[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 30, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8962-H8972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2003
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2086) to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2086
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Office of
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003''.
(b) Amendment of Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 1998.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998
(Public Law 105-277; 21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; references; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Amendments to definitions.
Sec. 3. Amendments relating to appointment and duties of Director and
Deputy Directors.
Sec. 4. Amendments relating to coordination with other agencies.
Sec. 5. Development, submission, implementation, and assessment of
National Drug Control Strategy.
Sec. 6. High intensity drug trafficking areas program.
Sec. 7. Funding for certain high intensity drug trafficking areas.
Sec. 8. Amendments relating to Counter-Drug Technology Assessment
Center.
Sec. 9. Repeals.
Sec. 10. National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign.
Sec. 11. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 12. Extension of termination date.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS.
(a) Amendments to Definitions.--Section 702 (21 U.S.C.
1701) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (F);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (G)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) interventions for drug abuse and dependence; and
``(I) international drug control coordination and
cooperation with respect to activities described in this
paragraph.''.
(2) in paragraph (9), by striking ``implicates'' and
inserting ``indicates'';
(3) in paragraph (10)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) domestic drug law enforcement, including law
enforcement directed at drug users.''; and
(4) in paragraph (11)--
(A) by inserting before the semicolon in subparagraph (A)
the following: ``(including source country programs, and law
enforcement outside the United States)'';
(B) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon in
subparagraph (B);
(C) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting a period; and
(D) by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 703(b)(3) (21 U.S.C.
1702(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(G)'' and inserting
``(H)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking ``(C)'' and inserting ``(D)''; and
(B) by striking ``and subparagraph (D) of section
702(11)''.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO APPOINTMENT AND DUTIES OF
DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTORS.
(a) Designation of Other Officers.--Section 704(a)(3) (21
U.S.C. 1703(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``permanent employee'' and inserting
``officer or employee''; and
(2) by striking ``serve as the Director'' and inserting
``serve as the acting Director''.
(b) Responsibilities of Director.--Section 704(b) (21
U.S.C. 1703(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``Federal departments and
agencies engaged in drug enforcement,'' and inserting
``National Drug Control Program agencies,'';
(2) by inserting ``and'' at the end of paragraph (12);
(3) by striking paragraphs (13) and (14); and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (15) as paragraph (13).
(c) Review and Certification of National Drug Control
Program Budget.--Section 704(c)(3) (21 U.S.C. 1703(c)(3)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Specific requests.--The Director shall not confirm
the adequacy of any budget request that--
``(i) requests funding for Federal law enforcement
activities that do not adequately compensate for transfers of
drug enforcement resources and personnel to law enforcement
and investigation activities not related to drug enforcement
as determined by the Director;
``(ii) requests funding for law enforcement activities on
the borders of the United States that do not adequately
direct resources to drug interdiction and enforcement as
determined by the Director;
``(iii) requests funding for drug treatment activities that
do not provide adequate result and accountability measures as
determined by the Director;
``(iv) requests funding for any activities of the Safe and
Drug Free Schools Program that do not include a clear
antidrug message or purpose intended to reduce drug use;
``(v) requests funding to enforce section 484(r)(1) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(r)(1)) with
respect to convictions for drug-related offenses not
occurring during a period of enrollment for which the student
was receiving any Federal grant, loan, or work assistance;
``(vi) requests funding for drug treatment activities that
do not adequately support and enhance Federal drug treatment
programs and capacity, as determined by the Director; or
``(vii) requests funding for fiscal year 2005 for
activities of the Department of Education, unless it is
accompanied by a report setting forth a plan for providing
expedited consideration of student loan applications for all
individuals who submitted an application for any Federal
grant, loan, or work assistance that was rejected or denied
pursuant to 484(r)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1091(r)(1)) by reason of a conviction for a drug-
related offense not occurring during a period of enrollment
for which the individual was receiving any Federal grant,
loan, or work assistance.'';
(3) in subparagraph (D)(iii), as so redesignated, by
inserting ``and the authorizing committees of Congress for
the Office'' after ``House of Representatives''; and
(4) in subparagraph (E)(ii)(bb), as so redesignated, by
inserting ``and the authorizing committees of Congress for
the Office'' after ``House of Representatives''.
(d) Reprogramming and Transfer Requests.--Section
704(c)(4)(A) (21 U.S.C. 1703(c)(4)(A)) is amended by striking
``$5,000,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000''.
(e) Powers of Director.--Section 704(d) (21 U.S.C. 1703(d))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8)(D), by striking ``have been authorized
by Congress;'' and inserting ``authorized by law;'';
(2) in paragraph (9)--
(A) by inserting ``notwithstanding any other provision of
law,'' after ``(9)''; and
(B) by striking ``Strategy; and'' and inserting ``Strategy
and notify the authorizing Committees of Congress for the
Office of any fund control notice issued;'';
(3) in paragraph (10), by striking ``(22 U.S.C. 2291j).''
and inserting ``(22 U.S.C. 2291j) and section 706 of the
Department of State Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
(22 U.S.C. 229j-l);'';
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(11) not later than August 1 of each year, submit to the
President a report, and transmit copies of the report to the
Secretary of State and the authorizing Committees of Congress
for the Office, that--
``(A) provides the Director's assessment of which countries
are major drug transit countries or major illicit drug
producing countries as defined in section 481(e) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
``(B) provides the Director's assessment of whether each
country identified under subparagraph (A) has cooperated
fully with the United States or has taken adequate steps on
its own to achieve full compliance with the goals and
objectives established by the United Nations Convention
Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances and otherwise has assisted in reducing the supply
of illicit drugs to the United States; and
``(C) provides the Director's assessment of whether
application of procedures set forth in section 490(a) through
(h) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as provided in
section 706 of the Department of State Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003, is warranted with respect to countries the
Director assesses have not cooperated fully; and
``(12) appoint a United States Interdiction Coordinator
under subsection (i).''.
(f) United States Interdiction Coordinator.--Section 704
(21 U.S.C. 1703) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
[[Page H8963]]
``(i) United States Interdiction Coordinator.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be in the Office a United
States Interdiction Coordinator, who shall be appointed by
the Director and shall perform duties determined by the
Director with respect to coordination of efforts to interdict
illicit drugs from the United States.
``(2) Appointment.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law (except subparagraph (B)), the Director may appoint any
individual to serve as the United States Interdiction
Coordinator.
``(B) Limitation.--The Director may not appoint to such
position any individual who concurrently serves as the head
of any other Federal department or agency or any subdivision
thereof with responsibility for narcotics interdiction
activities, except the counternarcotics officer of the
Department of Homeland Security appointed under section 878
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 458).''.
(g) Requirement for South American Heroin Strategy.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug
Control Policy shall submit to the Congress a comprehensive
strategy that addresses the increased threat from South
American heroin, and in particular Colombian heroin.
(2) Contents.--The strategy shall--
(A) include opium eradication efforts to eliminate the
problem at the source to prevent it from reoccurring before
the heroin enters the stream of commerce;
(B) interdiction and precursor chemical controls;
(C) demand reduction and treatment;
(D) provisions that ensure the maintenance at current
levels of efforts to eradicate coca in Colombia; and
(E) assessment of the level of additional funding and
resources necessary to simultaneously address the threat from
South American heroin and the threat from Colombian coca.
SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COORDINATION WITH OTHER
AGENCIES.
Section 705 (21 U.S.C. 1704) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``abuse'';
(2) by amending paragraph (3) of subsection (a) to read as
follows:
``(3) Required reports.--
``(A) Secretaries of the interior and agriculture.--The
Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior shall, by July 1 of
each year, jointly submit to the Director and the authorizing
Committees of Congress for the Office an assessment of the
quantity of illegal drug cultivation and manufacturing in the
United States on lands owned or under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Government for the preceding year.
``(B) Attorney general.--The Attorney General shall, by
July 1 of each year, submit to the Director and the
authorizing Committees of Congress for the Office information
for the preceding year regarding the number and type of--
``(i) arrests for drug violations;
``(ii) prosecutions for drug violations by United States
Attorneys; and
``(iii) the number and type of seizures of drugs by each
component of the Department seizing drugs, as well as
statistical information on the geographic areas of such
seizures.
``(C) Secretary of homeland security.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall, by July 1 of each year, submit to
the Director and the authorizing Committees of Congress for
the Office information for the preceding year regarding--
``(i) the number and type of seizures of drugs by each
component of the Department seizing drugs, as well as
statistical information on the geographic areas of such
seizures; and
``(ii) the number of air and maritime patrol hours
undertaken by each component of the Department primarily
dedicated to drug supply reduction missions.
