[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 30 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H802-H847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 713 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2829.

                              {time}  1129


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2829) to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Act, with Mr. Bonner in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 30 minutes.

[[Page H803]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 2829, the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Reauthorization Act. Since its inception, the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy, better known as ONDCP, 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 
results Americans need and want. Teen drug use is on the decline, and 
ONDCP deserves much of the credit for that.
  ONDCP's success means we are faced not with the question of whether 
to reauthorize it, but how best to do so. The many positive signs and 
trends reported in this year's National Drug Control Strategy clearly 
demonstrate the difference the office can make with adequate resources 
and sound policy.
  Drug use and abuse is a national crisis that affects the health of 
all of our citizens, and because of this ONDCP must remain an active 
body in the executive office. In order to win the war on drugs, we need 
to address the problem of drugs in our society from every single angle. 
This legislation gives ONDCP the appropriate resources to stop drug use 
before it starts, heal drug users, and disrupt drug markets.
  We all know that drugs affect people from all walks of life. 
Addiction does not discriminate. A strong national drug policy is in 
the interest of every American. Mr. Chairman, this bill we bring to the 
floor today was crafted in true bipartisan fashion. It is a product of 
careful negotiations and strong bipartisan agreement. We aim to provide 
the best possible support for the administration and Director Walters 
in implementing the President's strategy, making a strong office even 
stronger.
  We sought to make ONDCP more efficient by reducing outdated reporting 
and structural requirements required by law. The bill also improves 
ONDCP and its programs by enhancing effectiveness and accountability in 
drug treatment and requiring greater diligence in addressing our 
Nation's methamphetamine epidemic.
  We also gave significant attention to reforms of the National Youth 
Anti-Drug Media Campaign and the HIDTA program to make them more 
effective. Both of these programs have grown in ways that were not 
originally intended, and the bill reflects the desire to ensure the 
programs remain accountable and dedicated to their core purposes.
  This bill recognizes the media campaign as an effective prevention 
tool and important element of the Federal Government's commitment to 
reducing teen drug use. We have all seen the well-known advertisements 
on subjects such as drugs and terrorism, the consequences of marijuana 
use and parenting skills. These advertisements carry important messages 
to youth about the consequences of abuse and remind parents of the 
importance of keeping kids away from drugs. The media campaign works, 
and the message is being heard. It is preventing drug abuse before it 
starts.
  When it comes to addressing the complex dilemma of drug addiction, 
prevention is only one part of the equation. Treatment of substance 
abuse and addiction is also essential. Because addiction has so many 
dimensions and disrupts multiple aspects of an individual's life, 
treatment is never easy. Drug users need the support of family, 
friends, and institutions to help guide them in treatment and recovery. 
This bill gives ONDCP the tools to maintain and strengthen programs so 
Americans who need help can receive it and begin on a path to recovery.
  It also recognizes an important part of helping the addict is to 
remove the supply of drugs from our society. I have been to Colombia 
with Chairman Souder on numerous occasions. It is apparent to me that 
ONDCP is making every effort to attack the economic basis of the drug 
trade by disrupting markets at home and abroad. We need to continue to 
wage war on the supply side of the drug equation while reaffirming our 
commitment to addressing the demand side as well.
  I want to thank Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings, and my 
ranking member, Henry Waxman, for their leadership and hard work on 
this reauthorization legislation. I am happy we could reach bipartisan 
agreement on this bill since there is no place for partisanship in 
protecting our children against drugs. This bipartisanship was 
reflected in a unanimous vote to pass this bill out of our committee.
  I am confident that we have put together a cohesive, effective piece 
of legislation that gives ONDCP the necessary tools to reduce elicit 
drug use, manufacturing, trafficking, drug-related crime and violence 
and drug-related health consequences.
  America's families need this legislation. I urge support of all of my 
colleagues for H.R. 2829 to reauthorize the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 2829, which 
reauthorizes the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, 
including its National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, HIDTA, programs.
  I want to begin by acknowledging the efforts of Mr. Souder and Mr. 
Cummings, the chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. They have worked 
tirelessly to develop this legislation. They are true leaders in the 
fight against drug abuse. I would like to recognize Chairman Davis as 
well for the bipartisan way he has approached this issue.
  Drug use is an enormous problem in our Nation, ruining lives, filling 
our prisons and sometimes terrorizing our communities. Many people are 
not even aware how drugs adversely affect them. In addition to those 
addicted and their families, drug abuse affects all of us. Theft and 
violent crime are closely tied to drug abuse. In addition, billions of 
dollars are spent on health care due to drug abuse, a burden to the 
entire Nation.
  In order to combat illegal drug use, the Federal Government must 
attack from different avenues using many agencies of the government. 
For example, the State Department works with other countries. The Drug 
Enforcement Agency enforces drug laws. The Department of Health and 
Human Services must deal with breaking addiction. ONDCP's mandate is to 
coordinate all of these efforts in a comprehensive strategy, 
coordinating with State, local, and international governments and 
institutions.
  The bill before us today ensures that there is one place in the 
Federal Government that combats all aspects of the drug problem through 
drug prevention, treatment, enforcement, interdiction, and supply 
reduction. ONDCP has a vital role to play in our efforts to reduce the 
use of illegal drugs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passage 
of this legislation.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank Chairman Souder and Mr. 
Cummings, and let me draw your attention to a specific section of the 
bill that I think is troubling not only to most Members of Congress but 
law enforcement throughout our country, and that is the increasing use 
and production of methamphetamines. This is a uniquely dangerous drug 
that is extremely addictive and ruins its victims. ``Methamphetamine 
suddenly becomes this thing in their life that they cannot do 
without,'' stated Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. ``In terms of 
damage to children and to our society, meth is now the most dangerous 
drug in America.''
  Consider the following facts: meth is the number one drug problem for 
the majority of county law enforcement agencies. According to the 
National Association of Counties, 58 percent of counties report that 
meth has become their top anti-drug priority for law enforcement. In 
many areas, meth cases are swamping hospital emergency rooms. In one 
NACO survey, 47 percent of hospitals said meth is the top illicit drug 
involved in patient presentation. The great majority of these patients 
are uninsured, placing a tremendous added burden on already strained 
emergency rooms.

[[Page H804]]

  As the meth epidemic spreads, other crimes are bred. Wherever meth 
gains a foothold, substantial increases in property crime are seen as 
addicts desperately seek cash to fund their addiction. In affected 
areas, a 62 percent increase in domestic violence due to meth has been 
reported.
  Meth is a major cause of child abuse and neglect. Domestic meth labs 
create environments hazardous to children. A nationwide survey of child 
welfare officials has reported an increase of out-of-home placements 
because of meth just in the last year alone. In California, the figure 
is 80 percent.
  Many States, and now the Federal Government through the 
Methamphetamine Epidemic Control Act, have taken decisive steps to 
strangle domestic meth production by cutting off the supplies of 
essential precursor chemicals like pseudoephedrine.
  And with the passage of this law, we will also implement the 
following: require greater diligence on methamphetamine. The bill will 
require future installments of the National Drug Control Strategy to 
place greater emphasis on identifying emerging threats and properly 
preparing strategies to respond to such threats. This applies the 
lesson learned from the meth epidemic, which was allowed to spread from 
a regional to a national problem before any Federal response was made.
  In this bill, we will target meth production through HIDTA. No less 
than $15 million will be specifically set aside for law enforcement 
initiatives against meth trafficking.
  Those provisions alone show why this bill is so critically important 
in its reauthorization. This will help law enforcement and counties, 
and we pray it will help families, because if you have seen any of the 
articles about the abuse of methamphetamines, you see how a thriving 
human being became addicted to this drug and has devastated their life 
and their future.
  So we work together in a bipartisan way to see if we can help local 
governments eradicate this scourge among our society. I thank Chairman 
Souder and the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, for their team effort on 
solving some drug problems that face this country.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as we stand here debating this important legislation 
before us today, illegal drug abuse, drug addiction, and drug-related 
violence are exacting an enormous toll on our society, destroying 
lives, tearing apart families and devastating entire communities. 
Nationwide, drug abuse will contribute to the loss of 50,000 lives, and 
more than 20,000 Americans will die as a direct consequence of illegal 
drug use this year alone.
  In addition to the human toll, illegal drug abuse results in billions 
of dollars in cost to our Nation in health care costs and lost economic 
productivity, placing an enormous burden on the American people, State 
and local governments, businesses and other institutions.
  This set of circumstances is simply intolerable in a compassionate 
Nation, and it is our duty as the people's representatives to formulate 
laws and policies to reduce the scope and severity of this problem.
  To be sure, America's drug problem is national in scope and has 
international dimensions. But its impact, first of all, is personal and 
local. In one way or another, every one of us and everyone we know is 
touched by this problem. Unfortunately, I see the tragedy of drug abuse 
and drug violence play out all too starkly in my own inner-city 
Baltimore neighborhood and in the communities of Baltimore and Howard 
counties that I represent. I have made a deliberate choice to continue 
to live where I do because I am determined to see our efforts here make 
a difference in my community for the benefit of the people I call my 
friends and neighbors and people like them across this great Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, no single event is more emblematic of the severe 
problems that inner-city Baltimoreans face than the horrific arson 
murder of Carmell and Angela Dawson and their five children in 2002. In 
the wee morning hours of October 16, 2002, a young drug dealer, upset 
with Angela Dawson's unrelenting efforts to report drug distribution 
activities occurring in front of her family's home, threw a fire bomb 
through the Dawsons' ground-floor window. The fire set the home ablaze, 
took seven lives, and sent a chilling message to the community: Don't 
snitch, don't cooperate with the police, and don't dare fight back.
  The legislation we are considering today is a vital component of our 
Federal commitment to fight back against illegal drugs by mounting a 
comprehensive, coordinated effort to combat all aspects of the drug 
problem through drug prevention, treatment, enforcement, interdiction 
and supply reduction.
  The Office of National Drug Control Policy, the drug czar's office, 
was created in 1988 and has been reauthorized twice, in 1993 and 1998. 
Its basic mandate is to coordinate and support the efforts of drug 
control agencies located in eight different Departments.

                              {time}  1145

  H.R. 2829 would reauthorize the drug czar's office and three key 
programs administered by it: the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
program, HIDTA; the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, CTAC; and 
the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. HIDTA, CTAC, and the Media 
Campaign all play an important part in executing key aspects of the 
National Drug Control Strategy, and they deserve to be reauthorized.
  H.R. 2829 was ordered reported by the Government Reform, Energy and 
Commerce, and Judiciary committees by voice vote with the bipartisan 
support of committee members. I am confident that this bill will 
strengthen ONDCP, its component programs, and our national 
comprehensive anti-drug effort by providing for increased interagency 
communication and cooperation, enhanced program and contractor 
accountability, and continuous evaluation of anti-drug programs and 
initiatives. This will result in more effective collaboration and let 
the administration, Congress, and the American people know in objective 
terms what approaches are working and what needs to be improved or 
rethought.
  H.R. 2829 includes key bipartisan provisions that I strongly support, 
and most notably, the Dawson Family Community Protection Act. As 
amended by the manager's amendment adopted by the Judiciary Committee, 
this legislation, which I introduced with Chairman Souder in both the 
108th and 109th Congresses, would annually provide at least $7 million 
in HIDTA funds to support neighborhood safety and community cooperation 
with police in areas severely affected by violent drug-trafficking 
activity.
  The Dawson provisions underscore the importance of the HIDTA program, 
which provides vital Federal funding to support uniquely flexible and 
effective collaboration between Federal, State, and local agencies. 
H.R. 2829 includes provisions to preserve and strengthen the HIDTA 
program in its current form and in its current location within ONDCP. 
This is in stark contrast to the administration's proposal, set forth 
in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request, to reduce HIDTA 
funding and move HIDTA to the Department of Justice. H.R. 2829 
reiterates Congress's intent that HIDTA should remain where it can be 
most effective.
  H.R. 2829 also includes provisions to ensure that programs to expand 
access to drug treatment are adequately supported in the Federal drug 
control budget and further requires ONDCP to develop comprehensive 
strategies to address the severe threats posed by South American 
heroin, Afghan heroin, and drug smuggling across the Southwest border. 
In addition, H.R. 2829 calls for a comprehensive strategy for sharing 
and coordinating counterdrug intelligence and provides for increased 
coordination of interdiction assets and efforts.
  With regard to the Media Campaign, the bill authorizes increased 
funding, recognizes pro bono advertising as the program's central 
component, provides for greater contractor accountability, requires 
testing and evaluation of ads before they appear on the air, and 
requires an independent evaluation of the campaign's impact on 
preventing and reducing illicit drug use by youth.
  All in all, I believe this legislation advances the bipartisan, and I 
do emphasize that, bipartisan goal of supporting a strong, 
comprehensive, and coherent Federal anti-drug effort.

[[Page H805]]

  As the ranking minority member of the Government Reform's 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I 
want to express my deep appreciation for the bipartisan support of 
Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis of Virginia; ranking 
member Henry Waxman; and Drug Policy Subcommittee Chairman Mark Souder. 
And I join them in strongly urging our colleagues to support this very 
important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Across America, individuals, families, and communities continue to be 
devastated by the scourge of drug abuse. It remains one of the most 
pressing and unforgiving problems our country faces.
  Some have made comments, including on the floor earlier this morning, 
that we have made no progress in the war on drugs. That simply is not 
true. What we tend to do is go up and down as we do in any kind of 
battle. I do not believe we will ever get rid of the scourge of drug 
abuse any more than I believe we will get rid of what I believe is at 
its core, sin in other parts of America, whether it is spouse abuse, 
child abuse, rape.
  But if we press and if we aggressively work together, we can reduce 
it. The fact is that when we backed off in the early 1990s and saw the 
Federal intervention dollars go down in the Andean region and the 
interdiction dollars go down, and the joke was even in prominent 
officials as ``I didn't inhale,'' we saw drug use go up so much that we 
have to reduce it 50 percent from 1993 until now to get back to where 
we were in 1992. That dramatic rise and falling, again, is somewhat 
typical of what has happened in American history in drug abuse.
  We have had some steady progress in key indicators. There is not meth 
abuse if you can get at marijuana use because all meth users use 
marijuana. Marijuana is the gateway drug, along with tobacco and 
alcohol in high school, of all other narcotics abuse. Right now we are 
facing a meth epidemic in the United States that clearly, I believe, 
this administration has not responded to nearly aggressively enough. We 
also have prescription drug abuse. Oxycontin and other prescription 
drugs are actually causing the most deaths from any drug abuse in the 
United States. We have to be eternally vigilant.
  This bill, introduced by Tom Davis, the distinguished chairman of the 
Government Reform Committee, and me, along with the distinguished 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Elijah Cummings, and the full 
committee ranking member, Henry Waxman, is a forceful and bipartisan 
recommitment to our broad national efforts to control drug abuse and to 
renew our support for a strong Office of National Drug Control Policy.
  Let me explain a couple of points about this. The ONDCP, Office of 
National Drug Control Policy, is often called the ``drug czar.'' It was 
created by Congress. It was not created by an administration. It was 
taken somewhat unwillingly by an administration years ago, and now we 
are up for reauthorization. We attempted to reauthorize this several 
years ago. It passed the House unanimously, but never got through the 
Senate at the end of the year. We are now coming back with a bill that 
is bipartisan and bicameral. I believe that this bill now can move 
through the Senate.
  It is important to remember a couple of reasons why it is important 
to authorize agencies, not just to appropriate. What has happened in 
this interim without an authorization is that the administration has 
attempted to gut the HIDTA program. They have attempted to wipe out 
many other programs. I believe they have lacked a national meth 
strategy. I believe that, in addition, they have failed to give better 
guidance to safe and drug-free schools and then proposed to zero it 
out; failed to give better guidance to State and local law enforcement 
and then proposed to zero out those programs.
  What happens when you do not have an authorization bill is that it 
gives complete discretion to the administration to spend whatever funds 
we allocate in whatever way they choose. This was a Department created 
by the United States Congress, by both parties, by both Houses, and it 
is important we give guidance. When an administration refuses to 
respond to an issue like meth and refuses to use the office in the way 
Congress intended, you move from a bill that was the original 
authorization, like this, to a bill like this. In other words, you do 
get more micromanagement.
  We have actually eliminated a number of subboards and appointments 
and things that were irrelevant, but there is much more direct guidance 
to try to make sure that you do not just criticize programs but that 
the drug czar, the director of ONDCP, directly gives guidance, whether 
it be on heroin in Afghanistan, whether it be in Colombia; that this 
will preserve the success of, for example, the High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas programs. If we pass this reauthorization bill, they 
will not be able to wipe it out or move it to other Departments.
  The administration's proposal the last 2 years has been unanimously 
opposed by every HIDTA director in America. Every single HIDTA in 
America has opposed the administration's proposed changes. This 
authorization would keep HIDTA where it belongs. It will refocus the 
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. This bill clarifies the 
purposes of the campaign. Some of this we have worked out with the 
administration in the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, where they 
were at odds a number of years ago and they have implemented some of 
these changes; but we have now put it into law, because, remember, this 
is a 5-year reauthorization. This administration basically has 2 years 
to go. This is really outlining where the next administration is going 
to work in anti-drug policy, not just the current administration.
  It will strengthen the Southwest border counternarcotics strategy. 
Many of us feel that there has been a lack of a coordinated Southwest 
border narcotics strategy, to say the least; and this bill will 
prescribe that there has to be a counternarcotics strategy. We will 
also target the methamphetamine epidemic. This bill requires at least 
$15 million to be dedicated to combating meth in the HIDTAs.
  We will also see a whole series of amendments. The United States 
Congress last year began asking for, and this year, a meth strategy. We 
have not had a meth strategy. We have had pathetic attempts, small 
attempts, at a meth strategy. But we have not had a national meth 
strategy. Amendment after amendment today, with the support of this 
subcommittee, will show the intensity of how this body feels on 
methamphetamines.
  It will also rationalize the General Counter-Drug Intelligence Plan. 
We have had overlaps on intelligence that have been totally 
unacceptable and a waste of taxpayer dollars. It will elevate the rank 
and status of the ONDCP director. Because the director is tasked with 
coordinating drug control of numerous agencies, including Cabinet-level 
Departments, this bill designates that he has the same rank and status 
as a Cabinet officer. You cannot suggest to the State Department or the 
Defense Department that they are not doing enough, for example, in 
Afghanistan if you do not have equal status. It is absurd to think a 
staff person in the White House could have the same clout as a fellow 
Cabinet member in reviewing budgets, at least most of the time. This 
does not interfere with the President's authority to determine the 
makeup of his Cabinet, but it does ensure that the director will be 
able to work with the Department heads on an equal basis.
  It will improve effectiveness and accountability in drug treatment. 
There is page after page to try to make sure that our drug treatment 
programs and that SAMSA work directly with the ONDCP director to do 
that and it does not become arbitrary. We have had some very 
disappointing lack of communication from the ONDCP director with SAMSA, 
and this will help correct that.
  It also requires international drug control certification, which we 
believe is important. It will deal with Colombia, Afghanistan, 
including microherbicides.
  We have many different amendments inside this bill that have been put 
together by Members of both parties. It is a truly bipartisan effort. 
When people say we cannot work together, here

[[Page H806]]

is a truly bipartisan effort with the input of members from multiple 
committees. The reason this is in the Government Reform Committee is 
that 20-some subcommittees have jurisdiction over narcotics; and years 
ago when this office was created, it was put under Government Reform, 
normally an oversight committee but here with authorizing; and an 
increasing number of things were put under the drug czar so that we 
could coordinate it, and this bill will reestablish this because we 
have been frustrated that there has not been such clear coordination. 
This bill will mandate more directly that it is done.
  I believe we have had some successes. We are having success in 
Colombia. Afghanistan, we are going backwards, but we are fighting 
hard. I believe that the DEA has done some good work in meth, but we 
need a lot more in meth. We need our national ad campaign and our 
HIDTAs to focus more on the meth epidemic. We have other different 
problems, and I believe that this bill is a comprehensive, bipartisan, 
bicameral way to try to address this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been a leader in our 
efforts to address this problem of drug addiction in our country and 
certainly throughout the world.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Souder and Mr. Cummings deserve a tremendous amount of credit.
  I look at this problem, as a former mayor, as a criterion, one of the 
major criteria, for homeland security. If we cannot secure our 
neighborhoods, if we cannot secure our towns, small and large, against 
the poison of illicit drugs, which take many of our own sons and 
daughters every year, then we are never going to be able to address 
foreign terrorism on our shores.

