[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.

                          ____________________