``(D) Secretary of defense.--The Secretary of Defense
shall, by July 1 of each year, submit to the Director and the
authorizing Committees of Congress for the Office information
for the preceding year regarding the number of air and
maritime patrol hours primarily dedicated to drug supply
reduction missions undertaken by each component of the
Department of Defense.''; and
(3) in subsection (b)(2)(B), by striking ``Program.'' and
inserting ``Strategy.''.
SEC. 5. DEVELOPMENT, SUBMISSION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND
ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY.
Section 706 (21 U.S.C. 1705) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 706. DEVELOPMENT, SUBMISSION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND
ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY.
``(a) Timing, Contents, and Process for Development and
Submission of National Drug Control Strategy.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than February 1 of each year,
the President shall submit to Congress a National Drug
Control Strategy, which shall set forth a comprehensive plan
for reducing illicit drug use and the consequences of illicit
drug use in the United States by reducing the demand for
illegal drugs, limiting the availability of illegal drugs,
and conducting law enforcement activities with respect to
illegal drugs.
``(2) Contents.--
``(A) In general.--The National Drug Control Strategy
submitted under paragraph (1) shall include--
``(i) comprehensive, research-based, long-range, and
quantifiable goals for reducing illicit drug use and the
consequences of illicit drug use in the United States;
``(ii) annual objectives and strategy for demand reduction,
supply reduction, and law enforcement activities, specific
targets to accomplish long-range quantifiable reduction in
illicit drug use as determined by the Director, and specific
measurements to evaluate progress toward the targets and
strategic goals;
``(iii) a strategy to reduce the availability and purity of
illegal drugs and the level of drug-related crime in the
United States;
``(iv) an assessment of Federal effectiveness in achieving
the National Drug Control Strategy for the previous year,
including--
``(I) a specific evaluation of whether the objectives and
targets for reducing illicit drug use for the previous year
were met and reasons for the success or failure of the
previous year's Strategy; and
``(II) an assessment of the availability and purity of
illegal drugs and the level of drug-related crime in the
United States;
``(v) notification of any program or budget priorities that
the Director expects to significantly change from the current
Strategy over the next five years;
``(vi) a review of international, State, local, and private
sector drug control activities to ensure that the United
States pursues well-coordinated and effective drug control at
all levels of government;
``(vii) such statistical data and information as the
Director deems appropriate to demonstrate and assess trends
relating to illicit drug use, the effects and consequences
thereof, supply reduction, demand reduction, drug-related law
enforcement, and the implementation of the National Drug
Control Strategy; and
``(viii) a supplement reviewing the activities of each
individual National Drug Control Program agency during the
previous year with respect to the National Drug Control
Strategy and the Director's assessment of the progress of
each National Drug Control Program agency in meeting its
responsibilities under the National Drug Control Strategy.
``(B) Classified information.--Any contents of the National
Drug Control Strategy that involve information properly
classified under criteria established by an Executive order
shall be presented to Congress separately from the rest of
the National Drug Control Strategy.
``(C) Selection of data and information.--In selecting data
and information for inclusion under subparagraph (A), the
Director shall ensure--
``(i) the inclusion of data and information that will
permit analysis of current trends against previously compiled
data and information where the Director believes such
analysis enhances long-term assessment of the National Drug
Control Strategy; and
``(ii) the inclusion of data and information to permit a
standardized and uniform assessment of the effectiveness of
drug treatment programs in the United States.
``(3) Process for development and submission.--
``(A) Consultation.--In developing and effectively
implementing the National Drug Control Strategy, the
Director--
``(i) shall consult with--
``(I) the heads of the National Drug Control Program
agencies;
``(II) Congress;
``(III) State and local officials;
``(IV) private citizens and organizations with experience
and expertise in demand reduction;
``(V) private citizens and organizations with experience
and expertise in supply reduction;
``(VI) private citizens and organizations with experience
and expertise in law enforcement; and
``(VII) appropriate representatives of foreign governments;
``(ii) with the concurrence of the Attorney General, may
require the El Paso Intelligence Center to undertake specific
tasks or projects to implement the National Drug Control
Strategy;
``(iii) with the concurrence of the Director of Central
Intelligence and the Attorney General, may request that the
National Drug Intelligence Center undertake specific tasks or
projects to implement the National Drug Control Strategy; and
``(iv) may make recommendations to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services on research that supports or advances the
National Drug Control Strategy.
``(B) Recommendations.--Recommendations under subparagraph
(A)(iv) may include recommendations of research to be
performed at the National Institutes of Health, including the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, or any other appropriate
agency within the Department of Health and Human Services.
``(C) Inclusion in strategy.--The National Drug Control
Strategy under this subsection shall include a list of each
entity consulted under subparagraph (A)(i).
``(4) Submission of revised strategy.--The President may
submit to Congress a revised National Drug Control Strategy
that meets the requirements of this section--
``(A) at any time, upon a determination by the President,
in consultation with the Director, that the National Drug
Control
[[Page H8964]]
Strategy in effect is not sufficiently effective; or
``(B) if a new President or Director takes office.
``(b) Performance Measurement System.--Not later than
February 1 of each year, the Director shall submit to
Congress a description of the national drug control
performance measurement system, designed in consultation with
affected National Drug Control Program agencies, that
includes performance measures for the National Drug Control
Strategy and activities of National Drug Control Program
agencies related to the National Drug Control Strategy.''.
SEC. 6. HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 707 (21 U.S.C. 1706) is amended to
read as follows:
``SEC. 707. HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Office a
program to be known as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas Program (in this section referred to as the `Program').
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Program are the
following:
``(1) To reduce drug availability and facilitate
cooperative efforts between Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies in areas with significant drug
trafficking problems that harmfully impact other parts of the
Nation.
``(2) To provide assistance to agencies to come together to
assess regional threats, design coordinated strategies to
combat those threats, share intelligence, and develop and
implement coordinated initiatives to implement the
strategies.
``(c) Designation.--The Director, upon consultation with
the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, heads of the National Drug
Control Program agencies, and the Governor of each applicable
State, may designate any specified area of the United States
as a high intensity drug trafficking area.
``(d) Factors for Consideration.--
``(1) In general.--In considering whether to designate an
area under this section as a high intensity drug trafficking
area, the Director shall consider, in addition to such other
criteria as the Director considers to be appropriate, the
extent to which--
``(A) the area is a major center of illegal drug
production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution for
the United States as compared to other areas of the United
States;
``(B) State and local law enforcement agencies have
committed resources to respond to the drug trafficking
problem in the area, thereby indicating a determination to
respond aggressively to the problem;
``(C) drug production, manufacturing, importation, or
distribution in the area is having a significant harmful
impact in other areas of the United States; and
``(D) a significant increase in allocation of Federal
resources is necessary to respond adequately to drug-related
activities in the area.
``(2) Considerations.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), in
considering whether an area is a major center of illegal drug
production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution as
compared to other areas of the United States, the Director
shall consider--
``(A) the quantity of illicit drug traffic entering or
transiting the area originating in foreign countries;
``(B) the quantity of illicit drugs produced in the area;
``(C) the number of Federal, State, and local arrests,
prosecutions, and convictions for drug trafficking and
distribution offenses in the area;
``(D) the degree to which the area is a center for the
activities of national drug trafficking organizations; and
``(E) such other criteria as the Director considers
appropriate.
``(e) Southwest Border.--The Director may not designate any
county contiguous to the international land border with
Mexico as part of any high intensity drug trafficking area
other than as part of a single Southwest Border high
intensity drug trafficking area.
``(f) Removal From Designation.--The Director may remove an
area or portion of an area from designation as a high
intensity drug trafficking area under this section upon
determination that the area or portion of an area no longer
is a high intensity drug trafficking area, considering the
factors in subsections (d) and (e) in addition to such other
criteria as the Director considers to be appropriate.
``(g) Authority of the Director.--After making such a
designation and in order to provide Federal assistance to the
area so designated, the Director may--
``(1) obligate such sums as appropriated for the Program,
in accordance with subsection (h);
``(2) direct the temporary reassignment of Federal
personnel to such area, subject to the approval of the head
of the department or agency that employs such personnel; and
``(3) take any other action authorized under section 704 to
provide increased Federal assistance to those areas.
``(h) Allocation of Funding.--In obligating sums
appropriated for the Program, the Director shall comply with
the following:
``(1) 30 percent set aside.--The Director shall expend no
less than 30 percent of the amounts appropriated under this
section in the seven high intensity drug trafficking areas
(excluding the Southwest Border high intensity drug
trafficking area) for which the Director determines that
Program activities with respect to such areas will have the
greatest impact on reducing overall drug traffic in the
United States.