                              {time}  1200

  So I thank you, and I thank you. I thank Mr. Davis and Mr. Waxman. I 
believe in a zero-tolerance policy, but we don't have a sense of 
urgency. Mr. Souder, I think you put it better than I could ever put 
it. This is an urgent problem, certainly nothing that started yesterday 
morning. It has been upon us.
  The war on drugs is the original war on terror, one that we are 
fighting, and reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
is the least we can do, the least we can do, to continue the fight. I 
think it is a noble fight.
  Illegal drug trafficking and use is a cancer on our society that 
destroys people, families, and even destroys neighborhoods. The bill 
takes a positive step in helping to restore the foundations of our 
community by authorizing more than $1.1 billion over 4 years to fight 
drug trafficking in high-intensity areas. I happen to live in one of 
those high-intensity areas, North Jersey/New York. This is an important 
investment that can be used by local, county, State and Federal 
agencies to collaborate information and root out the dealers and the 
traffickers.
  In 2004, as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, 
Secretary Ridge appeared before us. We were talking about terror and 
elevating the alerts, if you remember the debates we had at that time 
and the color schemes, et cetera, et cetera, which, by the way, we 
still have. And I asked Secretary Ridge, who I had a great deal of 
respect for, I thought he did a good job with the cards that he was 
dealt; I asked him the question, ``Secretary Ridge, you were Governor 
of a State. Have you ever seen the terror on the faces of families and 
people who live in neighborhoods that are infested by drugs? Have you 
ever seen that terror?''
  He said, ``I know exactly where you are going, Congressman, because 
homeland security should be a place where we make our stand as well.''
  Families are being ruined. This bill increases funding for the 
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, I think a successful program. 
The bill earmarks money for the Dawson Family Community Protection Act, 
which would focus on providing avenues for citizens to report drug 
trafficking in at-risk neighborhoods without putting their lives on the 
line.
  This is an urgent problem, Mr. Chairman. This is a very urgent 
problem. When you see how many of our own kids are dying, and adults, I 
might say, during the year, and compare that against the tragedy of 9/
11, we must address both of these problems to bring sanity back to our 
neighborhoods and back to our families.
  There is an urgency here. Is there an urgency down the street, Mr. 
Souder and Mr. Cummings?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a former chairman of the 
subcommittee. He and I both were senior staffers in the other body and 
have worked on this issue for a long time. I appreciate his leadership 
in fighting narcotics throughout the United States.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chair of this important 
subcommittee, Mr. Souder, for his leadership in bringing to the floor 
today probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we 
will consider in this entire session of Congress. Not only do I thank 
him for his leadership and being a long-term soldier in this battle, 
but also the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking 
member, whom I have had the privilege to work with, who is also 
dedicated to dealing with this scourge on our Nation.
  I say ``scourge on our Nation,'' because we just heard the previous 
speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey, talk about what illegal 
narcotics and drug abuse, substance abuse, has done to our Nation.
  We have statistics. There are more than 20,000 American drug 
casualties a year. If we look at just the 3 years we have had the 
conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have lost some 2,000 of our troops 
in service. We have lost more than 20,000 per year in our streets and 
neighborhoods, and those are only the recorded statistics. It is not 
all of the victims of crime and the murders. These are people who have 
died just from drug overdose in our communities, and many of them are 
our young people, the future of our Nation lost.
  The cost in jails, incarceration, I am told 60 percent of those 
behind bars are there because of substance abuse. The social costs on 
all of our social agencies across this Nation is high.
  Again, there is probably no greater social challenge that we have 
than the ravages of substance and drug abuse, child abuse, spouse 
abuse, all types of acts that we see that are almost unspeakable 
because of the effects of illegal narcotics.
  I will say that President Bush and John Walters have done an 
excellent job in a number of areas. They set out measurable and 
accountable goals, and some of them have been achieved. We have seen a 
dramatic reduction in youth drug abuse. But we have a constant change 
in the challenge.
  I know working with Mr. Souder and Mr. Cummings, we have seen the 
crack epidemic. We saw the heroin epidemic that ravaged Baltimore and 
other cities, great cities across the Nation. We have seen designer 
drugs. Now we see the meth scourge. So we have to have a flexible and 
adaptable policy. Hopefully this plan and the 5-year reauthorization 
provides that.
  It is not always how much we spend, it is how we spend it. I think 
this administration has also focused attention on High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Area designations, HIDTA, which we have done over the 
years, and we have set some of those in stone, and we keep funding them 
year after year. We need to look at how we spend that, how much we 
spend and where we put the resources for high-intensity approaches to 
going after problems that do shift and change. I think that is an 
important debate. I am not crazy about moving it over to the Department 
of Justice, but I do think we need a more accountable HIDTA program.
  In conclusion, though, we do have a changing threat. We have seen 
some successes, as I said, with our youth. Plan Colombia, which we 
fought for during the nineties, we finally got implemented. It is an 
incredible success. We have some challenges to look forward to, the 
disruption in South America with people like Morales in Bolivia, whose 
policies raise great questions about the progress we have made in 
controlling illegal narcotics.
  But we do know from our experience that we have to have a plan, we 
have to spend our money wisely, and hopefully

[[Page H807]]

this reauthorization does that. We do know that we must focus on good 
education programs, up-to-date prevention programs, interdiction, 
strong enforcement programs, and then treatment programs that we also 
have measurable results from.
  So I am pleased to join my colleagues in speaking for this 
reauthorization, and I hope that the final product will do even more in 
addressing this serious problem our society faces.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who is a member of our committee and who has 
worked on this issue, and is also a former mayor and very familiar with 
the drug issue in our country and in our cities.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
the opportunity to address this.
  We are all concerned about drug policy and about drug control policy. 
We are concerned about the impact drug addiction has on individual 
lives and families. We are concerned about the ripple effects of 
addiction on communities.
  But I would just like to make this observation as we prepare to vote 
on this bill: We have to be careful in our strategy to ensure that we 
do not mistake victims for enemies. We make a mistake when students are 
punished both through the legal system and then by denying them 
critical education provisions, as the drug provision of the Higher 
Education Act does. The recent scaling back of that provision by this 
Congress is a step in the right direction, but we must do more. Denying 
students the opportunity for a higher education does not solve the 
Nation's drug problems, nor does it provide drug treatment.
  We also make a mistake when we rely on randomized student drug 
testing to prevent addiction and abuse of drugs. Instead of focusing 
our efforts on educating our children about drugs and engaging them in 
the decisions about their lives and futures, drug testing assumes all 
youth are the same. Drug testing may be right in certain situations 
with reasonable evidence and a court order, but randomized testing 
renders all youths suspect and treats them as criminals. High 
expectations for our children may reap great rewards, but what will we 
sow with the expectation of deception? So we have to focus our efforts 
on helping our children, not punishing them, and we cannot allow the 
war on drugs to become a war on children.
  I am sure there are many provisions of the bill before us that are 
aimed at helping many communities, but I just wanted to make this 
observation in general about our policies, so that as we get into a 
broader discussion on other legislation, that we pay close attention to 
the policies that we are considering or are enacting in our schools.
  Mr. SOUDER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 13 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from the great State of Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland for yielding, and I thank him for his 
leadership, along with Mr. Waxman and Mr. Souder, who I have had the 
pleasure of working with on these issues, both from the perspective of 
interdiction, along the ``third border,'' but also from the perspective 
of homeland security as it relates to the northern and southern 
borders.
  I rise to acknowledge and appreciate the great amount of work that 
has gone into this legislative initiative, and particularly as it 
relates to the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy.
  I recall that one of my first introductions to the severity of drug 
usage and the willingness to work full time on this issue was the 
opportunity to visit with Mr. Cummings in his area, the city of 
Baltimore, which he was not reticent to let us know that there was a 
problem, and a problem, of course, that was connected to HIV/AIDS, and 
he has been working without ceasing to make great strides in the city 
of Baltimore. Mr. Cummings, I want to congratulate you both for 
introducing Members of Congress to the crisis early on, as well your 
leadership in this area.
  So I don't take away from this legislative initiative the importance 
of stemming the rising tide of drug usage. In fact, we had thought, I 
think, in some years past that there was a curving down. But for those 
who are listening to this debate and the many drug treatment centers 
around America and the addicted persons, I know that they are willing 
to admit that we still have a concern and a crisis, and the 
reauthorization of this particular agency is important for the work 
that it does.
  In particular, as cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I 
see a frightening rise in the utilization of addictive substances by 
our children, particularly ages 12 to 17. We have seen a rising 
increase in the number of girls that are participating in drug usage, 
whether or not it is alcohol, starting in middle school; and we know 
that if you start taking substances like alcohol in middle school, by 
the time you reach the high school level you are addicted and we have a 
problem.

                              {time}  1215

  We know also that the scourge of cigarettes, though we find that the 
usage overall may be going down, is still attractive to children. You 
say no and they want to say yes.
  And then, of course, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, we 
have consistently fought against the rising tide, the violent tide of 
methamphetamine use that started in our rural America, creeps into our 
cities; and the stories of blown up methamphetamine labs is a rage 
across America.
  In fact, I remember one of the first legislative initiatives that I 
passed was to stand against or to stop the use of a date-rape drug 
which was being made in bathtubs across America.
  So this is an important response to that, and I hope that we will 
have an opportunity to accept my amendment on the floor that hopes to 
provide an assessment of where we are as it relates to intervention; to 
Federal and State programs that deal with assessing the use of drugs by 
children ages 12 to 17, a very simple premise; and as well wants to 
give greater guidance to Federal, State and local authorities as to how 
they intervene, what is the value, the success story.
  I hope my colleagues will join me with that support. It is clearly a 
road map to help us be more effective. I also want to make mention of 
the fact that this is a homeland security issue, because I believe Mr. 
Souder participated in hearings dealing with utilization of drugs as 
money that can be laundered for terrorist activity.
  We are particularly focused on those areas in our borders around 
America. So we need to stop the violent tide of drugs. In fact, as a 
member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, we know that there are the 
combination of the smugglers of drugs with the huge cartels and the 
smugglers of human beings. They are intermixed and intertwined. They 
are there to do nothing but ill and evil. So these are important 
overlapping areas. I thank this committee for its leadership.
  Let me mention an area, however, that I want to focus on, and I want 
to associate myself with Mr. Kucinich and his concerns about the early 
incarceration, or trying juveniles as adults. That is why I want to 
have this assessment, because I believe it is important to be guided in 
the right procedures or right processes for our children, whether or 
not jail time, whether trying them as an adult is more effective than 
the intervention and good programs that are necessary.
  Frankly, I think the good programs weigh more in stopping the tide of 
the utilization of drugs by our children. There should be some 
consideration to that.
  And then let me, in conclusion, bring up Tulia, Texas, where, a, if 
you will, rogue cop was able to charge many, many of our constituents 
in Tulia, Texas, with false charges of drug use. In fact, most of the 
city found themselves charged with drug offenses down in the court 
house. This was a horrible episode of the utilization of the High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program.
  This was an abuse that is beyond our appreciation. I am grateful to 
the Congressional Black Caucus and various leaders of that caucus who 
saw the injustices. No, we are not here to promote the proliferation of 
drug use, but we are here to cite some of the failings of the rogue 
activities that come out of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
program, where there were innocent individuals who were, if you will,

[[Page H808]]

networked in, fish-netted in, conspiratorially grabbed into this whole 
drug conspiracy, mothers and uncles, brothers. Sometimes whole families 
were wrapped up in, indicted, tried and convicted, many of whom were 
serving jail time until we were able to get our hands on the 
investigation, lawyers were able to intervene, and the rogue cop was 
exposed and all of his testimony was discovered to be false.
  So there needs to be an oversight and a concern about whether or not 
these are effective uses of our dollars and whether or not we can 
effectively have oversight, so that, yes, the drug dealers who are 
poisoning our community, real drug dealers, the cartels, the smugglers 
of drugs, the producers of methamphetamine labs, the sellers of 
prescription drugs for children to use and others, the abuse of cough 
medicine, all of that is important to be able to highlight, to indict, 
try and convict, but not to go in and use a fishnet, rely only on the 
testimony of a rogue cop and have no other evidence to be utilized and 
to break the backs, the hearts of families, and to destroy a community.
  And so I hope that as we move this legislation forward, we will be 
able to be focused on the good items that are here, the direction that 
we can go with our children with an amendment that I have on the 
assessment of our programs; and, of course, Mr. Cummings, thank you for 
the concern that when people are under this particular legislation, 
there is a basis for fairness and accuracy in any charges being made 
and that people are not singled out because of the color of their skin 
because they are associated with drug use.
  With that, let me thank my colleagues for this legislation. I hope my 
words will be considered as we continue to debate this legislation and 
fight the war on drugs in a united and positive and successful manner.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very important piece of 
legislation. I think it was Mr. Pascrell who said that we must act with 
a sense of urgency. And he was absolutely right. As we stand here 
today, there are so many people who are becoming addicted to drugs; 
there are people who are literally robbing their own relatives and 
robbing their neighbors to get the funds for drugs.
  There are even people who are seeking drug treatment and finding it 
difficult to get that treatment. But what we have tried to do here 
today through this bill is to address this problem as best we could. 
One of the things that I must express appreciation for is Mr. Souder's 
candor with regard to this whole issue. Consistently, even when there 
were instances where the President's priorities seemed to be, and 
ONDCP's priorities seemed to be, a little out of line with the things 
that we felt should be done to most effectively and efficiently address 
this problem, Mr. Souder, every step of the way stood up and said, 
look, we are going to do what is right.
  We worked together very cooperatively. I really do appreciate it. It 
does mean a lot to me as a Member of this great body. I can say to all 
of our Members that this is legislation that we all should vote for. It 
should be a unanimous vote. I urge all Members to vote for the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of comments I want to make in 
closing general debate here. One is, just for the record, though it is 
not part of this legislation, we have clearly corrected the 
misinterpretation of the student loan bill.
  The Clinton administration had falsely interpreted the House 
legislation. The Bush administration continued to do that. It has been 
corrected. You only lose a student loan if you commit a drug crime 
while you have the loan.
  That is the least that the taxpayers should expect; and even then, if 
you go to drug treatment and test clean, you can get your loan back. 
Even then, if you get convicted, not arrested, but convicted of a drug 
crime, you still can get it back after 2 years, or if you go through 
drug treatment and get clean.
  The third time after you commit a drug crime and get convicted, then 
you lose your student loan. This is the least that the taxpayers should 
expect.
  We also have this constant debate whether it is a war or a disease. 
Former drug czar Barry McCaffrey always said he felt it was both, and I 
agree. Because with heart disease you do not see doctors getting 
assassinated on the street. You do not see heart surgeons getting shot 
in deals about heart surgery.
  Also it is a controllable disease. You do not have the equivalent of 
Alcoholics Anonymous or narcotics anonymous for Alzheimer's. But it is 
a disease. That is why treatment is very important. That is why the 
prevention programs are very important.
  I appreciated Congressman Pascrell, and actually it was Congressman 
Cummings who first said that narcoterrorism is something that we live 
with every day.
  As I said earlier, tragically, 3,500 people were killed on 9/11. But 
that fall, 7,500 died because of illegal narcotics; 30,000 in 2002; 
30,000 in 2003; 30,000 in 2004; roughly 7,500 in the first quarter of 
this year 105,000 people have died.
  While we get obsessed with every little thing going on in homeland 
security, we have terror on our streets, in our homes, and in our 
neighborhoods every day. We cannot forget and divert funds from the 
daily threat of narcoterrorism in the United States as we do this.
  I want to again refer to the Government Reform Subcommittee report 
that was unanimously adopted today. You can find it on the Web site of 
the Criminal Justice Subcommittee under Government Reform, 154 pages, 
607 footnotes. If you tap the footnote, you can get the actual source.
  There you can get a full view of the whole narcotics policies, 
whether it is in HHS, Department of Justice, Defense, State Department. 
It is part of what we do in our committee.
  The ONDCP, the direct bill in front of us, has two major functions. 
One is directly under the control of the so-called drug czar, the 
director of ONDCP. It is a national media campaign, the High Intensity 
Drug Trafficking Areas, and the Counterdrug Technology Assessment 
Center.
  In addition, the drug czar reviews all budgets of all agencies with 
narcotics and has broad authority to make sure that we have a 
coordinated national drug policy, and this bill strengthens that.
  This bill was not easily put together. I want to thank first off the 
Members of both parties. We have had an extraordinary working 
relationship and have become very close friends, Mr. Cummings and I, 
but other members of our committee, too. We have had well-attended 
subcommittee hearings.
  We have held field hearings as well as hearings in Washington. Our 
staff, particularly Nick Coleman, who has just recently left to go to 
the U.S. Attorney's Office, has visited almost every HIDTA in America.
  We as Members have visited HIDTA directors here and have gone out and 
visited the different HIDTAs. Marc Wheat, the staff director; Dennis 
Kilcoyne; Jim Kaiser; Tony Haywood from the minority staff have worked 
hard in developing this comprehensive legislation.
  Mr. Cummings and I both thank our staff, because they help make us 
look good. In a bill this complicated, working with every agency in the 
Federal Government basically, in a bipartisan way, is not easy to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this legislation.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act, and I was pleased 
that the House Judiciary Committee adopted two amendments that I 
offered and that they are part of the base bill.
  Street drug markets, such as open air drug dealing at the corner and 
at drug houses, are a serious public safety problem. Often located in 
poor, minority, and disadvantaged communities, they cause severe harm 
by easing initiation into drug use, supporting addiction, and by 
drawing youth into the drug trade.
  My first amendment, which is designated Sec. 14 of H.R. 2829, 
provided for demonstration programs by local partnerships to shut down 
illicit drug market hot-spots by deterring drug dealers or altering the 
dynamic of drug sales. This provision authorizes funding for 
demonstration programs that seek to coordinate an effective 
intervention using a credible,

