unanimously.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Souder) and the ranking member for all of their support for
getting this legislation to the floor. I urge that we adopt this
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this is a worldwide battle. It is not a battle just in
the United States. Yesterday five Colombian national police were
painfully gassed in police headquarters in large part because of a war
caused in Colombia because of American drug consumption.
Last week some Members were in Venezuela at the Andean parliament
session to discuss antinarcotics efforts in the Andean nations where
most of our cocaine and heroin comes from. As they look at creative
ways to reduce the amount of poppy and coca that is grown, as they look
for ways to reduce the consumption in their area, what we do in America
has a direct impact on South America and Central America.
Madam Speaker, we went up to Pucalpa and we saw in the Amazonian
jungle fires coming up throughout this national park as peasants
stripped the woods along the Amazon basin in order to plant more coca
for American consumption.
While Plan Colombia is important and the Andean Initiative is
important, and law enforcement efforts are important and interdiction
efforts are important, the fact is, unless we concentrate more
aggressively on prevention and treatment in America where the demand
begins, we cannot make any other program work. The demand is beginning
here, and this bill is the anchor of our Federal prevention efforts in
America. This is a desperate battle we cannot afford to lose.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2291, the Reauthorization of the Drug Free Communities Act (DFCA). I
want to commend my colleague, Representative Portman, for introducing
this important legislation.
This program is a major component of our national demand reduction
strategy. Over the last five years, through its program of distributing
grants to community organizations, the DFCA has demonstrated itself to
be a resounding success.
This success is due in part to the nature of the grant recipients,
various anti-drug coalitions. These coalitions are community groups
containing representatives of youth, parents, private industry, media
and press, law enforcement, health care professionals and religious and
civic leaders working together to provide a cohesive, effective anti-
drug message and strategy.
H.R. 2219 reauthorizes the (DFCA) for an additional five years, and
increases its overall funding levels by $10 million each year. Prior
awardees would be able to apply for new grants, in addition to being
eligible for ``mentoring grants'' in order to assist new coalitions
with their initial start-up efforts.
Madam Speaker, the threat posed by illegal drugs is one of the
largest national security threats facing our nation.
In addition to costs associated with supply and demand reduction,
drug use costs our nation billions each year in health care expenses
and lost productivity. Moreover, it also has intangible costs in terms
of broken families and destroyed lives.
Our children are on the front lines as victims of the drug war. They
are the primary target of both the drug producers and the sellers. The
(DFCA) has a proven track record of success in reducing demand for
drugs among our younger population. Given that today's adolescents are
potentially the addicts of tomorrow, I wholeheartedly support extending
and expanding a Federal program that has demonstrated past success in
our war on drugs.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to give this bipartisan bill their
wholehearted support.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, substance abuse is one of our Nation's most
pervasive problems. It 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 although we may be unaware. 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. It currently
funds more than 300 community coalitions across the country that work
to reduce drug, alcohol, and tobacco use.
And they are making a difference, which is just one of the reasons
that I am proud to support this important bill reauthorizing the
program.
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
[[Page H5353]]
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.
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2291, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________