``(2) 25 percent set aside.--The Director shall expend no
less than 25 percent of the amounts appropriated under this
section in nine other high intensity drug trafficking areas
(excluding the Southwest Border high intensity drug
trafficking area) for which the Director determines that
Program activities with respect to such areas will have the
next greatest impact on reducing overall drug traffic in the
United States.
``(3) Southwest border area.--
``(A) 20 percent set aside.--The Director shall expend no
less than 20 percent of the amounts appropriated under this
section in the Southwest Border high intensity drug
trafficking area.
``(B) Reallocation within area.--The executive committee of
the Southwest Border high intensity drug trafficking area may
reallocate up to five percent of the total funds allocated to
that area among its components, with the approval of the
Director.
``(4) Remaining areas.--The Director shall expend no less
than 10 percent of the amounts appropriated under this
section in the remaining high intensity drug trafficking
areas.
``(5) Discretionary expenditures.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to the amounts allocated
under paragraphs (1) through (4) the Director may expend 15
percent of the amounts appropriated under this section on a
discretionary basis.
``(B) Consideration of impact.--In allocating funds under
this paragraph, the Director shall consider--
``(i) the impact of activities funded on reducing overall
drug traffic in the United States;
``(ii) performance measures of effectiveness; and
``(iii) such other criteria as the Director considers
appropriate.
``(i) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Limitation.--No funds appropriated for the Program
shall be expended for drug treatment programs.
``(2) Limitation on applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not
apply with respect to the Baltimore/Washington high intensity
drug trafficking area.
``(j) Terrorism Activities.--
``(1) Assistance authorized.--The Director may authorize
use of resources available for the Program to assist Federal,
State, and local law enforcement agencies in investigations
and activities related to terrorism and prevention of
terrorism, especially but not exclusively where such
investigations are related to drug trafficking.
``(2) Limitation.--The Director shall ensure--
``(A) that assistance provided under paragraph (1) remains
incidental to the purpose of the Program to reduce drug
availability and carry out drug-related law enforcement
activities; and
``(B) that significant resources of the Program are not
redirected to activities exclusively related to terrorism.
``(k) Board Representation.--None of the funds appropriated
under this section may be expended for any high intensity
drug trafficking area, or for a partnership under the
Program, if the executive board or equivalent governing
committee with respect to such area or partnership is not
comprised of equal voting representation between
representatives of Federal law enforcement agencies and
representatives of State and local law enforcement agencies.
``(l) Role of Drug Enforcement Administration.--The
Director, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall
ensure that a representative of the Drug Enforcement
Administration is included in the Intelligence Support Center
for each high intensity drug trafficking area.
``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control
Policy to carry out this section--
``(1) $230,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(2) $240,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006;
and
``(3) $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 and
2008.''.
(b) Review of Current Areas.--Within one year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug
Control Policy shall--
(1) review each of the areas currently designated as a high
intensity drug trafficking area to determine whether it
continues to warrant designation as a high intensity drug
trafficking area, considering the factors in section 707(d)
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization
Act of 1998, as amended by this section, in addition to such
other criteria as the Director considers to be appropriate;
and
(2) terminate such description for an area or portion of an
area determined to no longer warrant designation.
SEC. 7. FUNDING FOR CERTAIN HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING
AREAS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Dawson
Family Community Protection Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) In the early morning hours of October 16, 2002, the
home of Carnell and Angela Dawson was firebombed in apparent
retaliation for Mrs. Dawson's notification of police
[[Page H8965]]
about persistent drug distribution activity in their East
Baltimore City neighborhood.
(2) The arson claimed the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Dawson and
their 5 young children, aged 9 to 14.
(3) The horrific murder of the Dawson family is a stark
example of domestic narco-terrorism.
(4) In all phases of counter-narcotics law enforcement--
from prevention to investigation to prosecution to reentry--
the voluntary cooperation of ordinary citizens is a critical
component.
(5) Voluntary cooperation is difficult for law enforcement
officials to obtain when citizens feel that cooperation
carries the risk of violent retaliation by illegal drug
trafficking organizations and their affiliates.
(6) Public confidence that law enforcement is doing all it
can to make communities safe is a prerequisite for voluntary
cooperation among people who may be subject to intimidation
or reprisal (or both).
(7) Witness protection programs are insufficient on their
own to provide security because many individuals and families
who strive every day to make distressed neighborhoods livable
for their children, other relatives, and neighbors will
resist or refuse offers of relocation by local, State, and
Federal prosecutorial agencies and because, moreover, the
continued presence of strong individuals and families is
critical to preserving and strengthening the social fabric in
such communities.
(8) Where (as in certain sections of Baltimore City)
interstate trafficking of illegal drugs has severe ancillary
local consequences within areas designated as high intensity
drug trafficking areas, it is important that supplementary
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program funds be
committed to support initiatives aimed at making the affected
communities safe for the residents of those communities and
encouraging their cooperation with local, State, and Federal
law enforcement efforts to combat illegal drug trafficking.
(c) Funding for Certain High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas.--Section 707 (21 U.S.C. 1706) is further amended in
subsection (h) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(6) Specific purposes.--
``(A) In general.--The Director shall ensure that, of the
amounts appropriated for a fiscal year for the Program, at
least $1,000,000 is used in high intensity drug trafficking
areas with severe neighborhood safety and illegal drug
distribution problems.
``(B) Required uses.--The funds used under subparagraph (A)
shall be used--
``(i) to ensure the safety of neighborhoods and the
protection of communities, including the prevention of the
intimidation of potential witnesses of illegal drug
distribution and related activities; and
``(ii) to combat illegal drug trafficking through such
methods as the Director considers appropriate, such as
establishing or operating (or both) a toll-free telephone
hotline for use by the public to provide information about
illegal drug-related activities.''.
SEC. 8. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COUNTER-DRUG TECHNOLOGY
ASSESSMENT CENTER.
(a) Chief Scientist.--Section 708(b) (21 U.S.C. 1707(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the heading by striking ``Director of Technology.--
'' and inserting ``Chief Scientist.--''; and
(2) by striking ``Director of Technology,'' and inserting
``Chief Scientist,''.
(b) Additional Responsibilities of Director.--Section
708(c) (21 U.S.C. 1707(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Additional Responsibilities of the Director of
National Drug Control Policy.--
``(1) In general.--The Director, acting through the Chief
Scientist shall--
``(A) identify and define the short-, medium-, and long-
term scientific and technological needs of Federal, State,
and local law enforcement agencies relating to drug
enforcement, including--
``(i) advanced surveillance, tracking, and radar imaging;
``(ii) electronic support measures;
``(iii) communications;
``(iv) data fusion, advanced computer systems, and
artificial intelligence; and
``(v) chemical, biological, radiological (including
neutron, electron, and graviton), and other means of
detection;
``(B) identify demand reduction (including drug prevention)
basic and applied research needs and initiatives, in
consultation with affected National Drug Control Program
agencies, including--
``(i) improving treatment through neuroscientific advances;
``(ii) improving the transfer of biomedical research to the
clinical setting; and
``(iii) in consultation with the National Institute on Drug
Abuse and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, and through interagency agreements or grants,
examining addiction and rehabilitation research and the
application of technology to expanding the effectiveness or
availability of drug treatment;
``(C) make a priority ranking of such needs identified in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) according to fiscal and
technological feasibility, as part of a National Counter-Drug
Enforcement Research and Development Program;
``(D) oversee and coordinate counter-drug technology
initiatives with related activities of other Federal civilian
and military departments;
``(E) oversee and coordinate a technology transfer program
for the transfer of technology to State and local law
enforcement agencies; and
``(F) pursuant to the authority of the Director of National
Drug Control Policy under section 704, submit requests to
Congress for the reprogramming or transfer of funds
appropriated for counter-drug technology research and
development.
``(2) Priorities in transferring technology.--In
transferring technology under the authority of paragraph
(1)(E), the Chief Scientist shall give priority, in
transferring technologies most likely to assist in drug
interdiction and border enforcement, to State, local, and
tribal law enforcement agencies in southwest border areas and
northern border areas with significant traffic in illicit
drugs.
``(3) Limitation on authority.--The authority granted to
the Director under this subsection shall not extend to the
award of contracts, management of individual projects, or
other operational activities.''.
(c) Assistance From Secretary of Homeland Security.--
Section 708(d) (21 U.S.C. 1707(d)) is amended by inserting
``, the Secretary of Homeland Security,'' after ``The
Secretary of Defense''.
SEC. 9. REPEALS.
The following provisions are repealed:
(1) Sections 709 and 711 (21 U.S.C. 1708 and 1710).
(2) Section 6073 of the Asset Forfeiture Amendments Act of
1988 (21 U.S.C. 1509).