[[Page H809]]

deterrent message. This would encourage criminal justice agencies to 
collaborate with researchers and social welfare agencies to analyze 
local conditions and develop strategic, problem-solving interventions.
  Such an approach was proven successful in High Point, NC. Upon 
identifying the drug market and its small group of active dealers, law 
enforcement carefully monitored and documented drug activity and 
probation/parole violations through surveillance and drug buys. 
Offenders with any violent criminal history were immediately arrested. 
Non-violent offenders, on the other hand, were confronted by law 
enforcement, city officials, service organizations and their families 
with a strong deterrent message. They were given a choice between 
facing immediate legal action or ceasing dealing and receiving 
rehabilitative services.
  Consequently, the drug market promptly collapsed with minimal police 
intervention or crime displacement. Within one year of implementation, 
the drug crime rate of High Point fell by 34% and the violent crime 
rate was cut in half.
  Sec. 14 of this bill authorizes $10 million for the next three years 
to fund demonstration programs supporting these interagency 
collaborations. The agencies would be responsible for evaluating the 
effectiveness of the strategic intervention, and the Director would be 
responsible for submitting to Congress a report identifying the best 
practices in drug market eradication.
  My second amendment, which is designated Sec. 15 of H.R. 2829, 
provided for demonstration programs by local partnerships to coerce 
abstinence in chronic hard-drug users under community supervision 
through the use of drug testing and sanctions. This provision 
authorizes funding for demonstration programs that seek to reduce the 
use of illicit drugs by chronic hard-drug users living in the community 
while under the supervision of the criminal justice system.
  Approximately 80 percent of the Nation's cocaine is consumed by a 
relatively small group of chronic users (approximately 4 million). 
Three-quarters of these users are under the supervision of the criminal 
justice system. By deterring these users, we would be able to reduce 
the nation's cocaine consumption by 60 percent--and these numbers are 
similar for other hard drugs, such as heroin and meth.
  Coerced abstinence is a highly effective means for targeting these 
users. This model is based on predictable, frequent drug testing and 
known, non-negotiable, immediate, graduated sanctions. For example, a 
system where a participant is tested every 72 hours and a dirty test 
led to an immediate, unpleasant sanction--for example, 8 hours in a 
jury box or 24 hours in jail. Participants are simultaneously offered 
incentives such as drug treatment or other rehabilitative services.
  An ongoing example of this model is being used in Hawaii, where 
substance abuse violations are common, with meth being the drug of 
choice. In October 2005, one year after the program began, program 
participants had an 83 percent reduction in positive test results (from 
21.9% for control group to 3.8% for program participants) and an 87 
percent reduction in missed appointments for testing (from 10% for 
control group to 1.3% for program participants).
  This level of effectiveness we cannot ignore. For this reason, Sec. 
15 of H.R. 2829 authorizes $10 million for the next 3 years for 
demonstration programs that administer drug tests to individuals at 
least twice a week and swiftly impose a known set of graduated 
sanctions for non-compliance. The program must include a plan for 
monitoring the progress toward reducing the percentage of positive 
drugs and missed testing appointments, and the Director would be 
responsible for submitting to Congress a report identifying the best 
practices in reducing the use of illicit drugs by chronic hard-drug 
users.
  I commend the Office of National Drug Control Policy for publicly 
committing itself to the goal of reducing illegal drug use and abuse in 
the United States. However, I also call on the Director to increase the 
allocation of funds dedicated for treatment and demand reduction 
efforts, which have shown to be very successful in reducing drug use. 
To achieve this national drug control policy that efficiently reduces 
drug use and abuse in the United States, we need strategies that are as 
smart as they are tough. This requires that we remain open to evidence-
based programs and respond with innovation. I commend ONDCP for the 
progress it has made, ask that the Director consider these 
recommendations and will support this legislation, H.R. 2829, to the 
reauthorize the Office.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, as we work to reauthorize the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy today, I'd like to pay tribute to the work 
and dedication of Southwest Michigan's Regional Methamphetamine 
Taskforces. It is through their efforts that March is Methamphetamine 
Awareness Month in Southwest Michigan.
  The unfortunate reality is that each and every one of our communities 
is vulnerable to the dangers of meth--it is a highly addictive drug 
that does not discriminate. However, the communities of Southwest 
Michigan are united in their fight against this epidemic. Regional meth 
taskforces consisting of dedicated law enforcement officials, 
pharmacists, firefighters, right down to the individual neighborhood 
watchman, are making headway in the fight against meth. This drug 
epidemic must be fought on the front lines, and the troops are 
assembled in Southwest Michigan.
  I applaud the efforts of our dedicated Regional Meth Taskforce 
coordinators: Heidi Bertschinger of Allegan, Liz Lenz of Barry, Kim 
Palchak of Branch, Jennifer Lester of Cass, Tina Harbaugh of Kalamazoo, 
Mike Wilson of St. Joseph, and EJ. McAndrew of Van Buren. I would also 
like to commend Rick Shanley of Kalamazoo for increasing public 
awareness of the progress that the task forces are accomplishing.
  These folks, and many others who follow their lead, have worked 
diligently to educate communities on the dangers of this drug. Among 
their many contributions to our region, the taskforces have trained 
community members to recognize the warning signs of the meth production 
and addiction, conducted research used by local treatment providers and 
educated school groups. Our communities are better off for the efforts 
of our regional taskforces.
  Special thanks also goes out to all of our local law enforcement 
officials, they face the dangers associated with meth abuse each and 
every day. While March is Methamphetamine Awareness Month in Southwest 
Michigan, this is a problem that must be addressed each and every month 
of the year, until it has been conquered.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, when I am home in Utah, I constantly hear 
about the prevalence of methamphetamines and the dangers to our 
community posed by this highly addictive drug. This legislation has 
some excellent measures to help the federal government better deal with 
the problem and I sincerely hope that it will help ONDCP to combat meth 
abuse.
  The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was created in 
1988 in order to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for our 
Nation's drug control program. Its stated goals are to reduce illicit 
drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and 
violence, and drug-related health consequences. I support this bill and 
am proud to vote for strengthening the agency in charge of producing 
the National Drug Control Strategy.
  But it would be a mistake to look at this bill without also 
considering the need to fully fund local law enforcement. The drug 
problem in our nation and in my home State of Utah is so pervasive that 
it absolutely requires the dedication and the cooperative efforts of 
local, state, and federal law enforcement. I know that Utah is not 
alone--I've heard many of my colleagues talk today about the scourge of 
methamphetamines and other drugs in thousands of communities across the 
nation. As a result, I am gravely concerned about the President's 
budget proposal for funding local law enforcement.
  The federal government needs to step up to the plate and properly 
fund law enforcement, if we are serious about national drug control 
policy. That's why I strongly support funding for critical law 
enforcement programs, such as Byrne grants, JAG grants, and the COPS 
program. During my time in Congress, every single person involved with 
law enforcement has made it a point to share with me exactly how these 
grants help protect Utah citizens.
  As we vote today to reauthorize ONDCP, let us also remember that our 
commitment to safeguarding local communities. I don't think we can say 
enough about the men and women who use this funding to better patrol 
our streets, decrease the availability of drugs in our schools, and 
ensure that each and every citizen is safe and protected. I know that 
they, and their fellow officers across this nation, are committed to 
protecting all of us, just as I am committed to working in support of 
both homeland security and domestic security.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I submit the attached 
exchange of letters between Chairman Buck McKeon of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, Chairman Peter Hoekstra of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman James Sensenbrenner of the 
Committee on Judiciary, and myself for the Congressional Record.

         U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee 
           on Intelligence,
                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 2006.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of 
     expediting the passage of H.R. 2829, the ``Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005,'' the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

[[Page H810]]

     hereby waives further consideration of the bill. The 
     Committee has jurisdictional interests in H.R. 2829, 
     including intelligence and intelligence-related provisions 
     contained in the bill.
       The Committee takes this action only with the understanding 
     that this procedural route should not be construed to 
     prejudice the House Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence's jurisdictional interest over this bill or any 
     similar bill and will not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the 
     Committee in the future. In addition, the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence will seek conferees on any 
     provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction 
     during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on 
     this legislation.
       Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our 
     exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional 
     Record during the House debate on H.R. 2829. I appreciate the 
     constructive work between our committees on this matter and 
     thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Peter Hoekstra,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 2006.
     Hon. Howard Peter Hoekstra,
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the Permanent Select Committee's jurisdictional 
     interest in H.R. 2829, the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005. As you have stated, your 
     committee has a valid jurisdiction interest in the 
     intelligence and intelligence-related provisions contained in 
     the bill.
       Thank you for waiving further consideration of H.R. 2829. I 
     agree that waiving further consideration of this bill does 
     not prejudice the jurisdiction of the Permanent Select 
     Committee nor should it be considered as precedent for 
     matters of jurisdictional interest in the future. In 
     addition, I will support your request for conferees from your 
     committee should a House-Senate conference on this or similar 
     legislation be convened.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank 
     you for your assistance as I work towards the enactment of 
     H.R. 2829.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Davis,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                     Committee on Education and the Workforce,

                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 2006.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to consideration of H.R. 2829, the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 
     2005, which the Committee on Government Reform reported on 
     November 18, 2005. The bill was referred to the Committee on 
     Government Reform and in addition to the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence and the Committees on Education and 
     the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary. In the 
     bill as reported by the Committee on Government Reform, Title 
     II, the Clean Sports Act, specifically the provisions 
     relating to high schools and collegiate athletics (proposed 
     sections 21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 725, 729, and 730) is within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
       Given the fact that the bill as reported by the Committee 
     on the Judiciary on March 2, 2006, which does not contain the 
     Clean Sports Act, will be the base text considered by the 
     House, I do not intend to ask for continued referral of H.R. 
     2829. However, I do so only with the understanding that this 
     procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce's jurisdictional 
     interest and prerogative on these provisions or any other 
     similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent 
     for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my 
     Committee in the future. Furthermore, should these or similar 
     provisions be considered in a conference with the Senate, I 
     would expect members of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce be appointed to the conference committee on these 
     provisions.
       Finally I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange 
     of letters in the Congressional Record during the 
     consideration of this bill. If you have questions regarding 
     this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. I thank you 
     for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 2006.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the Education and the Workforce Committee's 
     jurisdictional interest in H.R. 2829, the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005. As you have 
     stated, the provisions relating to high schools and 
     collegiate athletics in Title II, the Clean Sports Act, as 
     reported by my Committee are within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce.
       Thank you for not requesting the continued referral of H.R. 
     2829. It is correct that the version of H.R. 2829, as 
     reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, that will be 
     considered in the House does not contain the Clean Sports Act 
     or other provisions related to collegiate and high school 
     athletics. I agree that not considering this bill in 
     committee does not prejudice the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Education and Workforce Committee nor should it 
     be considered as precedent for matters of jurisdictional 
     interest in the future. In addition, I would support your 
     request for conferees from your Committee should a House-
     Senate conference on these or similar provisions be convened.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank 
     you for your assistance as I work towards the enactment of 
     H.R. 2829.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Davis,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 2006.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to consideration of H.R. 2829, the 
     ``Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act 
     of 2005,'' on the House floor. The bill was referred to the 
     Committee on Government Reform and in addition to the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committees 
     on Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, and the 
     Judiciary.
       Thanks to your cooperation and diligent efforts to improve 
     H.R. 2829, the bill, as reported by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, represents the legislative text that will be the 
     basis for consideration by the House. I have therefore agreed 
     to make in order the version of the bill reported by your 
     committee. However, I do so only with the understanding that 
     this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice 
     the jurisdictional interest and prerogatives of the Committee 
     on Government Reform and will not be considered as precedent 
     for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my 
     Committee in the future.
       I respectfully request your confirmation of our mutual 
     understanding. I will include a copy of our exchange of 
     letters in the Congressional Record during the consideration 
     of this bill. If you have questions regarding this matter, 
     please do not hesitate to call me.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Davis,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2006.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 2829, 
     the ``Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization 
     Act of 2005,'' on the floor. I agree that the version of H.R. 
     2829 reported by the Committee on the Judiciary represents 
     the text that should be considered on the House floor, and it 
     is my understanding that the Committee on Rules will make in 
     order the version of the bill reported by the Committee on 
     the Judiciary. I agree that this procedural. route does not 
     prejudice the jurisdictional interests of the Committee on 
     Government Reform.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your 
     Committee's diligent work on this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2829, the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization. Other than the 
TSA making grandmothers take off their shoes and infants discard their 
milk bottles prior to boarding airplanes, the War on Drugs might go 
down in history as the most ineffective program in the history of the 
United States.
  We spend over $40 billion per year on the drug war and at least 
another $30 billion to keep over one million Americans in prison on 
drug charges. Yet, study after study shows that drugs are as readily 
available as ever and drug use rates have remained unchanged for the 
last decade. Incarcerating one person costs at least $30,000 per year, 
while a comprehensive residential drug treatment program costs about 
$7,000. Treating drug addiction as a criminal rather than medical 
problem is not only scientifically unsound--it's a waste of money.

[[Page H811]]

  If we're going to spare no dollar in the war on drugs, then let's 
have quality education and after-school options for every child in 
America. And let's reverse the diabolical and failed policy of denying 
college loans to students with prior drug offenses. Americans with drug 
problems obviously need more--not fewer--opportunities to change their 
lives for the better.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this senseless, wasteful 
Office of National Drug Control Policy. Let's redirect these dollars to 
programs that work rather than ``tough on crime'' soundbites and 
countless useless government reports that do nothing to reduce drug use 
or addiction.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill 
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2829

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Amendment of Office of National Drug Control Policy 
              Reauthorization Act of 1998.
Sec. 3. Repeal of termination provision.
Sec. 4. Amendments to definitions.
Sec. 5. Amendments relating to establishment of Office of National Drug 
              Control Policy and designation of officers.
Sec. 6. Amendments relating to appointment and duties of Director and 
              Deputy Director.
Sec. 7. Amendments relating to coordination with other agencies.
Sec. 8. Development, submission, implementation, and assessment of 
              National Drug Control Strategy.
Sec. 9. High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program.
Sec. 10. Funding for certain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas.
Sec. 11. Amendments relating to Counter-Drug Technology Assessment 
              Center.
Sec. 12. National youth antidrug media campaign.
Sec. 13. Drug interdiction.
Sec. 14. Awards for demonstration programs by local partnerships to 
              shut down illicit drug market hot-spots by deterring drug 
              dealers or altering the dynamic of drug sales.
Sec. 15. Awards for demonstration programs by local partnerships to 
              coerce abstinence in chronic hard-drug users under 
              community supervision through the use of drug testing and 
              sanctions.
Sec. 16. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 17. Technical amendments and repeal.
Sec. 18. Requirement for disclosure of Federal sponsorship of all 
              Federal advertising or other communication materials.
Sec. 19. Policy relating to syringe exchange programs.

     SEC. 2. 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.).

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF TERMINATION PROVISION.

       Section 715 (21 U.S.C. 1712) is repealed, and the law shall 
     read as if such section was never in effect.

     SEC. 4. 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 ``, including the testing of employees;''; 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 (6), by adding before the period at the 
     end: ``, including any activities involving supply reduction, 
     demand reduction, or State and local affairs'';
       (3) in paragraph (7)--
       (A) by striking ``Agency'' and inserting ``agency'';
       (B) by striking ``National Foreign Intelligence Program,'' 
     and inserting ``National Intelligence Program,''; and
       (C) by inserting a comma before ``or Tactical'';
       (4) in paragraph (9), by striking ``implicates'' and 
     inserting ``indicates'';
       (5) in paragraph (10)--
       (A) by adding ``National Drug Control Program agencies 
     and'' after ``among'' in subparagraph (B);
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) domestic drug law enforcement, including domestic 
     drug interdiction and law enforcement directed at drug users; 
     and
       ``(E) coordination and enhancement of Federal, State, and 
     local law enforcement initiatives to gather, analyze, and 
     disseminate information and intelligence relating to drug 
     control among domestic law enforcement agencies.'';
       (6) in paragraph (11)--
       (A) by inserting before the semicolon in subparagraph (A) 
     the following: ``, including--
       ``(i) law enforcement outside the United States; and
       ``(ii) source country programs, including economic 
     development programs primarily intended to reduce the 
     production or trafficking of illicit drugs'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) facilitating and enhancing the sharing of foreign and 
     domestic information and law enforcement intelligence 
     relating to drug production and trafficking among National 
     Drug Control Program agencies, and between those agencies and 
     foreign law enforcement agencies; and'';
       (C) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting a period; and
       (D) by striking subparagraph (D); and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Appropriate congressional committees.--Except where 
     otherwise provided, the term `appropriate congressional 
     committees' means the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
     Committee on Appropriations, and the Caucus on International 
     Narcotics Control of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Government Reform, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       ``(13) Law enforcement.--The term `law enforcement' or 
     `drug law enforcement' means all efforts by a Federal, State, 
     or local government agency to enforce the drug laws of the 
     United States or any State, including investigation, arrest, 
     prosecution, and incarceration or other punishments or 
     penalties.''.
       (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 
     ``(I)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by striking ``through (C)'' and inserting ``through 
     (E)'';
       (B) by striking ``and subparagraph (D) of section 
     702(11)''; and
       (C) by adding before the period at the end the following: 
     ``, and sections 707 and 708 of this Act''.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF 
                   NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY AND DESIGNATION OF 
                   OFFICERS.