SEC. 10. NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN.
(a) In General.--The Act is further amended by inserting
after section 708 the following:
``SEC. 709. NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall conduct a national
media campaign in accordance with this section for the
purpose of reducing and preventing illicit drug use among
young people in the United States, through mass media
advertising.
``(b) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Amounts made available to carry out this
section for the media campaign may only be used for the
following:
``(A) The purchase of media time and space.
``(B) Creative and talent costs.
``(C) Advertising production costs.
``(D) Testing and evaluation of advertising.
``(E) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the media
campaign.
``(F) The negotiated fees for the winning bidder on
requests for proposals issued either by the Office or its
designee for purposes otherwise authorized in this section.
``(G) Partnerships with community, civic, and professional
groups and government organizations related to the media
campaign.
``(H) Entertainment industry outreach, interactive
outreach, media projects and activities, public information,
news media outreach, and corporate sponsorship and
participation.
``(I) Operational and management expenses.
``(2) Specific requirements.--
``(A) Creative services.--
``(i) In using amounts for creative and talent costs under
paragraph (1)(B), the Director shall use creative services
donated at no cost to the Government wherever feasible and
may only procure creative services for advertising--
``(I) responding to high-priority or emergent campaign
needs that cannot timely be obtained at no cost; or
``(II) intended to reach a minority, ethnic, or other
special audience that cannot reasonably be obtained at no
cost.
``(ii) No more than $1,000,000 may be expended under this
section each fiscal year on creative services, except that
the Director may expend up to $2,000,000 in a fiscal year on
creative services to meet urgent needs of the media campaign
with advance approval from the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and of the Senate upon a showing
of the circumstances causing such urgent needs of the media
campaign.
``(B) Testing and evaluation of advertising.--In using
amounts for testing and evaluation of advertising under
paragraph (1)(D), the Director shall test all advertisements
prior to use in the media campaign to ensure that the
advertisements are effective and meet industry-accepted
standards. The Director may waive this requirement for
advertisements using no more than 10 percent of the purchase
of advertising time purchased under this section in an fiscal
year and no more than 10 percent of the advertising space
purchased under this section in a fiscal year, if the
advertisements respond to emergent and time-sensitive
campaign needs or the advertisements will not be widely
utilized in the media campaign.
``(C) Evaluation of effectiveness of media campaign.--In
using amounts for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the
media campaign under paragraph (1)(E), the Director shall--
``(i) designate an independent entity to evaluate annually
the effectiveness of the national media campaign based on
data from--
``(I) the `Monitoring the Future Study' published by the
Department of Health and Human Services;
[[Page H8966]]
``(II) the Attitude Tracking Study published by the
Partnership for a Drug Free America;
``(III) the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse; and
``(IV) other relevant studies or publications, as
determined by the Director, including tracking and evaluation
data collected according to marketing and advertising
industry standards; and
``(ii) ensure that the effectiveness of the media campaign
is evaluated in a manner that enables consideration of
whether the media campaign has contributed to reduction of
illicit drug use among youth and such other measures of
evaluation as the Director determines are appropriate.
``(3) Purchase of advertising time and space.--For each
fiscal year, not less than 77 percent of the amounts
appropriated under this section shall be used for the
purchase of advertising time and space for the media
campaign, subject to the following exceptions:
``(A) In any fiscal year for which less than $125,000,000
is appropriated for the media campaign, not less than 82
percent of the amounts appropriated under this section shall
be used for the purchase of advertising time and space for
the media campaign.
``(B) In any fiscal year for which more than $195,000,000
is appropriated under this section, not less than 72 percent
shall be used for advertising production costs and the
purchase of advertising time and space for the media
campaign.
``(c) Advertising.--In carrying out this section, the
Director shall devote sufficient funds to the advertising
portion of the national media campaign to meet the goals of
the campaign.
``(d) Prohibitions.--None of the amounts made available
under subsection (b) may be obligated or expended for any of
the following:
``(1) To supplant current antidrug community-based
coalitions.
``(2) To supplant pro bono public service time donated by
national and local broadcasting networks for other public
service campaigns.
``(3) For partisan political purposes, or express advocacy
in support of or to defeat any clearly identified candidate,
clearly identified ballot initiative, or clearly identified
legislative or regulatory proposal.
``(4) To fund advertising that features any elected
officials, persons seeking elected office, cabinet level
officials, or other Federal officials employed pursuant to
section 213 of Schedule C of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations.
``(5) To fund advertising that does not contain a primary
message intended to reduce or prevent illicit drug use.
``(6) To fund advertising containing a primary message
intended to promote support for the media campaign or private
sector contributions to the media campaign.
``(e) Matching Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--Amounts made available under subsection
(b) shall be matched by an equal amount of non-Federal funds
for the media campaign, or be matched with in-kind
contributions of the same value.
``(2) No-cost match advertising direct relationship
requirement.--The Director shall ensure that at least 70
percent of no-cost match advertising provided directly
relates to substance abuse prevention consistent with the
specific purposes of the media campaign, except that in any
fiscal year in which less than $125,000,000 is appropriated
to the media campaign, the Director shall ensure that at
least 85 percent of no-cost match advertising directly
relates to substance abuse prevention consistent with the
specific purposes of the media campaign.
``(3) No-cost match advertising not directly related.--The
Director shall ensure that no-cost match advertising that
does not directly relate to substance abuse prevention
includes a clear antidrug message. Such message is not
required to be the primary message of the match advertising.
``(f) Financial and Performance Accountability.--The
Director shall cause to be performed--
``(1) audits and reviews of costs of the media campaign
pursuant to section 304C of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 254d); and
``(2) an audit of the cost of the media campaign described
in section 306 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 256).
``(g) Strategic Guidance and Donations.--The Partnership
for a Drug Free America shall serve as the primary outside
strategic advisor to the media campaign and be responsible
for coordinating donations of creative and other services to
the campaign, except with respect to advertising created
using funds permitted in subsection (b). The Director shall
inform the Partnership for a Drug Free America of the
strategic goals of the campaign and consider advice from the
Partnership for a Drug Free America on media campaign
strategy.
``(h) Report to Congress.--The Director shall submit on an
annual basis a report to Congress that describes--
``(1) the strategy of the media campaign and whether
specific objectives of the media campaign were accomplished;
``(2) steps taken to ensure that the media campaign
operates in an effective and efficient manner consistent with
the overall strategy and focus of the media campaign;
``(3) plans to purchase advertising time and space;
``(4) policies and practices implemented to ensure that
Federal funds are used responsibly to purchase advertising
time and space and eliminate the potential for waste, fraud,
and abuse; and
``(5) all contracts entered into with a corporation,
partnership, or individual working on behalf of the media
campaign.
``(i) Local Target Requirement.--The Director shall, to the
maximum extent feasible, use amounts made available under
this section for media that focuses on, or includes specific
information on, prevention or treatment resources for
consumers within specific local areas.
``(j) Prevention of Marijuana Use.--
``(1) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
``(A) 60 percent of adolescent admissions for drug
treatment are based on marijuana use.
``(B) Potency levels of contemporary marijuana,
particularly hydroponically grown marijuana, are
significantly higher than in the past, rising from under 1
percent of THC in the mid-1970s to as high as 30 percent
today.
``(C) Contemporary research has demonstrated that youths
smoking marijuana early in life may be up to five times more
likely to use hard drugs.
``(D) Contemporary research has demonstrated clear
detrimental effects in adolescent educational achievement
resulting from marijuana use.
``(E) Contemporary research has demonstrated clear
detrimental effects in adolescent brain development resulting
from marijuana use.
``(F) An estimated 9,000,000 Americans a year drive while
under the influence of illegal drugs, including marijuana.
``(G) Marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more of
certain cancer causing chemicals than tobacco smoke.
``(H) Teens who use marijuana are up to four times more
likely to have a teen pregnancy than teens who have not.
``(I) Federal law enforcement agencies have identified
clear links suggesting that trade in hydroponic marijuana
facilitates trade by criminal organizations in hard drugs,
including heroin.
``(J) Federal law enforcement agencies have identified
possible links between trade in marijuana and financing for
terrorist organizations.
``(2) Emphasis on prevention of youth marijuana use.--In
conducting advertising and activities otherwise authorized
under this section, the Director may emphasize prevention of
youth marijuana use.
``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Office to carry out this section,
$195,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and
$210,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2008.''.
(b) Repeal of Superseded Provisions.--The Drug-Free Media
Campaign Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is repealed.
SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 714 (21 U.S.C. 1711) is amended--
(1) by striking ``title,'' and inserting ``title, except
activities for which amounts are otherwise specifically
authorized by this title,''; and
(2) by striking ``1999 through 2003'' and inserting ``2004
through 2008''.
SEC. 12. EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATE.
Section 715(a) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2003,
this title and the amendments made by this title are
repealed'' and inserting ``September 30, 2008, this title is
repealed''.
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. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the abuse of illegal narcotics and its silent, everyday
impact on the health and safety of families and the stability of every
community across the country continues to be one of the most pressing
issues facing the United States. This bill, introduced by myself and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the distinguished chairman
of the full committee, is a forceful and bipartisan recommitment to our
diverse national efforts to control drug abuse and to renew our support
for a strong Office of National Drug Control Policy, to plan and
coordinate the President's strategy to measurably reduce drug use by
American youth and to control drug abuse and its consequences.
Mr. Speaker, most people driving on two-lane highways throughout the
farmland of northeast Indiana would probably find it hard to believe
that
[[Page H8967]]
the plague of illegal narcotics hits home even there, but drug use and
abuse is not unique to the big cities on the coasts. In 1996, Indiana
law enforcement knew of only a single methamphetamine lab in the entire
State. Only 5 years later, there were 499. That number dropped to 375
in 2002, but it is still an indication of the kinds of challenges
places like Indiana face when it comes to illegal drugs.
Meth is not the only problem in Indiana. Fort Wayne is not a huge
city, about 225,000, but there have been some huge cocaine busts there
this year. This summer alone, two separate stings in Fort Wayne yielded
50 pounds of cocaine with a street value of $2.3 million. We thought
cocaine was nearly gone. We were wrong.
Mr. Speaker, almost half of the 12th graders in Indiana say they have
used marijuana in the last year. Almost 9 percent say they have used
powdered cocaine; 15 percent have used methamphetamines, but that is
not the worst of it. Almost four in 100 sixth graders in Indiana say
they have used marijuana in the last year. One in 200 have used
powdered cocaine. These are 11- and 12-year-olds.
Consequently, one might ask, is there any point in fighting this
battle at all? I am frequently asked whether we believe we can ever
completely eliminate illegal drug use. The simple answer to that
question is no. We cannot eliminate sin. But that does not mean we
cannot and should not try, any more than we would give up on spouse
abuse or child abuse. It does mean that we can make a difference in
some cases.
The current administration has made a real effort to fight the
scourge of illegal drugs, and that effort has shown results. Usage
statistics that peaked in the late 1990s are now making a slow but
steady decline, both nationwide and in my home State of Indiana. The
numbers I cited above are too high, but they are improvements over
statistics just a few short years ago.
What does that mean? That means there is a long fight ahead, but
things are far from helpless. We can make a difference in people's
lives, and that is why this bill is so important. This bill does not
and cannot address each of the many specific national programs involved
in our coordinated strategies to reduce demand for illegal drugs, the
prevention and treatment, reduce the supply of narcotics through
source-country programs, and interdiction and to disrupt and dismantle
drug trafficking organizations and control the consequences of drug-
related crime through coordinated law enforcement. The details of these
programs continue to be dealt with by each of the separate authorizing
committees of jurisdiction. It does, however, provide a cornerstone and
ensure that these programs will be coordinated and effective through
the broad guidance and coordination of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy on behalf of the President.
The legislation reauthorizes ONDCP and its programs for 5 years. It
makes some significant revisions to current law that will enhance the
effectiveness and accountability of the National Drug Control strategy
and its programs, streamline and simplify the process for its
development, and provide increased flexibility to the ONDCP Director to
respond to changing circumstances.
For example, we have replaced an inflexible legal requirement for a
bloated 5-year strategy, guided by pages of outdated statutory
mandates, with a flexible and responsive annual strategy that still
follows the same basic principles to ensure a comprehensive and
responsible drug strategy. We have also worked in many areas to improve
performance measurement for the annual strategy, Federal drug control
programs, ONDCP programs, and even some private sector efforts to
ensure that these programs will be effective and accountable. For
example, we are now requiring that the director conduct a specific
evaluation of the performance of each Federal agency in carrying out
its responsibilities under the strategy each year and have mandated,
for the first time ever, that a uniform system be developed to evaluate
the effectiveness of the drug treatment programs in the United States.
{time} 1415
The bill also provides for direct evaluation of the effectiveness of
the media campaign in its individual ads.
Another key theme of the bill is our efforts to ensure that ONDC
programs, most notably the HIDTA program and the media campaign, remain
directed to their original intent and purpose in areas where our
oversight activities have clearly demonstrated some lack of focus.
Finally, the bill is intended to ensure that the Federal Government
maintains appropriate attention and resources directed to drug control,
which has recently too often been subjugated to other purposes and
policies.
This bill is a true bipartisan effort passed by unanimous vote in
subcommittee and authorizing subcommittee, and by voice vote in the
full committee, and represents the outcome of ongoing consultation and
discussions with the minority.
The bill contains a complete text of the Dawson Family Community
Protection Act that was introduced by the distinguished ranking member
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), to
address witness and community protection initiatives in the wake of the
tragic death of the Dawson family in Baltimore at the hands of violent
drug dealers.
The bill reported from the committee also contains a number of items
requested by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the
distinguished ranking member of the full committee, many of which
reflect a clear bipartisan agreement that the media campaign should not
be used for political purposes.
The bill also contains many suggestions from Members on both sides of
the aisle including the work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman)
on the media campaign and changes to the current law requested by
Director Walters in the administration.
It incorporates suggestions and ideas from key outside groups
including the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, drug treatment
providers, the Partnership for Drug Free America, and members of the
Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement participating in the
HIDTA and CTAC programs, most notably the Drug Enforcement
Administration.
While no one is necessarily completely happy with this bill, the
final result was a bill that achieved nearly unanimous bipartisan
support in the committee. This is a strong bipartisan bill to send to
the other body.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2086, the Office of National
Drug Control Policy Reauthorization of 2003.
Mr. Speaker, there is no greater problem in America than drug abuse.
Illegal drugs contribute to an estimated 50,000 deaths in the United
States each year. Nineteen thousand of these deaths are a direct result
of illegal drug use.
According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 16 million
Americans used an illegal drug on at least a monthly basis in 2001,
including 6.1 million who needed treatment. In Baltimore City alone
there are some 50,000 people addicted to drugs.
Most crime in the United States has an illegal drug nexus; and most
of the prisoners sitting in the United States' prisons, jails, and
detention facilities are there because of illegal drug activity.
These facts paint an ugly picture of the impact of drugs on American
society; but they do not begin to describe the tragic harm done to
individuals, families, and communities by drugs and drug-related
crimes. In neighborhoods in Baltimore and Howard counties, I cannot
escape seeing every day the devastating, destructive impact that drugs
and drug-related crime, including violent crime, exact on communities.
So it is with great seriousness that I approach this legislation
reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy and related
drug control programs.
The Office of National Drug Policy plays a central role in shaping
and coordinating our Nation's policy and programs relating to illegal
drugs. Established in 1988 and last reauthorized in 1997, ONDCP has the
lead responsibility in the executive branch for establishing policies,
priorities, and objectives relating to the demand for, and the supply
of, illegal drugs in the United States.
[[Page H8968]]
The director of National Drug Control Policy, or the drug czar, will
have strong influence over the shape, direction, and implementation of
Federal drug policy by certifying the drug control budgets of Federal
departments and agencies that contribute to the national drug control
strategy.
In addition to its policy and coordination functions, the ONDCP
directly administers the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program,
the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, the Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center, and the Drug Free Communities program. Each of these
programs plays an important role in implementing the national drug
control strategy's goal of preventing drug use before it starts,
healing America's drug users, and disrupting the market for illegal
drugs.
H.R. 2086 would reauthorize for 5 years not only the Office of
National Drug Control Policy, but also the HIDTA program, the CTAC, and
the media campaign. And I believe that the office and these programs
should be reauthorized.
This bill is not perfect, and I would agree with Mr. Souder that no
one is completely happy with it. It is not the bill that I would have
written. I know that some of my Democratic colleagues have strong
concerns in certain areas, and I share some of those concerns. But we
have worked in the Committee on Government Reform to make this bill
better than it was. And through bipartisan negotiations with the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the drug control
policy subcommittee, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I were able to make
significant improvements in key areas.
In particular, my colleagues who serve on the Committee on the
Judiciary have raised legitimate concerns about language in the bill
prohibiting the use of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program
funds for treatment and prevention. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) and I have tried over the past several weeks to address this
concern with Chairman Davis and Chairman Souder.