       (a) Responsibilities.--Paragraph (4) of section 703(a) (21 
     U.S.C. 1702(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) evaluate the effectiveness of the national drug 
     control policy and the National Drug Control Program 
     agencies' programs, by developing and applying specific goals 
     and performance measurements.''.
       (b) Rank of Director.--Section 703(b) (21 U.S.C. 1702(b)) 
     is amended in paragraph (1) by adding before the period the 
     following: ``, who shall hold the same rank and status as the 
     head of an executive department listed in section 101 of 
     title 5, United States Code''.
       (c) Deputy Directors.--Section 703(b) (21 U.S.C. 1702(b)) 
     is amended in paragraph (3)--
       (1) by striking ``Office--'' and inserting ``Office the 
     following additional Deputy Directors--''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``who shall'' and 
     inserting the following: ``who shall have substantial 
     experience and expertise in drug interdiction operations and 
     other supply reduction activities, and who shall serve as the 
     United States Interdiction Coordinator and''.

     SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO APPOINTMENT AND DUTIES OF 
                   DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

       (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) in paragraph (7), by inserting after ``President'' the 
     following: ``and the appropriate congressional committees'';
       (3) in paragraph (13), by striking ``(beginning in 1999)'';
       (4) in paragraph (14)--
       (A) by striking ``Appropriations'' and all that follows 
     through ``Senate'' and inserting ``appropriate congressional 
     committees''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end;
       (5) in paragraph (15), by striking subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) supporting the substance abuse information 
     clearinghouse administered by the Administrator of the 
     Substance Abuse and Mental

[[Page H812]]

     Health Services Administration and established in section 
     501(d)(16) of the Public Health Service Act by--
       ``(i) encouraging all National Drug Control Program 
     agencies to provide all appropriate and relevant information; 
     and
       ``(ii) supporting the dissemination of information to all 
     interested entities;''; and
       (6) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(16) shall coordinate with the private sector to promote 
     private research and development of medications to treat 
     addiction;
       ``(17) shall seek the support and commitment of State and 
     local officials in the formulation and implementation of the 
     National Drug Control Strategy;
       ``(18) shall monitor and evaluate the allocation of 
     resources among Federal law enforcement agencies in response 
     to significant local and regional drug trafficking and 
     production threats;
       ``(19) shall submit an annual report to Congress detailing 
     how the Office of National Drug Control Policy has consulted 
     with and assisted State and local governments with respect to 
     the formulation and implementation of the National Drug 
     Control Strategy and other relevant issues; and
       ``(20) shall, within one year after the date of the 
     enactment of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005, report to Congress on the impact 
     of each Federal drug reduction strategy upon the 
     availability, addiction rate, use rate, and other harms of 
     illegal drugs.''.
       (c) Submission of Drug Control Budget Requests.--Section 
     704(c)(1) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Content of drug control budget requests.--A drug 
     control budget request submitted by a department, agency, or 
     program under this paragraph shall include all requests for 
     funds for any drug control activity undertaken by that 
     department, agency, or program, including demand reduction, 
     supply reduction, and State and local affairs, including any 
     drug law enforcement activities. If an activity has both drug 
     control and nondrug control purposes or applications, the 
     department, agency, or program shall estimate by a documented 
     calculation the total funds requested for that activity that 
     would be used for drug control, and shall set forth in its 
     request the basis and method for making the estimate.''.
       (d) National Drug Control Budget Proposal.--Section 
     704(c)(2) is amended in subparagraph (A) by inserting before 
     the semicolon: ``and to inform Congress and the public about 
     the total amount proposed to be spent on all supply 
     reduction, demand reduction, State and local affairs, 
     including any drug law enforcement, and other drug control 
     activities by the Federal Government, which shall conform to 
     the content requirements set forth in subparagraph (C) of 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection''.
       (e) 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;
       ``(vii) requests funding for fiscal year 2007 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; and
       ``(viii) requests funding for the operations and management 
     of the Department of Homeland Security that does not include 
     a specific request for funds for the Office of 
     Counternarcotics Enforcement to carry out its 
     responsibilities under section 878 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 458).'';
       (3) in subparagraph (D)(iii), as so redesignated, by 
     inserting ``and the appropriate congressional committees'' 
     after ``House of Representatives''; and
       (4) in subparagraph (E)(ii)(II)(bb), as so redesignated, by 
     inserting ``and the appropriate congressional committees'' 
     after ``House of Representatives''.
       (f) 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''.
       (g) 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 appropriate congressional committees 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 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (22 
     U.S.C. 2291j-1); and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(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 appropriate congressional 
     committees, 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 (22 U.S.C. 2291(e));
       ``(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 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j), as provided 
     in section 706 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Year 2003 (22 U.S.C. 2291j-1), is warranted with 
     respect to countries the Director assesses have not 
     cooperated fully.''.
       (g) Fund Control Notices.--Section 704(f) (21 U.S.C. 
     1703(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Congressional notice.--A copy of each fund control 
     notice shall be transmitted to the appropriate congressional 
     committees.
       ``(5) Restrictions.--The Director shall not issue a fund 
     control notice to direct that all or part of an amount 
     appropriated to the National Drug Control Program agency 
     account be obligated, modified, or altered in any manner 
     contrary, in whole or in part, to a specific appropriation or 
     statute.''.
       (h) Technical Amendments.--Section 704 (21 U.S.C. 1703) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``National Foreign Intelligence Program'' 
     and inserting ``National Intelligence Program''; and
       (B) by inserting a comma before ``and Tactical''; and
       (2) in subsection (h), by striking ``Director of Central 
     Intelligence'' and inserting ``Director of National 
     Intelligence or the Director of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency''.
       (i) 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 and the 
     emerging threat from opium poppy grown in Peru and often 
     intended for transit to Columbia for processing into heroin.
       (2) Contents.--The strategy shall include--
       (A) opium eradication efforts to eliminate the problem at 
     the source to prevent heroin from entering the stream of 
     commerce;
       (B) interdiction and precursor chemical controls;
       (C) demand reduction and treatment;
       (D) alternative development programs, including direct 
     assistance to regional governments to demobilize and provide 
     alternative livelihoods to former members of insurgent or 
     other groups engaged in heroin, coca, or other illicit drug 
     production or trafficking;
       (E) efforts to inform and involve local citizens in the 
     programs described in subparagraphs (A) through (D), such as 
     through leaflets advertising rewards for information;
       (F) provisions that ensure the maintenance at current 
     levels of efforts to eradicate coca in Colombia; and
       (G) assessment of the specific level of funding and 
     resources necessary to simultaneously address the threat from 
     South American heroin and the threat from Colombian and 
     Peruvian coca.
       (3) Treatment of classified or law enforcement sensitive 
     information.--Any content of the strategy that involves 
     information classified under criteria established by an 
     Executive order, or whose public disclosure, as determined by 
     the Director or the head of any relevant Federal agency, 
     would be detrimental to the law enforcement or national 
     security activities of any Federal, foreign, or international 
     agency, shall be presented to Congress separately from the 
     rest of the strategy.
       (j) Requirement for Afghan Heroin Strategy.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy shall submit to the Congress a 
     comprehensive strategy that addresses the increased threat 
     from Afghan heroin.

[[Page H813]]

       (2) Contents.--The strategy shall include--
       (A) opium crop eradication efforts to eliminate the problem 
     at the source to prevent heroin from entering the stream of 
     commerce;
       (B) destruction or other direct elimination of stockpiles 
     of heroin and raw opium, and heroin production and storage 
     facilities;
       (C) interdiction and precursor chemical controls;
       (D) demand reduction and treatment;
       (E) alternative development programs;
       (F) measures to improve cooperation and coordination 
     between Federal Government agencies, and between such 
     agencies, agencies of foreign governments, and international 
     organizations with responsibility for the prevention of 
     heroin production in, or trafficking out of, Afghanistan; and
       (G) an assessment of the specific level of funding and 
     resources necessary significantly to reduce the production 
     and trafficking of heroin.
       (3) Treatment of classified or law enforcement sensitive 
     information.--Any content of the strategy that involves 
     information classified under criteria established by an 
     Executive order, or whose public disclosure, as determined by 
     the Director or the head of any relevant Federal agency, 
     would be detrimental to the law enforcement or national 
     security activities of any Federal, foreign, or international 
     agency, shall be presented to Congress separately from the 
     rest of the strategy.
       (k) Requirement for General Counterdrug Intelligence 
     Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and not later than every two years 
     thereafter, the Director of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy, with the concurrence of the Director of 
     National Intelligence, shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees, a general counterdrug intelligence 
     plan to improve coordination, and eliminate unnecessary 
     duplication, among the counterdrug intelligence centers and 
     information sharing systems, and counterdrug activities of 
     the Federal Government, including the centers, systems, and 
     activities of the following departments and agencies:
       (A) The Department of Defense, including the Defense 
     Intelligence Agency, and the joint interagency task forces.
       (B) The Department of the Treasury, including the Financial 
     Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
       (C) The Central Intelligence Agency.
       (D) The National Security Agency.
       (E) The Department of Homeland Security, including the 
     United States Coast Guard, the bureau of Customs and Border 
     Protection, and the bureau of Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement.
       (F) The Department of Justice, including the National Drug 
     Intelligence Center (NDIC); the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including the El Paso Intelligence Center 
     (EPIC); the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Organized 
     Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force; and the Regional 
     Information Sharing System.
       (G) The Office of National Drug Control Policy, including 
     the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program.
       (H) The Counterdrug Intelligence Executive Secretariat.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the plan under paragraph (1) 
     is to maximize the effectiveness of the centers and 
     activities referred to in that paragraph in achieving the 
     objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy promulgated 
     under 21 U.S.C. 1705. In order to maximize such 
     effectiveness, the plan shall--
       (A) articulate clear and specific mission statements 
     (including purpose and scope of activity) for each 
     counterdrug intelligence center, system, and activity, 
     including the manner in which responsibility for counterdrug 
     intelligence activities will be allocated among the 
     counterdrug intelligence centers and systems;
       (B) specify each government agency (whether Federal, State, 
     or local) that participates in each such center, system, and 
     activity, including a description of the extent and nature of 
     that participation;
       (C) specify the relationship between such centers, systems, 
     and activities;
       (D) specify the means by which proper oversight of such 
     centers, systems, and activities will be assured;
       (E) specify the means by which counterdrug intelligence and 
     information will be forwarded effectively to all levels of 
     officials responsible for United States counterdrug policy; 
     and
       (F) specify mechanisms to ensure that State and local law 
     enforcement agencies are apprised of counterdrug intelligence 
     and information acquired by Federal law enforcement agencies 
     in a manner which--
       (i) facilitates effective counterdrug activities by State 
     and local law enforcement agencies; and
       (ii) provides such State and local law enforcement agencies 
     with the information relating to the safety of officials 
     involved in their counterdrug activities.
       (3) Definitions.--As used in this subsection--
       (A) the term ``center'' refers to any center, office, task 
     force, or other coordinating organization engaged in 
     counterdrug intelligence or information analyzing or sharing 
     activities;
       (B) the term ``system'' refers to any computerized database 
     or other electronic system used for counterdrug intelligence 
     or information analyzing or sharing activities; and
       (C) the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means 
     the following:
       (i) The Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the 
     Caucus on International Narcotics Control, and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
       (ii) The Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     International Relations, the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
     Committee on Government Reform, the Committee on Homeland 
     Security, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (4) Limitation.--The general counterdrug intelligence plan 
     shall not--
       (A) change existing agency authorities or the laws 
     governing interagency relationships, but may include 
     recommendations about changes to such authorities or laws; or
       (B) include any information about specific methods of 
     obtaining, or sources of, intelligence or information, or any 
     information about specific individuals, cases, 
     investigations, or operations.
       (5) Classified or law enforcement sensitive information.--
     Any content of the general counterdrug intelligence plan that 
     involves information classified under criteria established by 
     an Executive order, or whose public disclosure, as determined 
     by the Director of the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy, the Director of National Intelligence, or the head of 
     any Federal Government agency whose activities are described 
     in the plan, would be detrimental to the law enforcement or 
     national security activities of any Federal, State, or local 
     agency, shall be presented to Congress separately from the 
     rest of the report.
       (l) Requirement for Southwest Border Counternarcotics 
     Strategy.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every two years thereafter, the 
     Director of National Drug Control Policy shall submit to the 
     Congress a Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy.
       (2) Purposes.--The Southwest Border Counternarcotics 
     Strategy shall--
       (A) set forth the Government's strategy for preventing the 
     illegal trafficking of drugs across the international border 
     between the United States and Mexico, including through ports 
     of entry and between ports of entry on that border;
       (B) state the specific roles and responsibilities of the 
     relevant National Drug Control Program agencies (as defined 
     in section 702 of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
     Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1701)) for 
     implementing that strategy; and
       (C) identify the specific resources required to enable the 
     relevant National Drug Control Program agencies to implement 
     that strategy.
       (3) Consultation with other agencies.--The Director shall 
     issue the Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy in 
     consultation with the heads of the relevant National Drug 
     Control Program agencies.
       (4) Limitation.--The Southwest Border Counternarcotics 
     Strategy shall not change existing agency authorities or the 
     laws governing interagency relationships, but may include 
     recommendations about changes to such authorities or laws.
       (5) Report to congress.--The Director shall provide a copy 
     of the Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy to the 
     appropriate congressional committees (as defined in section 
     702 of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
     Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1701)), and to the 
     Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security of the House of Representatives, and the Committee 
     on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.
       (6) Treatment of classified or law enforcement sensitive 
     information.--Any content of the Southwest Border 
     Counternarcotics Strategy that involves information 
     classified under criteria established by an Executive order, 
     or whose public disclosure, as determined by the Director or 
     the head of any relevant National Drug Control Program 
     agency, would be detrimental to the law enforcement or 
     national security activities of any Federal, State, or local 
     agency, shall be presented to Congress separately from the 
     rest of the strategy.
       (m) Requirement for Scientific Study of Mycoherbicide in 
     Illicit Drug Crop Eradication.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office 
     of National Drug Control Policy shall submit to the Congress 
     a report that includes a plan to conduct, on an expedited 
     basis, a scientific study of the use of mycoherbicide as a 
     means of illicit drug crop elimination by an appropriate 
     Government scientific research entity, including a complete 
     and thorough scientific peer review. The study shall include 
     an evaluation of the likely human health and environmental 
     impacts of such use. The report shall also include a plan to 
     conduct controlled scientific testing in a major drug 
     producing nation of mycoherbicide naturally existing in the 
     producing nation.

     SEC. 7. 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) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``Director of 
     Central Intelligence'' and inserting ``Director of National 
     Intelligence'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``Director of 
     Central Intelligence'' and inserting ``Director of National 
     Intelligence and the Director of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency'';
       (4) 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, the appropriate 
     congressional committees, the Committee on Agriculture and 
     the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, 
     and the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources of the Senate, 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

[[Page H814]]

     Director and the appropriate congressional committees 
     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) seizures of drugs by each component of the 
     Department of Justice 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, the appropriate congressional committees, and 
     the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, information for the 
     preceding year regarding--
       ``(i) the number and type of seizures of drugs by each 
     component of the Department of Homeland Security 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 that 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, the 
     appropriate congressional committees, the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the House of Representatives, and the Committee 
     on Armed Services of the Senate, 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.'';
       (5) in subsection (b)(2)(B), by striking ``Program.'' and 
     inserting ``Strategy.''; and
       (6) in subsection (c), by striking ``in'' and inserting 
     ``on''.

     SEC. 8. 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 the following:
       ``(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 quantifiable objectives 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 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.
       ``(v) A general review of the status of, and trends in, 
     international, State, and local drug control activities to 
     ensure that the United States pursues well-coordinated and 
     effective drug control at all levels of government.
       ``(vi) A general review of the status of, and trends in, 
     demand reduction activities by private sector entities and 
     community-based organizations, including faith-based 
     organizations, to determine their effectiveness and the 
     extent of cooperation, coordination, and mutual support 
     between such entities and organizations and Federal, State, 
     and local government agencies.
       ``(vii) An assessment of current illicit drug use 
     (including inhalants and steroids) and availability, impact 
     of illicit drug use, and treatment availability, which 
     assessment shall include--

       ``(I) estimates of drug prevalence and frequency of use as 
     measured by national, State, and local surveys of illicit 
     drug use and by other special studies of nondependent and 
     dependent illicit drug use;
       ``(II) illicit drug use in the workplace and the 
     productivity lost by such use; and
       ``(III) illicit drug use by arrestees, probationers, and 
     parolees.

       ``(viii) An assessment of the reduction of illicit drug 
     availability, as measured by--

       ``(I) the quantities of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, 
     methamphetamine, ecstasy, and other drugs available for 
     consumption in the United States;
       ``(II) the amount of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, 
     methamphetamine, ecstasy, and precursor chemicals and other 
     drugs entering the United States;
       ``(III) the number of illicit drug manufacturing 
     laboratories seized and destroyed and the number of hectares 
     of marijuana, poppy, and coca cultivated and destroyed 
     domestically and in other countries;
       ``(IV) the number of metric tons of marijuana, heroin, 
     cocaine, and methamphetamine seized and other drugs; and
       ``(V) changes in the price and purity of heroin, 
     methamphetamine, and cocaine, changes in the price of 
     ecstasy, and changes in tetrahydrocannabinol level of 
     marijuana and other drugs.

       ``(ix) An assessment of the reduction of the consequences 
     of illicit drug use and availability, which shall include--

       ``(I) the burden illicit drug users place on hospital 
     emergency departments in the United States, such as the 
     quantity of illicit drug-related services provided;
       ``(II) the annual national health care cost of illicit drug 
     use; and
       ``(III) the extent of illicit drug-related crime and 
     criminal activity.

       ``(x) A general review of the status of, and trends in, of 
     drug treatment in the United States, by assessing--

       ``(I) public and private treatment utilization; and
       ``(II) the number of illicit drug users the Director 
     estimates meet diagnostic criteria for treatment.