The majority and ONDCP were not receptive to ideas we proposed that
would have allowed additional HIDTAs to establish new treatment
initiatives. We were able to achieve, however, an agreement to return
to lift the restriction on HIDTA funds used for prevention, and we will
continue to work through conference to restore the ability of HIDTAs
that already have limited treatment programs to continue their
treatment initiatives.
I hope that eventually we will see fit to allow additional HIDTAs the
opportunity to implement new treatment initiatives as part of a
strategy to reduce the public safety threat posed by offenders who use
drugs and commit drug related crimes, including violent crimes.
I would point out that the Washington-Baltimore HIDTA's innovative
use of treatment as a crime control tool in direct support of law
enforcement initiatives has resulted in substantially reduced
recidivism and rearrest rates for offenders who have participated in
HIDTA-funded treatment programs. In other words, our HIDTA law
enforcement efforts are more effective because they are linked with
HIDTA-funded treatment initiatives that are specifically designed to
support them. Other HIDTAs should have the ability to invest in this
approach which shows that law enforcement and treatment work best when
they are pursued in a closely coordinated fashion.
Our negotiations with the majority also resulted in the elimination
of a provision that would have opened the door to partisan political
use of a national anti-drug media campaign with respect to anti-
legalization efforts by the ONDCP director. As a result of our
negotiations, the current bill would, one, maintain the existing
prohibition on partisan political use of the media campaign; two, bar
the use of media campaign funds to support advocacy against or in favor
of any candidate, ballot initiative, or legislative or regulatory
proposal, even if the candidate or measure is not partisan in nature;
and finally absolutely prohibit the appearance of highly visible
Federal officials in media campaign advertising.
Together, these provisions reflect a bipartisan agreement that the
media campaign should place its focus on the goal of preventing youth
drug use and that it should stay out of the business of influencing
elections and legislative or regulatory proposals involving medical
marijuana or any other extraneous issue.
The current bill also does not contain a provision that sought to
punish State and local law enforcement in high-intensity drug
trafficking areas in which States have adopted medical marijuana laws.
The bill before us does include H.R. 1599, the Dawson Family Community
Protection Act, legislation I introduced in response to one of the most
tragic drug-related crimes in memory. The bill commemorates the lives
of a courageous mother and a devoted father and five precious children
who were senselessly murdered when their home was set ablaze in the
middle of the night on October 16 of last year, apparently in
retaliation for Angela Dawson's repeated complaints to police about
drug distribution in her East Baltimore neighborhood.
This legislation would direct the drug czar to fund HIDTA initiatives
aimed at increasing neighborhood safety and facilitating witness
cooperation in communities ravaged by rampant drug trafficking activity
and related violence.
I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Souder) again for his
cosponsorship of H.R. 1599 and for including it in this reauthorization
package.
Amendments that I offered and were adopted with the gentleman from
Indiana's (Chairman Souder) support in subcommittee were slightly
modified in full committee but remain mostly intact. This bill says the
director must ensure through his budget certification authority that
the administration's proposed funding of drug treatment programs will
be adequate to enhance Federal treatment programs and capacity. Most of
our States are suffering through fiscal crises, and cutbacks in State
funding for drug treatment are widespread. Maintaining and expanding
access to treatment on demand despite this economic trend is indeed
vital.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Souder),
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their cooperation of
collaborative approach in working with us to resolve the matters of
sharpest disagreement between the majority and the minority. I would
also like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman),
ranking member, again for his leadership in representing the interests
of the minority in this legislation and concerning a multitude of other
issues that have come before the Committee on Government Reform and
this great House.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the former chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support this afternoon of one of
the most important reauthorization pieces of legislation that will be
addressed by this Congress, and that is the reauthorization of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Unfortunately, this is an issue that sometimes gets shoved below the
radar screen in Congress and in our society, but I can tell the Members
that there are very few social issues facing this Nation like the
problem of illegal narcotics. In the latest report I have, the deaths
that were drug related in this country in the year 2000, this is 3
years old, were 19,698. That is almost 54 human beings, 54 citizens in
our country that die from drug-related deaths each day in the United
States, an incredible number. And that is not to mention those who lose
their lives such as the tragic death of those who were murdered in a
drug-related crime in Baltimore, the Dawson family. Drug deaths now
exceed homicides in the United States, and I would venture to say that
nearly half of the homicides in the United States are drug related.
One of the issues that has been raised if this reauthorization is
putting more money in treatment, and when I was chairman I supported a
good balanced
[[Page H8969]]
approach, and I think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) have tried to do that, and
certainly the administration has. We have to understand that in the
previous fiscal year 2002, the Federal Government spent nearly half, 45
percent, of all of its drug control policy budget on treatment and
prevention. And it is not always how much we spend. It is very
important how we spend that money, that it is spent effectively.
{time} 1430
If we have learned nothing else in our experience over the years on
this major social problem facing us, it is that a balance of education
and prevention, of treatment, of interdiction, of enforcement, and all
of these elements put together in a balanced approach will make a
difference. That is why this is a good, balanced approach.
We have seen what has happened when we have good enforcement and when
we do not have good enforcement. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings) has experienced that himself in Baltimore, one of our
Nation's great cities, where the death toll was way over the 300 mark
and they had lax enforcement. Mayor O'Malley went in, with the guidance
of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and with attention from
the Federal Government and others, we have reduced the tragedy of
deaths in that city.
We saw in New York City under the Giuliani plan deaths and homicides
exceeded 2,000 in New York City. With a tough enforcement plan, that
was reduced to between 600 and 700; and we still see the results of
that tough enforcement. So we cannot make the mistake of imbalancing
our approach, and that is why this is a good approach.
Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the chairman and ranking member. The
President of the United States has taken a personal interest in the
leadership of John Walters, the head of the Office of Drug Control
Policy. They have a plan. It is working, it is effective, and it is a
balanced approach and the right approach.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this important
reauthorization.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman
from Indiana (Chairman Souder) and the gentleman from Maryland (Ranking
Member Cummings) for the tremendous amount of work that has gone into
the development of this legislation. In addition to that, I want to
commend them for the overall work that has been done on this issue. We
have attended hearings in many places throughout the country, well
attended, as an indication of the tremendous amount of interest that
people have in one of the most pernicious issues facing our society.
Out of respect for the bipartisan efforts that have taken place to
try and reach agreement, I am very pleased that this legislation is on
the floor. I am in agreement with those who suggest that not enough
emphasis, though, is placed upon treatment. While all of the components
of trying to wrestle with the drug problem are necessary and essential
and while they must be balanced, I, for one, believe that we need to
place more emphasis and put more resources into treatment for those
individuals who are, in fact, addicted. As a matter of fact, I am a
proponent of what I call treatment on demand. That is, whenever a
person who is addicted presents himself or herself seeking treatment,
they ought to be able to receive it.
I am also concerned that in this country, while it is not necessarily
a part of this legislation or covered in this bill, that there are
individuals who are denied the opportunity to receive a Pell grant to
go to college because they have been convicted of a drug offense. While
that may seem rational and logical and wholesome and healthy and good
because there are never enough resources to go around for everybody in
our country to receive what they need, I think there are some
situations where, rather than aiding the situation and helping it to
change, that we actually retard the growth and development of
individuals. Or the fact that there are individuals who, when convicted
of drug offenses, can be denied food stamps. While, again, that does
not diminish in any way the work that this subcommittee has done or the
work that the full committee has done, those are realities of our
society and realities of our times and issues that I think must be
addressed.
Notwithstanding that, I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman
Davis), the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Waxman) and,
again, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for the work that they have done.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the full
committee.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank
the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Souder) for his leadership on this
issue, as he has made a career of this since he came to Congress, and
to his ranking member, (Mr. Cummings) of Maryland. I appreciate them
working together. To my ranking member on the full committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), we appreciate his input here to
reach this compromise we have here today.
Since its inception in 1988, the Office of National Drug Control
Policy has been the cornerstone of drug policy in America, improving
the lives of all Americans by reducing the presence of drugs in our
society. This office has been producing the results our Nation needs:
Teen drug use is on the decline, and that is just one of many positive
advancements which have been made by ONDCP in the last couple of years.
The many positive signs and trends that Director Walters reported in
this year's National Drug Control Strategy clearly demonstrate the
difference the office can make when strong and effective leadership is
merged with sound policy.
Drug use and abuse is a national crisis that affects the health of
our citizens and, in turn, our country. To win the war on drugs, we
need to address the problem of drugs in our society from every angle.
This legislation gives ONDCP the appropriate resources to stop drug use
before it starts, to heal drug users, and disrupt drug markets.
We all know that drugs affect people from all walks of life. Rich,
poor, whatever race, addiction does not discriminate. A strong national
drug policy is in the interests of every American.
Mr. Speaker, the bill we bring to the floor today is bipartisan in
the best sense of the word. It is the product of careful negotiation
and strong bipartisan agreement. In crafting this important piece of
legislation, we aimed to provide the best possible support for the
administration and Director Walters in implementing the President's
strategy. We sought to make ONDCP more efficient by reducing outdated
reporting and structural requirements that are in the current law. We
also gave significant attention to reforms of the Media Campaign and
the HIDTA program to ensure that they are effective and true to their
original aims. Both of these programs have grown in ways that were not
originally intended, and the bill reflects the desire to ensure that
the programs remain accountable and dedicated to their core purposes.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Souder)
and the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings), and my full committee counterpart, the gentleman from
California (Ranking Member Waxman) for their leadership, dedication,
and hard work on this authorization legislation. I am happy that we
could reach a bipartisan agreement on this bill. It is too important to
play politics with, and there is no place for partisanship in
protecting our children against drugs. This bipartisanship was
reflected in the unanimous vote to pass the bill out of our committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we have put together a cohesive,
effective piece of legislation to maintain and provide ONDCP with the
necessary tools to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and
trafficking, and drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related
health consequences.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a Member who has worked a
long time on the drug issue and the problems of drugs in this country
and abroad.
[[Page H8970]]
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding me this time. I know how hard he
and others have worked on the bill, and I certainly know what they are
attempting to do. I just feel as if I would be derelict in my duty if I
did not speak to some of the issues that I have spent so many years
working on. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) did not have to
allow me this time, knowing that I oppose the bill, and I am extremely
appreciative for that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition both to the process that has
brought this bill to the floor under suspension of the rules and to the
substance of the underlying bill, H.R. 2086, the reauthorization bill
for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the so-called Drug
Czar's Office.
Mr. Speaker, why is this bill before us today under suspension of the
rules with only 20 minutes of debate for each side and no opportunity
for Members to offer amendments? Is there anyone who truly believes
that this bill could not be improved if we had a full and fair debate
on the many issues raised by H.R. 2068 and if Members had the
opportunity to offer amendments to the bill?
The Director of the ONDCP manages a Federal drug control budget of
almost $20 billion. The Federal drug control budget for the last 5
fiscal years alone was almost $100 billion. ONDCP is tasked with
managing an enormous Federal drug control budget. What is the return on
the investment? Where is the bang for our Federal dollars? Surely,
something more than such cursory floor consideration is in order for
these major issues.
The war on drugs is a joke. It is ineffective, and it is a waste of
taxpayers' money. This money should be spent on prevention, treatment,
and rehabilitation. During proceedings in the Committee on the
Judiciary, I certainly tried to offer amendments to defund this program
altogether. We need to start all over again.
Mr. Speaker, the nationwide prison inmate population today is about
2.1 million people, over 160,000 of them in my State of California
alone. Many of the inmates are serving time for drug offenses.
Nationwide, more than 40 percent of the prison population consists of
African American inmates. About 10 percent of the African American men
in their mid to late 20s are behind bars. In some cities, more than 50
percent of young African American men are under the supervision of the
criminal justice system. Given the role of mandatory minimum sentencing
for drug offenses in producing these statistics, we need to have a
serious debate about the efficacy and soundness of the war on drugs and
on mandatory minimum sentencing.
Mr. Speaker, Americans need real help in diverting their children
from drug use. Families need rehabilitation to save and unite families.
This so-called war on drugs is merely a joke, and I believe that we can
do better.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy observed in a major speech this
summer to the annual meeting of the American Bar Association on
mandatory minimum sentencing, he said, ``Our resources are misspent.''
This is a Supreme Court Justice. ``Our punishments too severe, our
sentences too long. The Federal sentencing guidelines should be revised
downward. I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of Federal
mandatory minimum sentencing. In too many cases, mandatory minimum
sentences are unwise and unjust.''
These task forces go out into these poor communities and find some
misguided kid with one gram of crack cocaine. They spend all this time
locking them up, taking them to court, getting mandatory minimum
sentencing where they spend 5 years or more under mandatory minimum
sentencing. The judge has no discretion. It does not make any
difference whether they have ever been in trouble before. It does not
make any difference that their families are good, they are
professionals. The child makes one mistake. They are not cracking the
big drug czars. They are not getting the people who are really
responsible for putting the drugs on the streets. They will lock up
anybody that they can easy so that they can get some more drug task
force money.
I just had all the defendants here at the Congressional Black Caucus
Foundation weekend from Tulia, Texas, where they arrested 10 percent of
all of the African American men in the town of Tulia, Texas, arrested
them on the testimony of one lying guy, one man who was a part of the
drug task force, the drug agent, Mr. Thomas Coleman, who is now, by the
way, under indictment for his misconduct in Tulia. He just simply lied.
And he went to the judge, no jury, they gave people sentences from
anywhere from 4 or 5 years to 20 and 30 years. They had to take an army
of pro bono lawyers from the big law firms and from the NAACP and from
the ACLU to go out and get these sentences overturned. This is a joke,
and it needs to be stopped.
{time} 1445
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to clarify one of the matters from the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) because under President Bush,
in 2 straight years of requests, he has had larger increases in
treatment than in supply reduction. And it is good to see that she at
least agrees with the President and House leadership on that matter.
While we may have other disagreements, we all agree that we need to
focus increasing amounts on treatment.
I also wanted to clarify that the purpose of this particular bill and
HIDTAs was to have these high-intensity drug treatment areas where
local and State law enforcement could tap into the Federal law
enforcement, so rather than just going after the user on the street, we
could actually have local and State law enforcement move up through the
system to find the networks, to try to get the major drug dealers. That
has not stopped all the street-level arrests, but it has made
differences in Los Angeles and in Indiana, where we now see us able to
go up the chain and try to get the big people behind those who are
abusing the people in our neighborhoods on the street.
I also would like to clarify one other thing that has been sent out
to some offices that has some false information from one of the
conservative groups that has a false allegation about the amount of
money being spent in this bill. This bill is a freeze for the next 2
years. In the third, fourth and fifth year, there is a $15 million
increase in a $1 billion bill.
We have worked hard to try to manage this financially, and it is
incorrect to imply that this bill is anything other than a freeze for
the next few years. I think the wording is confusing on the criticism.
Furthermore, it proposes to criticize the one major prevention
program we have, the media campaign, because of an OMB study. We have
addressed a number of the things in this bill that OMB has asked for
which was more restrictions. The letter also confuses authorizing and
appropriations bills and also has false data in it on whether the ad
campaign has been effective. In fact, it is accurate, but there is a
misleading thing. It implies, it says that the media campaign has been
ineffective, but then in its wording says ``among certain age groups,''
meaning it has been effective in most categories with most drugs, but
among a few it has not.
Therefore, they sent out a memo falsely implying that we increased
the spending and falsely attacking the ad campaign, and that did not do
this group justice which has been a great crusader for responsible
spending.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the
Committee on Government Reform. The gentleman has worked very hard on
this legislation, and I would like to thank him.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
the senior member on our subcommittee that handled this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of our committee and the
ranking member of the subcommittee for the constructive way that this
bill has been processed by our Committee on Government Reform.
The problem of drug abuse is a serious problem. This legislation
reauthorizes the work at the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The introduced version of the bill had a number of
[[Page H8971]]
problems which I am pleased that we were able to work through. It
provided that the possibility that the media campaign could be used for
partisan political purposes and imposed limitations on the funds that
could be used by the drug czar for free media campaigns.
On a bipartisan basis, we changed that, and the bill now ensures that
the media campaign cannot be used for partisan political activities,
and it adds a new provision banning the use of the media campaign to
advocate for or against a ballot initiative, draft legislation, or
regulatory proposal.
We also struck controversial language allowing the director to take
resources away from the States that have medical marijuana laws. We
dropped language limiting the ability of the ONDCP to engage in
nontraditional forms of outreach and education. We deleted language
overturning a unanimous ruling of the FCC requiring ONDCP
advertisements to be identified as paid for by the ONDCP. We made
progress in requiring that 80 percent of the media campaign dollars
must go to media buys. The present requirement is now 77 percent. I
would prefer that there be no requirement at all, but I think this is
an improvement.
We were able to address many problems during the committee process,
and the result is a much better product. I want to point out that this
bill is not a perfect bill. And one of the remaining problems concerns
the use of HIDTA, the HIDTA funds, for treatment. Further work need to
be done to address the need for more drug treatment, and I have talked
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) about that matter. And based
on his promise that we will continue to talk about it and look further
at this issue, I am not going to oppose the bill on that basis. But I
do hope that when the bill goes through to a conference or comes out of
the Senate, that we will do more in the area of treatment.