       ``(xi) A review of the research agenda of the Counterdrug 
     Technology Assessment Center to reduce the availability and 
     abuse of drugs.
       ``(xii) A summary of the efforts made by Federal agencies 
     to coordinate with private sector entities to conduct private 
     research and development of medications to treat addiction 
     by--

       ``(I) screening chemicals for potential therapeutic value;
       ``(II) developing promising compounds;
       ``(III) conducting clinical trials;
       ``(IV) seeking, where appropriate, Food and Drug 
     Administration approval for drugs to treat addiction;
       ``(V) marketing, where appropriate, the drug for the 
     treatment of addiction;
       ``(VI) urging physicians, where appropriate, to use the 
     drug in the treatment of addiction; and
       ``(VII) encouraging, where appropriate, insurance companies 
     to reimburse the cost of the drug for the treatment of 
     addiction.

       ``(xiii) Such additional statistical data and information 
     as the Director considers appropriate to demonstrate and 
     assess trends relating to illicit drug use, the effects and 
     consequences of illicit drug use, supply reduction, demand 
     reduction, drug-related law enforcement, and the 
     implementation of the National Drug Control Strategy.
       ``(xiv) 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, including 
     community- and faith-based 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 National 
     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) Commitment to support strategy.--In satisfying the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A)(i), the Director shall 
     ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that State and local 
     officials and relevant private organizations commit to 
     support and take steps to achieve the goals and objectives of 
     the National Drug Control Strategy.
       ``(C) 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.
       ``(D) Inclusion in strategy.--The National Drug Control 
     Strategy under this subsection

[[Page H815]]

     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 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, as part of the National Drug Control Strategy, a 
     description of a national drug control performance 
     measurement system that--
       ``(1) develops 2-year and 5-year performance measures and 
     targets for each National Drug Control Strategy goal and 
     objective established for reducing drug use, drug 
     availability, and the consequences of drug use;
       ``(2) describes the sources of information and data that 
     will be used for each performance measure incorporated into 
     the performance measurement system;
       ``(3) identifies major programs and activities of the 
     National Drug Control Program agencies that support the goals 
     and annual objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy;
       ``(4) evaluates the contribution of demand reduction and 
     supply reduction activities implemented by each National Drug 
     Control Program agency in support of the National Drug 
     Control Strategy;
       ``(5) monitors consistency of drug-related goals and 
     objectives among the National Drug Control Program agencies 
     and ensures that each agency's goals, objectives, and budgets 
     support and are fully consistent with the National Drug 
     Control Strategy; and
       ``(6) coordinates the development and implementation of 
     national drug control data collection and reporting systems 
     to support policy formulation and performance measurement, 
     including an assessment of--
       ``(A) the quality of current drug use measurement 
     instruments and techniques to measure supply reduction and 
     demand reduction activities;
       ``(B) the adequacy of the coverage of existing national 
     drug use measurement instruments and techniques to measure 
     the illicit drug user population, and groups that are at risk 
     for illicit drug use; and
       ``(C) the adequacy of the coverage of existing national 
     treatment outcome monitoring systems to measure the 
     effectiveness of drug abuse treatment in reducing illicit 
     drug use and criminal behavior during and after the 
     completion of substance abuse treatment; and
       ``(7) identifies the actions the Director shall take to 
     correct any inadequacies, deficiencies, or limitations 
     identified in the assessment described in paragraph (6).
       ``(c) Modifications.--A description of any modifications 
     made during the preceding year to the national drug 
     performance measurement system described in subsection (b) 
     shall be included in each report submitted under subsection 
     (a).''.

     SEC. 9. HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM.

       Section 707 (21 U.S.C. 1706) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 707. HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--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').
       ``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Program is to reduce 
     drug trafficking and drug production in the United States 
     by--
       ``(A) facilitating cooperation among Federal, State, and 
     local law enforcement agencies to share information and 
     implement coordinated enforcement activities;
       ``(B) enhancing intelligence sharing among Federal, State, 
     and local law enforcement agencies;
       ``(C) providing reliable intelligence to law enforcement 
     agencies needed to design effective enforcement strategies 
     and operations; and
       ``(D) supporting coordinated law enforcement strategies 
     which maximize use of available resources to reduce the 
     supply of illegal drugs in designated areas and in the United 
     States as a whole.
       ``(b) 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. 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 are appropriated for the 
     Program;
       ``(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;
       ``(3) take any other action authorized under section 704 to 
     provide increased Federal assistance to those areas; and
       ``(4) coordinate activities under this section 
     (specifically administrative, recordkeeping, and funds 
     management activities) with State and local officials.
       ``(c) Petitions for Designation.--The Director shall 
     establish regulations under which a coalition of interested 
     law enforcement agencies from an area may petition for 
     designation as a high intensity drug trafficking area. Such 
     regulations shall provide for a regular review by the 
     Director of the petition, including a recommendation 
     regarding the merit of the petition to the Director by a 
     panel of qualified, independent experts.
       ``(d) Factors for Consideration.--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--
       ``(1) the area is a significant center of illegal drug 
     production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution;
       ``(2) 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;
       ``(3) drug-related activities in the area are having a 
     significant harmful impact in the area, and in other areas of 
     the country; and
       ``(4) a significant increase in allocation of Federal 
     resources is necessary to respond adequately to drug-related 
     activities in the area.
       ``(e) Organization of High Intensity Drug Trafficking 
     Areas.--
       ``(1) Executive board and officers.--To be eligible for 
     funds appropriated under this section, each high intensity 
     drug trafficking area shall be governed by an Executive 
     Board. The Executive Board shall designate a chairman, vice 
     chairman, and any other officers to the Executive Board that 
     it determines are necessary.
       ``(2) Responsibilities.--The Executive Board of a high 
     intensity drug trafficking area shall be responsible for--
       ``(A) providing direction and oversight in establishing and 
     achieving the goals of the high intensity drug trafficking 
     area;
       ``(B) managing the funds of the high intensity drug 
     trafficking area;
       ``(C) reviewing and approving all funding proposals 
     consistent with the overall objective of the high intensity 
     drug trafficking area; and
       ``(D) reviewing and approving all reports to the Director 
     on the activities of the high intensity drug trafficking 
     area.
       ``(3) Board representation.--None of the funds appropriated 
     under this section may be expended for any high intensity 
     drug trafficking area, or for a partnership or region of a 
     high intensity drug trafficking area, if that area's, 
     region's or partnership's Executive Board does not apportion 
     an equal number of votes between representatives of 
     participating Federal agencies and representatives of 
     participating State and local agencies. Where it is 
     impractical for a equal number of representatives of Federal 
     agencies and State and local agencies to attend a meeting of 
     an Executive Board in person, the Executive Board may use a 
     system of proxy votes or weighted votes to achieve the voting 
     balance required by this paragraph.
       ``(4) No agency relationship.--The eligibility requirements 
     of this section are intended to ensure the responsible use of 
     Federal funds. Nothing in this section is intended to create 
     an agency relationship between individual high intensity drug 
     trafficking areas and the Federal Government.
       ``(f) Use of Funds.--The Director shall ensure that no 
     Federal funds appropriated for the Program are expended for 
     the establishment or expansion of drug treatment programs, 
     and shall ensure that not more than five percent of the 
     Federal funds appropriated for the Program are expended for 
     the establishment of drug prevention programs.
       ``(g) Counterterrorism 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 with respect to 
     such investigations and activities that are also 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, 
     except on a temporary basis under extraordinary 
     circumstances, as determined by the Director.
       ``(h) 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.
       ``(i) Annual HIDTA Program Budget Submissions.--As part of 
     the documentation that supports the President's annual budget 
     request for the Office, the Director shall submit to Congress 
     a budget justification that includes the following:
       ``(1) The amount requested for each high intensity drug 
     trafficking area with supporting narrative descriptions and 
     rationale for each request.
       ``(2) A detailed justification for each funding request 
     that explains the reasons for the requested funding level, 
     how such funding level was determined based on a current 
     assessment of the drug trafficking threat in each high 
     intensity drug trafficking area, how such funding will ensure 
     that the goals and objectives of each such area will be 
     achieved, and how such funding supports the National Drug 
     Control Strategy.
       ``(j) Emerging Threat Response Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director may expend up to 10 percent 
     of the amounts appropriated under this section on a 
     discretionary basis, to respond to any emerging drug 
     trafficking threat in an existing high intensity drug 
     trafficking area, or to establish a new high intensity drug 
     trafficking area or expand an existing high intensity drug 
     trafficking area, in accordance with the criteria established 
     under paragraph (2).

[[Page H816]]

       ``(2) Consideration of impact.--In allocating funds under 
     this subsection, the Director shall consider--
       ``(A) the impact of activities funded on reducing overall 
     drug traffic in the United States, or minimizing the 
     probability that an emerging drug trafficking threat will 
     spread to other areas of the United States; and
       ``(B) such other criteria as the Director considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(k) Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Initial report.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection, the Director shall, 
     after consulting with the Executive Boards of each designated 
     high intensity drug trafficking area, submit a report to 
     Congress that describes, for each designated high intensity 
     drug trafficking area--
       ``(A) the specific purposes for the high intensity drug 
     trafficking area;
       ``(B) the specific long-term and short-term goals and 
     objectives for the high intensity drug trafficking area;
       ``(C) the measurements that will be used to evaluate the 
     performance of the high intensity drug trafficking area in 
     achieving the long-term and short-term goals; and
       ``(D) the reporting requirements needed to evaluate the 
     performance of the high intensity drug trafficking area in 
     achieving the long-term and short-term goals.
       ``(2) Evaluation of hidta program as part of national drug 
     control strategy.--For each designated high intensity drug 
     trafficking area, the Director shall submit, as part of the 
     annual National Drug Control Strategy report, a report that--
       ``(A) describes--
       ``(i) the specific purposes for the high intensity drug 
     trafficking area; and
       ``(ii) the specific long-term and short-term goals and 
     objectives for the high intensity drug trafficking area; and
       ``(B) includes an evaluation of the performance of the high 
     intensity drug trafficking area in accomplishing the specific 
     long-term and short-term goals and objectives identified 
     under paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(l) Assessment of Drug Enforcement Task Forces in High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, and as part 
     of each subsequent annual National Drug Control Strategy 
     report, the Director shall submit to Congress a report--
       ``(1) assessing the number and operation of all federally 
     funded drug enforcement task forces within each high 
     intensity drug trafficking area; and
       ``(2) describing--
       ``(A) each Federal, State, and local drug enforcement task 
     force operating in the high intensity drug trafficking area;
       ``(B) how such task forces coordinate with each other, with 
     any high intensity drug trafficking area task force, and with 
     investigations receiving funds from the Organized Crime and 
     Drug Enforcement Task Force;
       ``(C) what steps, if any, each such task force takes to 
     share information regarding drug trafficking and drug 
     production with other federally funded drug enforcement task 
     forces in the high intensity drug trafficking area;
       ``(D) the role of the high intensity drug trafficking area 
     in coordinating the sharing of such information among task 
     forces;
       ``(E) the nature and extent of cooperation by each Federal, 
     State, and local participant in ensuring that such 
     information is shared among law enforcement agencies and with 
     the high intensity drug trafficking area;
       ``(F) the nature and extent to which information sharing 
     and enforcement activities are coordinated with joint 
     terrorism task forces in the high intensity drug trafficking 
     area; and
       ``(G) any recommendations for measures needed to ensure 
     that task force resources are utilized efficiently and 
     effectively to reduce the availability of illegal drugs in 
     the high intensity drug trafficking areas.
       ``(m) Assessment of Intelligence Sharing in High Intensity 
     Drug Trafficking Areas--program.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this subsection, and as 
     part of each subsequent annual National Drug Control Strategy 
     report, the Director shall submit to Congress a report--
       ``(1) evaluating existing and planned intelligence systems 
     supported by each high intensity drug trafficking area, or 
     utilized by task forces receiving any funding under the 
     Program, including the extent to which such systems ensure 
     access and availability of intelligence to Federal, State, 
     and local law enforcement agencies within the high intensity 
     drug trafficking area and outside of it;
       ``(2) the extent to which Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement agencies participating in each high intensity 
     drug trafficking area are sharing intelligence information to 
     assess current drug trafficking threats and design 
     appropriate enforcement strategies; and
       ``(3) the measures needed to improve effective sharing of 
     information and intelligence regarding drug trafficking and 
     drug production among Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement participating in a high intensity drug 
     trafficking area, and between such agencies and similar 
     agencies outside the high intensity drug trafficking area.
       ``(n) Coordination of Intelligence Sharing With Organized 
     Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program.--The Director, in 
     consultation with the Attorney General, shall ensure that any 
     drug enforcement intelligence obtained by the Intelligence 
     Support Center for each high intensity drug trafficking area 
     is shared, on a timely basis, with the drug intelligence 
     fusion center operated by the Organized Crime Drug 
     Enforcement Task Force of the Department of Justice.
       ``(o) Use of Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--The Director shall ensure that, of the 
     amounts appropriated for a fiscal year for the Program, at 
     least $15,000,000 is allocated to combat the trafficking of 
     methamphetamine in areas designated by the Director as high 
     intensity drug trafficking areas.
       ``(B) Activities.--In meeting the requirement in 
     subparagraph (A), the Director shall transfer funds to 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local governmental agencies 
     for employing additional Federal law enforcement personnel, 
     or facilitating the employment of additional State and local 
     law enforcement personnel, including agents, investigators, 
     prosecutors, laboratory technicians, chemists, investigative 
     assistants, and drug prevention specialists.
       ``(2) Apportionment of funds.--
       ``(A) Factors in apportionment.--The Director shall 
     apportion amounts allocated under paragraph (1) among areas 
     designated by the Director as high intensity drug trafficking 
     areas based on the following factors:
       ``(i) The number of methamphetamine manufacturing 
     facilities discovered by Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement officials in the area during the previous fiscal 
     year.
       ``(ii) The number of methamphetamine prosecutions in 
     Federal, State, or local courts in the area during the 
     previous fiscal year.
       ``(iii) The number of methamphetamine arrests by Federal, 
     State, or local law enforcement officials in the area during 
     the previous fiscal year.
       ``(iv) The amounts of methamphetamine or listed chemicals 
     (as that term is defined in section 102(33) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(33)) seized by Federal, State, 
     or local law enforcement officials in the area during the 
     previous fiscal year.
       ``(v) Intelligence and predictive data from the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration showing patterns and trends in 
     abuse, trafficking, and transportation in methamphetamine and 
     listed chemicals (as that term is so defined).
       ``(B) Certification.--Before the Director apportions any 
     funds under this paragraph to a high intensity drug 
     trafficking area, the Director shall certify that the law 
     enforcement entities responsible for clandestine 
     methamphetamine laboratory seizures in that area are 
     providing laboratory seizure data to the national clandestine 
     laboratory database at the El Paso Intelligence Center.
       ``(p) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy to carry out this section--
       ``(1) $280,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(2) $290,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009; 
     and
       ``(3) $300,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 
     2011.''.

     SEC. 10. 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 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), as amended by section 
     9, is further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(q) Specific Purposes.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall ensure that, of the 
     amounts appropriated for a fiscal year for the Program, at 
     least $7,000,000 is used in high intensity drug trafficking 
     areas with severe neighborhood safety and illegal drug 
     distribution problems.
       ``(2) Required uses.--The funds used under paragraph (1) 
     shall be used--
       ``(A) to ensure the safety of neighborhoods and the 
     protection of communities, including

[[Page H817]]

     the prevention of the intimidation of potential witnesses of 
     illegal drug distribution and related activities; and
       ``(B) 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. 11. 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 neurosci- entific 
     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 Counterdrug 
     Research and Development Program;
       ``(D) oversee and coordinate counterdrug technology 
     initiatives with related activities of other Federal civilian 
     and military departments;
       ``(E) provide support to the development and implementation 
     of the national drug control performance measurement system 
     established under subsection (b) of section 706;
       ``(F) with the advice and counsel of experts from State and 
     local law enforcement agencies, oversee and coordinate a 
     technology transfer program for the transfer of technology to 
     State and local law enforcement agencies; and
       ``(G) 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 counterdrug technology research and 
     development.
       ``(2) Priorities in transferring technology.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Chief Scientist shall give priority, 
     in transferring technology under paragraph (1)(F), based on 
     the following criteria:
       ``(i) the need of potential recipients for such technology;
       ``(ii) the effectiveness of the technology to enhance 
     current counterdrug activities of potential recipients; and
       ``(iii) the ability and willingness of potential recipients 
     to evaluate transferred technology.
       ``(B) Interdiction and border drug law enforcement 
     technologies.--The Chief Scientist shall give priority, in 
     transferring technologies most likely to assist in drug 
     interdiction and border drug law 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 
     direct management of individual projects or other operational 
     activities.
       ``(4) Report.--On or before July 1 of each year, the 
     Director shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that addresses the following:
       ``(A) The number of requests received during the previous 
     12 months, including the identity of each requesting agency 
     and the type of technology requested.
       ``(B) The number of requests fulfilled during the previous 
     12 months, including the identity of each recipient agency 
     and the type of technology transferred.
       ``(C) A summary of the criteria used in making the 
     determination on what requests were funded and what requests 
     were not funded, except that such summary shall not include 
     specific information on any individual requests.
       ``(D) A general assessment of the future needs of the 
     program, based on expected changes in threats, expected 
     technologies, and likely need from potential recipients.
       ``(E) An assessment of the effectiveness of the 
     technologies transferred, based in part on the evaluations 
     provided by the recipients, with a recommendation whether the 
     technology should continue to be offered through the 
     program.''.
       (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. 12. NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN.

       (a) In General.--Section 709 (21 U.S.C. 1708) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 709. NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall conduct a national 
     youth anti-drug media campaign (referred to in this subtitle 
     as the `national media campaign') in accordance with this 
     section for the purposes of--
       ``(1) preventing drug abuse among young people in the 
     United States;
       ``(2) increasing awareness of adults of the impact of drug 
     abuse on young people; and
       ``(3) encouraging parents and other interested adults to 
     discuss with young people the dangers of illegal drug use.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Amounts made available to carry out this 
     section for the national media campaign may only be used for 
     the following:
       ``(A) The purchase of media time and space, including the 
     strategic planning for, and accounting of, such purchases.
       ``(B) Creative and talent costs, consistent with paragraph 
     (2)(A).
       ``(C) Advertising production costs.
       ``(D) Testing and evaluation of advertising.
       ``(E) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the national media 
     campaign.
       ``(F) The negotiated fees for the winning bidder on 
     requests for proposals issued either by the Office or its 
     designee to enter into contracts to carry out activities 
     authorized by this section.
       ``(G) Partnerships with professional and civic groups, 
     community-based organizations, including faith-based 
     organizations, and government organizations related to the 
     national 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 (including creative 
     services provided by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America) 
     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; or
       ``(III) the Director determines that the Partnership for a 
     Drug-Free America is unable to provide, pursuant to 
     subsection (d)(2)(B).

       ``(ii) No more than $1,500,000 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 national 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 national 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 national 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 a 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 national media campaign.
       ``(C) Evaluation of effectiveness of media campaign.--In 
     using amounts for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the 
     national 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;
       ``(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 national media 
     campaign is evaluated in a manner that enables consideration 
     of whether the national 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 national media 
     campaign, subject to the following exceptions:
       ``(A) In any fiscal year for which less than $125,000,000 
     is appropriated for the national 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 national media campaign.

[[Page H818]]

       ``(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 national media 
     campaign.
       ``(c) Advertising.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Director shall ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to 
     meet the stated goals of the national media campaign.
       ``(d) Division of Responsibilities and Functions Under the 
     Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director, in consultation with the 
     Partnership for a Drug-Free America, shall determine the 
     overall purposes and strategy of the national media campaign.
       ``(2) Responsibilities.--
       ``(A) Director.--The Director shall be responsible for 
     implementing a focused national media campaign to meet the 
     purposes set forth in subsection (a), and shall approve--
       ``(i) the strategy of the national media campaign;
       ``(ii) all advertising and promotional material used in the 
     national media campaign; and
       ``(iii) the plan for the purchase of advertising time and 
     space for the national media campaign.
       ``(B) The partnership for a drug-free america.--The 
     Director shall request that the Partnership for a Drug-Free 
     America--
       ``(i) develop and recommend strategies to achieve the goals 
     of the national media campaign, including addressing national 
     and local drug threats in specific regions or States, such as 
     methamphetamine and ecstasy;
       ``(ii) create all advertising to be used in the national 
     media campaign, except advertisements that are--

       ``(I) provided by other nonprofit entities pursuant to 
     subsection (f);
       ``(II) intended to respond to high-priority or emergent 
     campaign needs that cannot timely be obtained at no cost (not 
     including production costs and talent reuse payments), 
     provided that any such advertising material is reviewed by 
     the Partnership for a Drug-Free America;
       ``(III) intended to reach a minority, ethnic, or other 
     special audience that cannot be obtained at no cost (not 
     including production costs and talent reuse payments), 
     provided that any such advertising material is reviewed by 
     the Partnership for a Drug-Free America; or
       ``(IV) any other advertisements that the Director 
     determines that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America is 
     unable to provide.

       ``(C) Media buying contractor.--The Director shall enter 
     into a contract with a media buying contractor to plan and 
     purchase advertising time and space for the national media 
     campaign. The media buying contractor shall not provide any 
     other service or material, or conduct any other function or 
     activity which the Director determines should be provided by 
     the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
       ``(e) 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.
       ``(f) Matching Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Amounts made available under subsection 
     (b) for media time and space shall be matched by an equal 
     amount of non-Federal funds for the national 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 national media campaign, except that 
     in any fiscal year in which less than $125,000,000 is 
     appropriated to the national 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 national 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 
     consistent with the purposes of the national media campaign 
     includes a clear antidrug message. Such message is not 
     required to be the primary message of the match advertising.
       ``(g) Financial and Performance Accountability.--The 
     Director shall cause to be performed--
       ``(1) audits and reviews of costs of the national 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 to determine whether the costs of the 
     national media campaign are allowable under section 306 of 
     such Act (41 U.S.C. 256).
       ``(h) Report to Congress.--The Director shall submit on an 
     annual basis a report to Congress that describes--
       ``(1) the strategy of the national media campaign and 
     whether specific objectives of the media campaign were 
     accomplished;
       ``(2) steps taken to ensure that the national media 
     campaign operates in an effective and efficient manner 
     consistent with the overall strategy and focus of the 
     national 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 national 
     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 cannabis products 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 2007 and 2008 and 
     $210,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011.''.
       (b) Repeal of Superseded Provisions.--The Drug-Free Media 
     Campaign Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is repealed.

     SEC. 13. DRUG INTERDICTION.

       (a) In General.--Subsections (a) and (b) of section 711 (21 
     U.S.C. 1710) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) United States Interdiction Coordinator.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Deputy Director for Supply Reduction 
     in the Office shall serve as the United States Interdiction 
     Coordinator, and shall perform the duties of that position 
     described in paragraph (2) and such other duties as may be 
     determined by the Director with respect to coordination of 
     efforts to interdict illicit drugs from entering the United 
     States.
       ``(2) Responsibilities.--The United States Interdiction 
     Coordinator shall be responsible to the Director for--
       ``(A) coordinating the interdiction activities of the 
     National Drug Control Program agencies to ensure consistency 
     with the National Drug Control Strategy;
       ``(B) on behalf of the Director, developing and issuing, on 
     or before March 1 of each year and in accordance with 
     paragraph (3), a National Interdiction Command and Control 
     Plan to ensure the coordination and consistency described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(C) assessing the sufficiency of assets committed to 
     illicit drug interdiction by the relevant National Drug 
     Control Program agencies; and
       ``(D) advising the Director on the efforts of each National 
     Drug Control Program agency to implement the National 
     Interdiction Command and Control Plan.
       ``(3) Staff.--The Director shall assign such permanent 
     staff of the Office as he considers appropriate to assist the 
     United States Interdiction Coordinator to carry out the 
     responsibilities described in paragraph (2), and may also, at 
     his discretion, request that appropriate National Drug 
     Control Program agencies detail or assign staff to the Office 
     of Supply Reduction for that purpose.
       ``(4) National interdiction command and control plan.--
       ``(A) Purposes.--The National Interdiction Command and 
     Control Plan shall--
       ``(i) set forth the Government's strategy for drug 
     interdiction;
       ``(ii) state the specific roles and responsibilities of the 
     relevant National Drug Control Program agencies for 
     implementing that strategy; and
       ``(iii) identify the specific resources required to enable 
     the relevant National Drug Control Program agencies to 
     implement that strategy.
       ``(B) Consultation with other agencies.--The United States 
     Interdiction Coordinator

[[Page H819]]

     shall issue the National Interdiction Command and Control 
     Plan in consultation with the other members of the 
     Interdiction Committee described in subsection (b).
       ``(C) Limitation.--The National Interdiction Command and 
     Control Plan shall not change existing agency authorities or 
     the laws governing interagency relationships, but may include 
     recommendations about changes to such authorities or laws.
       ``(D) Report to congress.--On or before March 1 of each 
     year, the United States Interdiction Coordinator shall 
     provide a report on behalf of the Director to the appropriate 
     congressional committees, to the Committee on Armed Services 
     and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, and to the Committee on Homeland Security 
     and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services 
     of the Senate, which shall include--
       ``(i) a copy of that year's National Interdiction Command 
     and Control Plan;
       ``(ii) information for the previous 10 years regarding the 
     number and type of seizures of drugs by each National Drug 
     Control Program agency conducting drug interdiction 
     activities, as well as statistical information on the 
     geographic areas of such seizures; and
       ``(iii) information for the previous 10 years regarding the 
     number of air and maritime patrol hours undertaken by each 
     National Drug Control Program agency conducting drug 
     interdiction activities, as well as statistical information 
     on the geographic areas in which such patrol hours took 
     place.
       ``(E) Treatment of classified or law enforcement sensitive 
     information.--Any content of the report described in 
     subparagraph (D) that involves information classified under 
     criteria established by an Executive order, or the public 
     disclosure of which, as determined by the United States 
     Interdiction Coordinator or the head of any relevant National 
     Drug Control Program agency, would be detrimental to the law 
     enforcement or national security activities of any Federal, 
     State, or local agency, shall be presented to Congress 
     separately from the rest of the plan.
       ``(b) Interdiction Committee.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Interdiction Committee shall meet 
     to--
       ``(A) discuss and resolve issues related to the 
     coordination, oversight and integration of international, 
     border, and domestic drug interdiction efforts in support of 
     the National Drug Control Strategy;
       ``(B) review the annual National Interdiction Command and 
     Control Plan, and provide advice to the Director and the 
     United States Interdiction Coordinator concerning that plan; 
     and
       ``(C) provide such other advice to the Director concerning 
     drug interdiction strategy and policies as the committee 
     determines is appropriate.
       ``(2) Membership.--The membership of the Interdiction 
     Committee shall consist of--
       ``(A) the Commissioner of the bureau of Customs and Border 
     Protection at the Department of Homeland Security;
       ``(B) the Assistant Secretary of the bureau of Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland 
     Security;
       ``(C) the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard;
       ``(D) the Director of the Office of Counternarcotics 
     Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security;
       ``(E) the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration;
       ``(F) the Assistant Secretary of State for International 
     Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs;
       ``(G) the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 
     Operations and Low Intensity Conflict;
       ``(H) the Deputy Director for Supply Reduction of the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy, acting in his role as 
     the United States Interdiction Coordinator;
       ``(I) the director of the Crime and Narcotics Center of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency;
       ``(J) the Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs of 
     the Office of National Drug Control Policy;
       ``(K) the Chief of the National Guard Bureau's Counterdrug 
     Program; and
       ``(L) such additional persons as may be determined by the 
     Director.
       ``(3) Chairman.--The Director shall designate one of the 
     members of the Interdiction Committee to serve as chairman.
       ``(4) Meetings.--The members of the Interdiction Committee 
     shall meet, in person and not through any delegate or 
     representative, at least once per calendar year, prior to 
     March 1. At the call of either the Director or the current 
     chairman, the Interdiction Committee may hold additional 
     meetings, which shall be attended by the members either in 
     person, or through such delegates or representatives as they 
     may choose.
       ``(5) Report.--Not later than September 30 of each year, 
     the chairman of the Interdiction Committee shall submit a 
     report to the Director and to the appropriate congressional 
     committees describing the results of the meetings and any 
     significant findings of the Committee during the previous 12 
     months. Any content of such a report that involves 
     information classified under criteria established by an 
     Executive order, or whose public disclosure, as determined by 
     the Director, the chairman, or any member, would be 
     detrimental to the law enforcement or national security 
     activities of any Federal, State, or local agency, shall be 
     presented to Congress separately from the rest of the 
     report.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment to Homeland Security Act of 
     2002.--Section 878 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 458) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``Except as provided in 
     subsection (d), the'' and inserting ``The''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d) and redesignating 
     subsections (e), (f), and (g) as subsections (d), (e), and 
     (f), respectively.

     SEC. 14. AWARDS FOR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS BY LOCAL 
                   PARTNERSHIPS TO SHUT DOWN ILLICIT DRUG MARKET 
                   HOT-SPOTS BY DETERRING DRUG DEALERS OR ALTERING 
                   THE DYNAMIC OF DRUG SALES.

       Sections 713 and 714 (21 U.S.C. 1711) are redesignated as 
     sections 715 and 716, respectively, and after section 712 (21 
     U.S.C. 1710) insert the following new section:

     ``SEC. 713 AWARDS FOR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS BY LOCAL 
                   PARTNERSHIPS TO SHUT DOWN ILLICIT DRUG MARKET 
                   HOT-SPOTS BY DETERRING DRUG DEALERS OR ALTERING 
                   THE DYNAMIC OF DRUG SALES.

       ``(a) Awards Required.--The Director shall make competitive 
     awards for demonstration programs by eligible partnerships 
     for the purpose of shutting down local illicit drug market 
     hot-spots and reducing drug-related crime through evidence-
     based, strategic problem-solving interventions that deter 
     drug dealers or alter the dynamic of drug sales.
       ``(b) Use of Award Amounts.--Award amounts received under 
     this section shall be used--
       ``(1) to support the efforts of the agencies, 
     organizations, and researchers included in the eligible 
     partnership;
       ``(2) to develop and field a directed and credible 
     deterrent threat; and
       ``(3) to strengthen rehabilitation efforts through such 
     means as job training, drug treatment, or other services.
       ``(c) Eligible Partnership Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `eligible partnership' means a working group whose 
     application to the Director--
       ``(1) identifies the roles played, and certifies the 
     involvement of, three or more agencies or organizations, 
     which may include--
       ``(A) State or local agencies (such as those carrying out 
     police, probation, prosecution, courts, corrections, parole, 
     or treatment functions);
       ``(B) Federal agencies (such as the Drug Enforcement 
     Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
     Explosives, and United States Attorney offices); and
       ``(C) community-based organizations;
       ``(2) includes a qualified researcher;
       ``(3) includes a plan for identifying the impact players 
     in, and assessing the nature and dynamic of, the local drug 
     market and its related crime through information gathering 
     and analysis;
       ``(4) includes a plan for developing an evidence-based 
     strategic intervention aimed at quickly and sustainably 
     eradicating the local drug market by deterring drug dealers 
     or altering the dynamic of drug sales; and
       ``(5) includes a plan that describes the methodology and 
     outcome measures proposed for evaluating the impact of that 
     strategic intervention on drug sales, neighborhood disorder, 
     and crime.
       ``(d) Reports to Congress.--
       ``(1) Interim report.--Not later than June 1, 2009, the 
     Director shall submit to Congress a report that identifies 
     the best practices in drug market eradication, including the 
     best practices identified through the activities funded under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Final report.--Not later than June 1, 2010, the 
     Director shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     demonstration programs funded under this section, including 
     on the matters specified in paragraph (1).
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009.''.

     SEC. 15. AWARDS FOR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS BY LOCAL 
                   PARTNERSHIPS TO COERCE ABSTINENCE IN CHRONIC 
                   HARD-DRUG USERS UNDER COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 
                   THROUGH THE USE OF DRUG TESTING AND SANCTIONS.

       After section 713, as inserted by section 14 of this Act, 
     insert the following new section:

     ``SEC. 714. AWARDS FOR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS BY LOCAL 
                   PARTNERSHIPS TO COERCE ABSTINENCE IN CHRONIC 
                   HARD-DRUG USERS UNDER COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 
                   THROUGH THE USE OF DRUG TESTING AND SANCTIONS.

       ``(a) Awards Required.--The Director shall make competitive 
     awards to fund demonstration programs by eligible 
     partnerships for the purpose of reducing the use of illicit 
     drugs by chronic hard-drug users living in the community 
     while under the supervision of the criminal justice system.
       ``(b) Use of Award Amounts.--Award amounts received under 
     this section shall be used--
       ``(1) to support the efforts of the agencies, 
     organizations, and researchers included in the eligible 
     partnership;
       ``(2) to develop and field a drug testing and graduated 
     sanctions program for chronic hard-drug users living in the 
     community under criminal justice supervision; and
       ``(3) to assist individuals described in subsection (a) by 
     strengthening rehabilitation efforts through such means as 
     job training, drug treatment, or other services.
       ``(c) Eligible Partnership Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `eligible partnership' means a working group whose 
     application to the Director--
       ``(1) identifies the roles played, and certifies the 
     involvement of, two or more agencies or organizations, which 
     may include--
       ``(A) State or local agencies (such as those carrying out 
     police, probation, prosecution, courts, corrections, parole, 
     or treatment functions);
       ``(B) Federal agencies (such as the Drug Enforcement 
     Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
     Explosives, and United States Attorney offices); and

[[Page H820]]

       ``(C) community-based organizations;
       ``(2) includes a qualified researcher;
       ``(3) includes a plan for using judicial or other criminal 
     justice authority to administer drug tests to individuals 
     described in subsection (a) at least twice a week, and to 
     swiftly and certainly impose a known set of graduated 
     sanctions for non-compliance with community-release 
     provisions relating to drug abstinence (whether imposed as a 
     pre-trial, probation, or parole condition or otherwise);
       ``(4) includes a strategy for responding to a range of 
     substance use and abuse problems and a range of criminal 
     histories;
       ``(5) includes a plan for integrating data infrastructure 
     among the agencies and organizations included in the eligible 
     partnership to enable seamless, real-time tracking of 
     individuals described in subsection (a);
       ``(6) includes a plan to monitor and measure the progress 
     toward reducing the percentage of the population of 
     individuals described in subsection (a) who, upon being 
     summoned for a drug test, either fail to show up or who test 
     positive for drugs.
       ``(d) Reports to Congress.--
       ``(1) Interim report.--Not later than June 1, 2009, the 
     Director shall submit to Congress a report that identifies 
     the best practices in reducing the use of illicit drugs by 
     chronic hard-drug users, including the best practices 
     identified through the activities funded under this section.
       ``(2) Final report.--Not later than June 1, 2010, the 
     Director shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     demonstration programs funded under this section, including 
     on the matters specified in paragraph (1).
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009.''.

     SEC. 16. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 716 (21 U.S.C. 1711), as redesignated by section 14 
     of this Act, 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 ``2007 
     through 2011''.

     SEC. 17. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL.

       (a) Amendment to Public Health Service Act to Replace 
     Obsolete References.--Section 464P(c) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285o-4(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``under section 1002 of 
     the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1501)'' and 
     inserting ``under section 703 of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 
     1702)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``under section 1005 of 
     the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1504)'' and 
     inserting ``under section 706 of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 
     1705)''.
       (b) Repeal of Special Forfeiture Fund.--Section 6073 of the 
     Asset Forfeiture Amendments Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1509) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 18. REQUIREMENT FOR DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL SPONSORSHIP OF 
                   ALL FEDERAL ADVERTISING OR OTHER COMMUNICATION 
                   MATERIALS.

       Section 712 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 712. REQUIREMENT FOR DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL SPONSORSHIP 
                   OF ALL FEDERAL ADVERTISING OR OTHER 
                   COMMUNICATION MATERIALS.

       ``(a) Requirement.--Each advertisement or other 
     communication paid for by the Office, either directly or 
     through a contract awarded by the Office, shall include a 
     prominent notice informing the target audience that the 
     advertisement or other communication is paid for by the 
     Office.
       ``(b) Advertisement or Other Communication.--In this 
     section, the term `advertisement or other communication' 
     includes--
       ``(1) an advertisement disseminated in any form, including 
     print or by any electronic means; and
       ``(2) a communication by an individual in any form, 
     including speech, print, or by any electronic means.''.

     SEC. 19. POLICY RELATING TO SYRINGE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS.