Mr. Speaker, it is a bill that I urge my colleagues to support. I
hope that we can work to make ONDCP even better in the future.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Souder) has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make sure that Members understood there was
one program we have not talked about at all today which is CTAC, the
Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center, which has a technology
transfer program that is so important to so many of our local and State
programs; 5,356 local and State agencies across the United States have
tapped into this technology.
I also wanted to point out for those who are somewhat confused about
HIDTAs that, for example, in New York City, Detroit and Los Angeles,
over half of the members of that HIDTA are local law enforcement and
two-thirds are State and local law enforcement. This was a program that
said rather than just have Federal law enforcement, let us build and
leverage the resources of the State and local communities by working
together.
If we do not adequately fund this program, every city has pretty much
told us that they will pull out because they have to use their State
and local dollars to join with these HIDTAs, and it is a very marginal
decision to do so, but they believe putting two-thirds of the officers
in has been beneficial in reducing crime in their area.
In New York City, the HIDTA there is referred to as the U.N. of law
enforcement because after 9/11, they have consolidated not only the
narcotics, but the anti-terrorism efforts to make sure that New York
remains safe because it has been on orange alert since 9/11. It is on
orange alert when the rest of us are on elevated alert. And to cut back
the HIDTA, or eliminate the HIDTA, in New York City would be
devastating to anti-terrorism protection as well.
Lastly, I want to point out that I have had excellent discussions
with the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and
with the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman). We have continued to disagree, but understand
that we need to work out some kind of additional language that gives
flexibility on drug treatment, although that should not be the primary
function, and HIDTA dollars should not be used for that effect. We
continue to talk about the grandfathering in of the two programs that
are not grandfathered in under this and if, whether that money could be
used like it is in the Washington-Baltimore HIDTA to work on drug
treatment, and I pledged that I would continue to work on this as we
move through conference.
So I hope that given the many changes, this bill makes a very strong
statement to drug dealers across America, that we are not going to back
off. It makes a very strong statement on marijuana use and the dangers
of marijuana. It talks about how to tighten the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools program to make sure it has a clear anti-drug message. It
includes efforts to make sure that the HIDTAs focus on national drug
trade and not just at the local level where we lock people up but how
do we get into the systems. On the supply side, we have also asked for
new assessments on the accelerating problem of Columbian heroine.
I believe that in the end this bill represents a bipartisan approach
to a balanced, coordinated and effective strategy to address the
serious problem of drug abuse and its many effects across our country.
I urge all Members to support H.R. 2086.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2086, the
Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003.
This legislation also reauthorizes the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign--a critical component of our Nation's drug control strategy.
We know that one important way to get the drug prevention message
across is through the media: television, radio and newspapers. I am a
firm believer that an effective media campaign can help prevent and
delay the onset of substance abuse among youth. The Partnership for a
Drug-Free America operated a successful media campaign long before the
Federal Government became involved. Congress understood the importance
of the anti-drug media message and wanted to ensure that it would
continue as public service campaigns have the proven ability to change
attitudes and behavior.
Since 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has run a
National Youth Anti-Drug Campaign. With the help of the Partnership for
a Drug-Free America, the Campaign has created more than 200
commercials.
We know that the Media Campaign is working. The Media Campaign helps
parents realize that they play a vital role in preventing their kids
from using drugs. Results clearly show that the Campaign helps initiate
conversations about substance abuse between parents and their children.
We also know that the ads have helped parents set rules and clear
standards about drug use.
Survey results released this month confirm that youth are getting the
right messages about drug use. The ads have contributed to a climate of
disapproval of drug use that is imperative to reducing the human,
social, and financial costs of this deadly disease. The Campaign
reaches 90 percent of the youth audience 4 times a week; and 74 percent
of the parent audience 3.5 times a week.
Drug use behaviors are beginning to show positive effects from youth
exposure to the Media Campaign. For example, almost half (49 percent of
youth with high exposure to the marijuana ads said the ads made them
less likely to try or use drugs versus 38 percent of the youth who had
little or no exposure to the ads. A strong correlation was found
between high exposure to the ads and increased perceptions of risk
associated with marijuana use that have been specifically highlighted
by the Campaign. Recent data also indicates that kids who see or hear
anti-drugs ads at least once a day are less likely to do drugs than
other adolescents who don't see or hear ads frequently.
I have seen first-hand in my own community the positive results that
can be gained through an effective media campaign.
The Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati, which I founded,
recently conducted a survey that showed a decline in teen drug use in
our region for the first time in 12 years. Marijuana use by teens is
down 13 percent, alcohol use is down 24 percent, and cigarette use is
down 28 percent.
The media component of the community coalition in Cincinnati plays a
critical role in the coalition's overall success. The Coalition helps
run an extensive local media campaign through television, radio and
print. In fact, the local media in southwest Ohio have generously
donated over $1 million in anti-drug ads on an annual basis for the
last three years. The survey data tells us that the media campaign is
helping bring these numbers down.
[[Page H8972]]
Based on our survey, kids who have seen anti-drug ads on a regular
basis are 20 percent less likely to use drugs. These results indicate
that prevention and education tools like the media campaign work.
The key is that we work together--on a bipartisan basis--to keep
these ads on the air as part of a comprehensive drug prevention effort.
Passage of this bill, the Reauthorization of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, will help to improve the effectiveness of the
media campaign and the reduction of drug abuse among our Nation's
adolescents. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
legislation as amended in a markup session before the Judiciary
Committee.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has been the
leader of federal drug policy in the United States since its inception
in 1988. The Director of ONDCP serves as the President's primary
advisor for drug control policy and has responsibility for implementing
the ONDCP's mission of coordinating the Nation's efforts to reduce the
use, manufacture, and trafficking of illicit drugs and reducing the
associated crime, violence, and health consequences of illicit drugs.
The Director is also responsible for advising the President on national
and international drug control policies and strategies, formulating the
National Drug Control Strategy, reviewing and certifying the budgets of
National Drug Control Program Agencies, and for ensuring that federal
drug programs are adequately funded. The Director reviews the annual
budget request for each federal department and agency charged with
implementing a federal drug control program and is empowered to set
forth funding requirements and initiatives that he or she believes are
sufficient to meet those goals.
Given the ongoing problem of drug trafficking, use, and addiction in
our country, the importance of reauthorizing the ONDCP is obvious.
However, as we consider funding this important federal office, it is
necessary to ensure that federal funds are allocated to the proper
programs.
As it is presently drafted, H.R. 2086 directly undermines the use of
important tools such as drug prevention and treatment programs that
have been proven to considerably reduce the use of unlawful drugs. For
example, ONDCP designates certain cities in America particularly
burdened by narcotics as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA).
Under the provisions of the bill, HIDTA program participants are
prohibited from using any of the funds they receive on prevention or
treatment. The only HIDTA excluded from this prohibition is the
Baltimore/Washington HIDTA.
In addition to the HIDTA prohibitions, H.R. 2086 inadequately
advances prevention and treatment programs by failing to require the
Director to certify, prior to approval of the budget, that federal drug
treatment program funding is adequate. For instance the Department of
Health and Human Services implements several drug treatment and
prevention programs, such as the Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment and Block Grant Program and the Targeted Capacity Expansion
grant program. Under H.R. 2086, the Director is not required, as part
of the National Drug Control Program budgeting process, to certify
adequate funding of these programs prior to approval of the budget.
Another flaw in H.R. 2086, is the failure to break down statistical
data by demographic group. The provisions of the bill include annual
reporting requirements but the current provisions fail to include
language that would require ONDCP to conduct and assess state and
federal prevention and treatment programs to ensure the unique needs of
minority groups, women, and youths are met. In addition, the reporting
provisions fail to require that the drug-related crime information is
required to be reported broken down by racial, ethnic, age, and gender
lines. This information is useful to guarantee that the populations
most affected by illicit drug use are allocated the greatest resources,
to determine which localities to certify as HIDTAs, and to determine
disparate treatment by law enforcement officials.
The ONDCP is a vital federal resource for minimizing the impact of
drug crime and use in America. It is important to ensure that the ONDCP
is authorized past its September 30, 2003 expiration date. However, we
must not be hasty in reauthorizing the ONDCP. We must ensure that the
reauthorization bill will allocate ONDCP resources to treatment and
prevention programs as readily as law enforcement programs. We must
ensure that there is data reporting that gives a thorough picture of
our drug control efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I support the efforts of the ONDCP and believe it is
important that my colleagues pass this legislation to authorize this
federal agency to continue its mission. However, the flaws in H.R. 2086
must be corrected. I hope that all amendments that propose to address
these flaws offered today will be given full consideration.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 2086, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________