       Section 703(a) (21 U.S.C. 1702(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
     ``When developing the national drug control policy, any 
     policy of the Director relating to syringe exchange programs 
     for intravenous drug users shall be based on the best 
     available medical and scientific evidence regarding their 
     effectiveness in promoting individual health and preventing 
     the spread of infectious disease, and their impact on drug 
     addiction and use. In making any policy relating to syringe 
     exchange programs, the Director shall consult with the 
     National Institutes of Health and the National Academy of 
     Sciences.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute is in order except those printed in House Report 
109-387. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Souder:
       Page 145, strike lines 3 through 9.
       Page 145, line 10, strike ``(vi)'' and insert ``(v)''.
       Page 145, line 15, strike ``(vii)'' and insert ``(vi)''.
       Page 146, line 5, strike ``(viii)'' and insert ``(vii)''.
       Page 148, line 19, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
       Page 149, line 7, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       Page 149, strike lines 9 through 18 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) by amending subsection (g) to read as follows:
       ``(g) Inapplicability to Certain Programs.--The provisions 
     of this section shall not apply to the National Intelligence 
     Program, the Joint Military Intelligence Program, and 
     Tactical and Related Activities unless such program or an 
     element of such program is designated as a National Drug 
     Control Program--
       ``(1) by the President; or
       ``(2) jointly by--
       ``(A) in the case of the National Intelligence Program, the 
     Director and the Director of National Intelligence; or
       ``(B) in the case of the Joint Military Intelligence 
     Program and Tactical and Related Activities, the Director, 
     the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of 
     Defense. ''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
       ``(h) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     as derogating the authorities and responsibilities of the 
     Director of National Intelligence or the Director of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency contained in the National 
     Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403a et seq.), or 
     any other law.''.
       Page 149, line 19, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(j)''.
       Page 151, line 14, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(k)''.
       Page 153, line 3, strike ``(k)'' and insert ``(l)''.
       Page 158, line 7, strike ``(l)'' and insert ``(m)''.
       Page 160, line 14, strike ``(m)'' and insert ``(n)''.
       Page 183, line 18, strike ``The'' and insert the following: 
     ``Subject to the availability of appropriations, the''.
       Page 187, line 22, insert after ``Director'' the following: 
     ``, in consultation with the Director of National 
     Intelligence,''.
       Page 202, line 12, strike ``No'' and insert the following: 
     ``Subject to the availability of appropriations, no''.
       Page 204, line 21, strike ``For'' and insert the following: 
     ``Subject to the availability of approprations, for''.
       Page 217, strike lines 14 through 19, and insert the 
     following:
     Director, the Director of National Intelligence, or the head 
     of any Federal Government agency the activities of which are 
     described in the plan, would be detrimental to the law 
     enforcement or national security activities of any Federal, 
     State, or local agency, shall be presented to Congress 
     separately from the rest of the report.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes technical and conforming 
changes to account for changes in the law within the jurisdiction of 
those committees that waived formal business meetings on H.R. 2829, the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005.
  On page 145, the manager's amendment strikes the mandatory 
restrictions on certification of budgets related to enforcement in 
certain contexts of section 484(r)(1) of the Higher Education Act, more 
popularly known as the Drug-Free Student Loan provision.
  The provision made students convicted of drug offenses temporarily 
not eligible to receive student loans. However, a significant problem 
had arisen in the Department of Education, beginning during the Clinton 
administration and continuing during the current administration, 
because they have misinterpreted the clear language of that statute to 
improperly deny loans to students whose drug convictions predated their 
enrollment in school.

                              {time}  1230

  Section 8021 of the Deficit Reduction Act, Public Law 109-171, signed 
into law on February 8, 2006, contained language that altered the 
interpretation of a provision included in the Higher Education Act, and 
therefore obviated

[[Page H821]]

the need to address this matter in H.R. 2829.
  The manager's amendment changes made on pages 149, 187, and 217 and 
the related conforming amendments are based on technical 
recommendations made by the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence through the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence. The technical amendments were thought desirable to make 
the ONDCP authorization reflect changes made by the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 108-458, and related 
authorizations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Maryland opposed to the 
amendment?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. No. As as matter of fact, I support the amendment, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland 
may control 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. I think it is a 
step in the right direction. There are so many young people who find 
themselves getting into difficulty with drugs. The fact is when it 
predated their getting Federal funding for schooling, that is one 
thing; it is another thing when it happens during the time that they 
are getting the Federal funding. I would like to see it all eliminated, 
but the fact still remains that I think this is a good amendment. It is 
a step in the right direction. It is one that I have heard a lot of 
concern. Every time I do a town hall meeting on scholarships, this 
issue comes up. I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out again the effect of taking that 
language out means the bill is now silent on the drug loan provision. 
The other changes had to do with the Intelligence Committee and other 
committees that waived jurisdiction.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 amendment no. 2 offered by mr. souder

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise to offer amendment number 
2, designated to be offered by the gentleman from Washington or a 
designee?
  Mr. SOUDER. I will introduce the Baird amendment. I am a cosponsor of 
the Baird amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman 
from Washington?
  Mr. SOUDER. Yes, I am acting as his designee.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Souder:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 20. INTERNATIONAL SUMMIT ON METHAMPHETAMINE THREAT.

       (a) Summit Requirement.--The Director of the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy in the Executive Office of the 
     President shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 
     the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the United States 
     Trade Representative, seek to convene an international summit 
     on the threat of methamphetamine and synthetic drug precursor 
     chemicals.
       (b) Participation of Other Countries.--The Director shall 
     seek to convene the summit with the participation and 
     involvement of government leaders at the highest level from 
     all countries that are direct sources of precursor chemicals 
     and from all countries that are affected by methamphetamine 
     production, trafficking, and use, to intensify and coordinate 
     an effective international response in order to prevent 
     methamphetamine production and precursor diversion.
       (c) International Agreements.--The Director shall encourage 
     the negotiation, drafting, and ratification of multilateral 
     or bilateral agreements that may contain information-sharing 
     treaties concerning provisions for precursor importation and 
     exportation and additional provisions for annual assessments 
     of medical and scientific needs of each signatory country.
       (d) Matters Addressed by the Summit.--The summit may 
     address the following:
       (1) The greater involvement of international policing and 
     customs organizations, such as Interpol, the United Nations 
     Office on Drugs and Crime, and the World Customs 
     Organization.
       (2) Expanding resources and hired persons to track 
     international shipments of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and 
     other precursor substances as controlled by the International 
     Narcotics Control Board.
       (3) Working with the private sector and Federal agencies, 
     as well as the World Health Organization, to support the 
     research and development of substances that can effectively 
     replace primary precursors used in the manufacture of 
     synthetic drugs.
       (e) Deadline.--The Director shall seek to convene the 
     summit not later than 12 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and follow-up summits in subsequent 
     years as the Director finds necessary.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Director $1,000,000 to carry out 
     this section.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to give my time to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington 
will control the time in support of the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder). I appreciate the courtesy and I appreciate very much his 
leadership on this legislation and on the broad issue of 
methamphetamine in general.
  Our Nation is truly safer for the efforts of Mr. Souder, and it has 
been a pleasure to work with him on the amendment we offer today. I 
also want to compliment my good friend and colleague, Mr. Cardoza of 
California, and Ms. Hooley from Oregon.
  Recent articles, a series in the Oregonian and also a Frontline 
special, have articulated the challenges that we face in fighting 
methamphetamine due to international supply of the methamphetamine 
precursor, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.
  We have done good work just recently with the passage of the Combat 
Meth Act to curtail the supply coming directly into the United States, 
but transshipment of pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and other precursors 
is a terrific problem that is really leading to the supply increases 
that we are seeing on our streets.
  The good news on the meth front is that we are seeing a reduction of 
the local clandestine labs. The bad news is that the international 
trafficking has increased. Indeed, recent DEA reports show that the 
purity of methamphetamine on the streets has reached the 70 percent 
level. Now, we know from clinical and historical data that what happens 
in that case is an increase in the number of addictions, an increase in 
the number of drug-related crimes, of hospital admissions, et cetera.
  For that reason, we are offering today's amendment, and what it does 
is quite simple. It asks the administration to conduct an international 
summit to work with the other methamphetamine precursor producing 
countries to try to reach international accords that would curtail the 
production and shipment of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine and other 
precursors that would ultimately be manufactured into methamphetamine. 
It is a commonsense amendment. I think this is a drug that we can 
actually defeat if we can choke off the air supply of the precursors.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Has anyone claimed 
the time in opposition?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H822]]

  Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment and we are willing to 
accept this amendment. This amendment seeks to strengthen the bill by 
highlighting the problem of methamphetamine. I think it is very 
important that this House continue to go on record every day possible, 
every amendment possible.
  Again, the gentleman from Washington has been the founder of the Meth 
Caucus and Congressman Larsen, Congressman Cannon, and Congressman 
Calvert in the Meth Caucus have been active in doing this. I think it 
is important to look at an international summit.
  Clearly, as we dealt with the major methamphetamine bill that is part 
of the antiterrorism bill, we realize that as we get control of 
pseudoephedrine behind the counter, this becomes much more of an 
international problem. In Oklahoma, which was the first State, really, 
to enact tough legislation, they have seen crystal meth come in behind 
and become a scourge on their State. We see it in Oregon and 
Washington, other States around the country. As you crack down on the 
so-called ``mom and pop labs'' and the ``Nazi labs'' you move to 
crystal meth. That is better for local law enforcement but bad for the 
individuals because it is even more potent.
  Crystal meth is coming from an international market. It started over 
in Asia. There are nine basic facilities in the world, the Czech 
Republic has closed theirs, but Germany as well as China and India. 
Much of it comes across our border from Mexico, and without cooperation 
on an international basis, without working with the U.N. antinarcotics 
efforts, we cannot tackle this in the United States.
  We have attempted to put up walls in the Combat Meth Act. We had 
things for the spot market. We had new measuring things and so on, but 
ultimately that is just trying to put up a wall around the United 
States. We have to figure out how we are going to cooperatively work 
with India, China, and Mexico and other countries.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding. First of all, I want to compliment Mr. Baird and the other 
cosponsors of this amendment. There is no doubt about it, Mr. Souder 
and I, over and over again we see, as the ranking members of our 
subcommittee, so many of our members coming to us and telling us about 
the problems with methamphetamines in their districts. We have traveled 
across the country and listened to the testimony of various members and 
police and law enforcement folks and people who are trying to address 
this problem. And it is, in fact, a growing problem.
  While we have seen a lot of emphasis put on it, I think that this 
amendment goes very far to try to shine even more light on this tragic 
problem. And one of the things that we found so interesting about the 
whole methamphetamine situation, it is a little different than other 
drugs in that you have to have a clean-up. We spent a lot of money for 
clean-up. And we find many instances where children are tremendously 
affected because they have to be placed in foster care programs, 
because they have to be literally taken out of the house, the house 
usually has all kinds of problems, and they end up basically with no 
parents that are available to take care of them.
  So it has been a tremendous strain on our law enforcement agencies, 
our foster care agencies. I see this as a step in the right direction, 
and I would trust that we would support this amendment. I want to thank 
Mr. Souder for yielding.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) who has been a champion of the meth issue and 
has been a leader in passing legislation that would help combat this 
drug.
  Ms. HOOLEY. I thank my colleague for yielding me time and for all the 
hard work that has gone on with methamphetamine, and I rise today in 
support of the Baird-Cardoza-Hooley amendment.
  As meth has spread across this Nation, more and more States are 
taking action to cut off pseudoephedrine sales to meth makers who 
cannot make the poison without this common cold medication. But when 65 
percent of the meth in this country comes from Mexico drug cartels, we 
cannot solve this problem through domestic means alone.
  This amendment requires that our drug office join with other affected 
countries to coordinate an effective international response in order to 
prevent methamphetamine production and precursor diversion.
  In a revealing investigation, the Oregonian newspaper determined that 
Mexico imports roughly 100 tons of pseudoephedrine more than is needed 
to fill its need for cold medicine. The rest, narcotic officials guess, 
is diverted from legitimate uses and turned into meth. Since roughly 
200 tons of pseudoephedrine is needed to produce all the meth sold in 
the United States, this pseudoephedrine from Mexico can produce half of 
our Nation's supply of this deadly drug.
  This amendment will bring together international leaders so they can 
work together and collaborate on a broad-based strategy that will not 
only keep meth away from our communities and families but would limit 
production and use of this deadly drug worldwide. I urge the support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent 
remarks and for her leadership. In closing, I would like to reiterate 
my gratitude for Mr. Souder. He has been a champion of this issue. I 
also want to acknowledge, as he did, the Caucus to Control and Fight 
Methamphetamine, which is cochaired by my dear friend, Rick Larsen from 
Washington State, along with Len Boswell from Iowa, Chris Cannon, and 
Ken Calvert.
  It is truly a bipartisan, nationwide effort. And now what we need to 
do with this amendment is expand that effort internationally. If we can 
stop the international supply of these precursors, our communities will 
be safer, our families will be safer, and a lot of people whose lives 
would be ruined will never have to suffer that tragic fate.
  I am grateful for the support of Mr. Souder for this amendment and I 
urge its passage.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
before us today calling for a global meth conference.
  I commend Mr. Baird for working to bring this amendment to the floor. 
The amendment closely mirrors the bipartisan ``Sense of the Congress'' 
resolution I introduced in November calling for an international 
methamphetamine conference to develop a global strategy to control the 
trafficking of meth and its precursor chemicals.
  I also would like to thank Chairman Souder of the Drug Policy 
Subcommittee for his support from the beginning of a global meth 
conference and his leadership on the Methamphetamine Epidemic 
Elimination Act which is set to be signed into law as part of the 
PATRIOT Act.
  In my district in California's Central Valley, the meth epidemic has 
exacted a brutal toll on the environment, our children, and our 
communities. In the past 5 years alone, 15,000 children have been found 
at meth labs, not to mention the unknown number of children subjected 
to meth related domestic violence, abuse, and neglect.
  Mr. Chairman, controlling the global trade in meth and its precursor 
chemicals, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, is a critical part of any 
comprehensive strategy to fight the meth epidemic. A global meth 
conference is a logical next step that complements the international 
regulation provisions of the Meth Elimination Act.
  It is about time that we develop a worldwide strategy to reduce 
illegal trade in meth and its precursor chemicals and stop the 
devastating impact that methamphetamine use is having on our children 
and our communities.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1245


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Boozman

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H823]]


       Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Boozman:
       Page 168, line 17, strike ``and''.
       Page 168, line 19, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       Page 168, after line 19, insert the following:

       ``(IV) the effect of illicit drug use on children of 
     substance abusers.

       Page 170, line 12, insert after ``drug use'' the following: 
     ``(including the effects on children of substance abusers)''.
       At the end of the bill add the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 20. STUDY ON DRUG COURT HEARINGS IN NONTRADITIONAL 
                   PLACES.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that encouraging drug courts 
     and schools to enter into partnerships that allow students to 
     see the repercussions of drug abuse by non-violent offenders 
     may serve as a strong deterrent and promote demand reduction.
       (b) Study.--The Director of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy shall conduct a study on drug court programs 
     that conduct hearings in nontraditional public places, such 
     as schools. At a minimum, the study shall evaluate similar 
     programs in operation, such as the program operated in the 
     Fourth Judicial District Drug Court, in Washington County, 
     Arkansas.
       (c) Requirement.--At the same time the President submits to 
     Congress the National Drug Control Strategy due February 1, 
     2007, pursuant to section 706 of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998, the President 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the study conducted 
     under subsection (b). The report shall include an evaluation 
     of the results of the study and such recommendations as the 
     President considers appropriate.
       (d) Demand Reduction.--In this section, the term ``demand 
     reduction'' has the meaning provided in section 702(1) of the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 
     1998 (21 U.S.C. 1701(1)).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate this opportunity to offer an amendment which will 
strengthen the hand of Congress in the future as we work to protect the 
most vulnerable children in our society and as we work to deter the 
abuse of drugs in our culture.
  This amendment would provide for two simple actions by ONDCP. First, 
the amendment would require the director of ONDCP to include in the 
National Drug Control Strategy statistical data and information to 
demonstrate and assess trends relating to the effects of illicit drug 
use on children of substance abusers. This information will assist 
Congress, as well as States, local governments and private groups, as 
we work to protect these children.
  As we all know, one of the greatest tragedies of drug abuse is the 
terrible effect these crimes have on the most vulnerable members of 
society, children. Children of substance abusers are the innocent 
victims of drug abuse, and research shows that these children are much 
more likely to become drug abusers themselves when they reach 
adolescence or adulthood. Congress should do all it can to protect 
these innocent children, while we have the chance; and no effective 
National Drug Control Strategy would be complete without considering 
the effects on children of substance abusers and how we can help 
prevent the cycle of drug abuse.
  We all know from experience that children who have grown up in homes 
in this sort of condition are much more likely to use drugs themselves. 
In Arkansas, State, local, and private groups are working hard to 
assist meth-endangered children, kids, who are some of the most 
vulnerable, of substance abusers. Several years ago, I visited with a 
high school young lady whose parent had recently committed suicide as a 
result of being high on meth. He was a truck driver. He had been on the 
drug for many, many years; and she was being a model student. There was 
really nothing, there was no agency, there was no help for her. So, 
again, I think this is very, very important and something that would be 
great if we could study and then use that information to go further.
  The second part of this amendment requires the director of ONDCP to 
conduct a study on drug court programs that hold hearings in 
nontraditional public places, such as schools. As you all know, the 
mission of a drug court is to provide an alternative to incarceration 
for nonviolent persons convicted of alcohol or other drug-related 
charges. In order to reduce demand and deter our kids from getting 
involved in illegal drugs, we must make sure they understand the 
consequences of drug abuse. We spend a lot of time and money talking to 
kids about the repercussions of drug abuse, but this type of program 
allows us to show them the consequences.
  In my congressional district, I have seen firsthand the strong impact 
that such a program has had on school-age kids. Judge Mary Ann Gunn of 
the Fourth Judicial District Drug Court in Washington County, Arkansas, 
has been taking her program into the schools for several years with the 
strong support of school administrators and the community. She uses the 
opportunity to visit with students about the drug problem, and it has 
had a profound effect on many kids. Experience has shown that her 
program is a strong deterrent for young people, and it strongly 
promotes demand reduction among our youth.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to 
reduce the harm experienced by children of substance abusers and to 
study drug court programs that could be a tremendous deterrent to young 
people nationwide. These two items may seem small, but they are 
critical steps in saving future generations from the harm caused by 
drug abuse.
  I commend Chairman Souder for his work on this very important bill. I 
appreciate the hard work that he and his staff and the other members of 
the committee, both Democrat and Republican, have put into this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition to the bill?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to use the time 
in opposition to support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to thank the gentleman for this amendment. It is a very 
important amendment, and I have no doubt that it makes the bill a 
better bill.
  One of the things we have seen in my district and all over the 
country is that there are these cycles of drug addiction; and I think 
one of the saddest things, and I saw this as a lawyer, too, when I 
practiced, is to represent a parent and then a few years later see a 
child come in. They both have been drug users. So the cycle of drug 
addiction keeps going around and around. So I think that is a very, 
very important piece to look at, how the children are affected.
  As far as the nontraditional places with regard to drug courts is 
concerned, I think that is another good idea. I think what happens too 
often is that you have young people who will experiment or they get 
involved, but there are even a lot of times you do not think about 
consequences. They do not think about how they may have to very well 
come in contact with our judicial system. I think that this is an 
excellent way that we need to look at that, figure out ways by which we 
might do that; and I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I also strongly support this amendment. I 
appreciate the gentleman from Arkansas being one of the first Members 
to really push us to focus on methamphetamines. His district has been 
hard hit. Early on it was featured in People magazine. We did a 
congressional hearing in our subcommittee in his district where we 
heard from everyone, from drug court to people who were working 
directly with children and the impact on children.
  At another hearing in Minnesota, at the request of a number of 
Members, we heard in Ramsey County, which is St. Paul, that they went 
from zero to 80 percent of the kids in child custody in the welfare 
department being addicts of meth. From nothing to 80 percent, in 6 
months.

[[Page H824]]

  When methamphetamine hits your area, it takes over and overwhelms 
your juvenile systems, overwhelms the child custody system, and 
overwhelms the criminal system. I very much appreciate this amendment.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Chabot:
       Page 161, after line 2, insert the following:
       (n) Requirement to Submit National Synthetic Drugs Action 
     Strategy.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug Control 
     Policy shall submit to Congress the National Synthetic Drugs 
     Action Strategy outlined in the National Synthetic Drugs 
     Action Plan submitted by the Director in October 2004.
       (o) Requirement for Study of State Precursor Chemical 
     Control Laws.--
       (1) Study.--The Director of National Drug Control Policy 
     shall conduct a study of State laws with respect to precursor 
     chemical controls.
       (2) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug 
     Control Policy shall submit a report to Congress on the 
     results of the study under paragraph (1), including--
       (A) a comparison of the State laws studied and the 
     effectiveness of each such law; and
       (B) a list of best practices observed with respect to such 
     laws.
       (p) Requirement for Study of Drug Endangered Children 
     Programs.--
       (1) Study.--The Director of National Drug Control Policy 
     shall conduct a study of methamphetamine-related activities 
     that are conducted by different Drug Endangered Children 
     programs administered by States.
       (2) Report.--Not later than six months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug 
     Control Policy shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     results of the study under paragraph (1). Such report shall 
     include--
       (A) an analysis of the best practices of the activities 
     studied; and
       (B) recommendations for establishing a national policy to 
     address drug endangered children, based on the Drug 
     Endangered Children programs administered by States.
       (3) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       (A) the term ``methamphetamine-related activity'' means any 
     activity related to the production, use, or effects of 
     methamphetamine; and
       (B) the term ``drug endangered children'' means children 
     whose physical, mental, or emotional health are at risk 
     because of the production, use, or effects of methamphetamine 
     by another person.
       At the end of the bill, add the following new sections (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 20. NATIONAL METHAMPHETAMINE INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Methamphetamine Information Clearinghouse Act of 2005''.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Council'' means the National Methamphetamine 
     Advisory Council established under subsection (c)(2)(A);
       (2) the term ``drug endangered children'' means children 
     whose physical, mental, or emotional health are at risk 
     because of the production, use, or effects of methamphetamine 
     by another person;
       (3) the term ``National Methamphetamine Information 
     Clearinghouse'' or ``NMIC'' means the information 
     clearinghouse established under subsection (c)(1); and
       (4) the term ``qualified entity'' means a State or local 
     government, school board, or public health, law enforcement, 
     nonprofit, or other nongovernmental organization providing 
     services related to methamphetamine.
       (c) Establishment of Clearinghouse and Advisory Council.--
       (1) Clearinghouse.--There is established, under the 
     supervision of the Director of National Drug Control Policy, 
     an information clearinghouse to be known as the National 
     Methamphetamine Information Clearinghouse.
       (2) Advisory council.--
       (A) In general.--There is established an advisory council 
     to be known as the National Methamphetamine Advisory Council.
       (B) Membership.--The Council shall consist of 10 members 
     appointed by the Director of National Drug Control Policy--
       (i) not fewer than three of whom shall be representatives 
     of law enforcement agencies;
       (ii) not fewer than four of whom shall be representatives 
     of nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations providing 
     services related to methamphetamine; and
       (iii) one of whom shall be a representative of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services.
       (C) Period of appointment; vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for three years. Any vacancy in the Council shall 
     not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner 
     as the original appointment.
       (d) NMIC Requirements and Review.--
       (1) In general.--The NMIC shall promote sharing information 
     regarding successful law enforcement, treatment, 
     environmental, social services, and other programs related to 
     the production, use, or effects of methamphetamine and grants 
     available for such programs.
       (2) Components.--The NMIC shall include--
       (A) a toll-free number; and
       (B) a website that--
       (i) provides information on the short-term and long-term 
     effects of methamphetamine use;
       (ii) provides information regarding methamphetamine 
     treatment programs and programs for drug endangered children, 
     including descriptions of successful programs and contact 
     information for such programs;
       (iii) provides information regarding grants for 
     methamphetamine-related programs, including contact 
     information and links to websites;
       (iv) allows a qualified entity to submit items to be posted 
     on the website regarding successful public or private 
     programs or other useful information related to the 
     production, use, or effects of methamphetamine;
       (v) includes a restricted section that may only be accessed 
     by a law enforcement organization that contains successful 
     strategies, training techniques, and other information that 
     the Council determines helpful to law enforcement agency 
     efforts to combat the production, use or effects of 
     methamphetamine;
       (vi) allows public access to all information not in a 
     restricted section; and
       (vii) contains any additional information the Council 
     determines may be useful in combating the production, use, or 
     effects of methamphetamine.
       (3) Review of posted information.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     submission of an item by a qualified entity, the Council 
     shall review an item submitted for posting on the website 
     described in paragraph (2)(B)--
       (i) to evaluate and determine whether the item, as 
     submitted or as modified, meets the requirements for posting; 
     and
       (ii) in consultation with the Director of National Drug 
     Control Policy, to determine whether the item should be 
     posted in a restricted section of the website.
       (B) Determination.--Not later than 45 days after the date 
     of submission of an item, the Council shall--
       (i) post the item on the website described in paragraph 
     (2)(B); or
       (ii) notify the qualified entity that submitted the item 
     regarding the reason such item shall not be posted and 
     modifications, if any, that the qualified entity may make to 
     allow the item to be posted.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (A) for fiscal year 2007--
       (i) $1,000,000 to establish the NMIC and Council; and
       (ii) such sums as are necessary for the operation of the 
     NMIC and Council; and
       (B) for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011, such sums 
     as are necessary for the operation of the NMIC and Council.

     SEC. 21. REPORT ON SCHOOL DRUG TESTING.

       (a) Report Requirement.--The Director of National Drug 
     Control Policy shall prepare a report on drug testing in 
     schools. The report shall include a list of secondary schools 
     that have initiated drug testing from among those schools 
     that have attended conferences on drug testing sponsored by 
     the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
       (b) Deadline.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug 
     Control Policy shall submit to Congress the report required 
     under subsection (a).

     SEC. 22. REPORT ON METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC.

       (a) Report Requirement.--The Director of National Drug 
     Control Policy shall prepare a report on methamphetamine 
     usage in the United States. The report shall describe the 
     usage by zip code based on information obtained from 
     industrial and school drug testing and seizures of 
     clandestine laboratories.
       (b) Deadline.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug 
     Control Policy shall submit to Congress the report required 
     under subsection (a).

     SEC. 23. REPORT ON ONDCP PERFORMANCE BONUSES.

       (a) Report Requirement.--The Director of National Drug 
     Control Policy shall prepare a report on performance bonuses 
     at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The report 
     shall include a list of employees who received performance 
     bonuses, and the amount of such bonuses, for the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2004, and ending on the date of 
     submission of the report.
       (b) Deadline.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug 
     Control Policy shall submit to Congress the report required 
     under subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H825]]

  I rise today in support of a bipartisan amendment that I have drafted 
with several Members of the Meth Caucus to address the national 
methamphetamine epidemic our Nation faces. I have offered this 
amendment along with Representatives Boswell, Calvert, Cannon and 
Larsen of Washington; and I would like to thank all of these gentlemen 
for their leadership in not only drafting this amendment but in working 
very hard in this fight against drugs in our country.
  Specifically, I wanted to highlight the provisions of the amendment 
that would create a National Methamphetamine Information Clearinghouse. 
Several communities in my State have expressed the need to obtain and 
share information related to methamphetamine abuse and addiction. The 
national database would promote sharing of best practices among the law 
enforcement, prevention, treatment, and social services communities.
  The database will be governed by an advisory council comprised of 
members from a variety of agencies and organizations. This council will 
be responsible for monitoring these submissions to the clearinghouse 
and making sure that information found on the site is accurate, up to 
date and useful.
  The methamphetamine problem has grown at a dramatic rate and is now 
considered the most significant drug abuse problem in the country, 
surpassing marijuana. The impact of this problem has hit local law 
enforcement and communities with dramatic, direct, and collateral 
consequences.
  The National Association of Counties recently published a survey that 
shows that 60 percent of responding counties stated that 
methamphetamine was their largest drug problem, 60 percent of these. 
Sixty-seven percent reported increases in meth-related arrests.
  I will continue to support measures such as these and the Meth 
Elimination Act that was included in the PATRIOT Act to crack down on 
meth users and give local law enforcement and the public at large tools 
to help fight this national epidemic.
  I would like to thank all those sponsors, Mr. Boswell and others who 
have been very active in this effort, for being cosponsors and 
supporters of this particular legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition to the bill?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to use the time 
in opposition to support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I fully support this amendment, and I 
yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who is a 
member of the Meth Caucus and has been just a tremendous leader with 
regard to this issue and so many others, too.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding me the time. I appreciate it very much, and I would like to 
thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for his willingness to work 
with the cochairs of the Meth Caucus. It has been exhilarating that we 
can get something done; and the Meth Caucus, with your help, is making 
strides. I appreciate it very much.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) 
for his strong leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent Iowa. Sometimes we have referred to it as 
the Belt Buckle of the Heartland. Iowa is a small State, one that 
prides itself on a shared sense of community and responsibility, one 
that values a solid education and a hard day's work. When one thinks of 
Iowa, they might imagine vast fields of corn or soybeans, or they might 
imagine a small-town Main Street.
  Unfortunately, they might also imagine meth. A couple of years ago, 
the meth epidemic in Iowa was highlighted in a documentary by HBO 
called ``Crank.'' This detailed the meth problem of three Iowa families 
and showed the complete destruction this drug causes. This documentary 
shows how meth had taken hold in Iowa, but it just as easily could have 
been filmed in Missouri, Illinois, California, Washington, Oregon, 
Oklahoma, Nebraska, or any other State in the Union that has seen meth 
steadily infiltrate our communities.
  I am sure everyone in this great House has heard the stories from 
their districts about meth. Meth does not care how much money you have, 
what kind of education you have, where you live, what color your skin 
is, how old you are, how young you are. Meth is quite simply an equal-
opportunity destroyer. I am sure all of my colleagues here have seen 
all the pictures repeatedly shown by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Osborne) which have shown the life of this young woman and how she 
deteriorated so fast.
  I rise today in strong support of the Chabot-Boswell-Calvert-Cannon-
Larsen amendment. This amendment will strengthen the ONDCP 
reauthorization bill by highlighting the continued commitment of this 
House in our national fight against methamphetamine.
  Meth presents unique challenges to law enforcement, social services, 
and public health agencies. As such, the Congress must have extensive 
information on this epidemic from across the Nation. I believe this 
amendment will move us in that direction. By commissioning the reports 
outlined in this amendment, the Congress will be able to increase the 
information available to it on a wide range of issues, from the 
differing State precursor control laws to the Drug Endangered Children 
programs that have become all too valuable to the people we represent.
  Furthermore, we must have the ability to quickly share information 
with Federal, State, and local governments. The National 
Methamphetamine Information Clearinghouse created by this amendment 
will provide us with the one-stop shop we need to share information on 
best practices in areas such as law enforcement, treatment, prevention, 
and social services.
  The proposals in this amendment before you were crafted with close 
bipartisan cooperation and consultation. When dealing with the issue of 
meth, I have found this is the only approach to take. This drug does 
not care what side of the aisle you are on.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this important 
amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who has been such a strong 
leader in the fight against drugs in this country.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my distinguished colleague 
from Ohio on the Judiciary Committee for his great work on this and so 
many other issues, on constitutional issues and on crime issues in this 
country, and I want to put this amendment a little bit in context.
  First, we have a very strong Meth Caucus in this House, led by 
Congressman Larsen, Congresswoman Boswell, Congressman Calvert, and 
Congressman Cannon. Congressman Calvert was one of the early leaders 
because in California we saw these super labs, just like in Washington 
State and Oregon. Actually, they started in Hawaii. Moved from Asia 
into Hawaii, into the west coast, into the Plaines, then into the Great 
Lakes States. It has now moved through the whole country.
  Part of the reason the Meth Caucus is so frustrated and you will see 
so many amendments today, and even in the overriding bill, is because 
of an exasperation that while this is tearing up the grass roots, the 
Congress of Counties in the United States has said it is the number one 
drug problem in America; we have the HIDTAs coming in and saying it is, 
State and local law enforcement coming in and saying it is, the 
emergency rooms reflecting that, yet there has been no coordinated 
anti-meth strategy.
  The challenge we have when we do a bill like this, which is a 5-year 
bill, which may mean at different times that oxycontin may be the 
problem, crack is in other cities and heroin is in other cities, that 
you try not to micromanage any particular drug in a 5-year bill. But 
what has happened here is, because the Office of ONDCP in particular, 
as well as HHS for the most part, have had a tin ear and not responded, 
this bill is going to have a lot more micromanagement in it than you 
normally would in a 5-year authorization.

[[Page H826]]

  I believe methamphetamine will be around in 5 years. I don't believe 
we are going to get rid of it in 5 years. It originally was in the form 
of crack and was not that widespread. But as it spread, whether it is 
mom-and-pop labs or crystal meth, it will be here for 5 years. But this 
would not be necessary if they already had a clearinghouse. I can't 
believe we don't already have a clearinghouse. It wouldn't be necessary 
if we already had in the schools different programs like this amendment 
is prescribing.
  The administration this morning said they oppose this bill because it 
ties their hands too much. I am sorry, when you do not respond to the 
crisis in America, when the American people are rising up in every 
county, every law enforcement organization, this is exactly what we 
need to do in legislation when you do not respond.
  I strongly support this amendment and I hope the entire Congress will 
support this amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), another leader in the Meth 
Caucus.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment today, and I want to thank my fellow Meth Caucus cochairs, 
Mr. Boswell, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Cannon, and also the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for their work in drafting this critical amendment.
  Methamphetamine is a highly dangerous drug that is wreaking havoc on 
families and communities throughout this country. The drug's use is 
spreading across the United States. And while meth produced in home-
grown labs has actually decreased in certain parts of the country, meth 
use has exploded with the availability of crystal meth from superlabs 
from places like Mexico.
  Meth impacts every aspect of our community, every aspect of our 
neighborhoods, of our businesses, of the environment, and of our 
children. According to a 2005 survey by the National Association of 
Counties, 58 percent of the counties across the country reported meth 
as their greatest drug problem. The Federal Government needs to treat 
our Nation's meth problem with the same urgency and commitment that our 
State and local governments have been treating it for years.
  We must provide for local law enforcement, treatment professionals, 
and prevention experts with the tools they need to combat this deadly 
drug. Our amendment is a step in the right direction. For the past 
several years, the Meth Caucus has worked to engage the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy on this issue. We have tried to get their 
attention that meth requires a strong, comprehensive Federal policy. 
While some gains have been made, ONDCP must take meth more seriously 
and devote more resources to its eradication.
  Our amendment calls on ONDCP to increase reporting on several 
critical meth issues, including State Drug Endangered Children programs 
and State laws and access to meth precursors. These reports will help 
us develop a coherent and comprehensive national strategy to fight 
meth. It is also creates the National Methamphetamine Information 
Clearinghouse to provide current information to Federal, State, and 
local agencies about meth's trafficking, abuse, treatment, and abuse 
prevention.
  I want to conclude quickly by thanking the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Souder) for working with us to craft this important amendment. I 
also want to thank him for his willingness to work with the Meth Caucus 
to get good meth policy passed. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
this amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we 
have?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman has 5 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Let me just say this.
  I want to congratulate Mr. Chabot and all the members of the Meth 
Caucus, because I think they have done, I know that they have done an 
outstanding job. I certainly congratulate Mr. Souder, too.
  We have seen meth and the effects of meth, and I can tell you that 
while I am from the inner city of Baltimore, I have seen the effect 
that crack cocaine and heroin and various other drugs have had on 
populations; but I was, to be very frank with you, a bit shocked at the 
effects of methamphetamines. I think the thing that struck me 
tremendously was the fact that these drugs could be easily manufactured 
and that somebody could actually, literally, look at a Web site and put 
together these drugs and the next thing you know you have got quite a 
few people using them.
  We had testimony that came forward during one of our field hearings 
in Indiana, I think it was, where they were talking about how one 
person would learn how to create the lab, and then the next thing you 
know, they teach somebody else, and they teach somebody else, and the 
next thing you have a whole string of them.
  I give Mr. Souder and all the members of our subcommittee a lot of 
credit. We try to address all of these problems, whether it is meth in 
the rural areas of our great country, or whether it is crack cocaine in 
urban areas. And here, this is another effort, as I said a little 
earlier, for us to address the problems of drugs in our country and the 
fact that it is destroying so many families, so many communities, and 
so many people.
  A lot of people don't realize it, but when somebody becomes addicted 
to a drug, it not only affects them but it affects their families and 
it affects support agencies and it affects their entire neighborhood. 
And we have seen those effects.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and I 
congratulate the sponsors.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I will be very brief, but I want to thank all the Members that have 
been so involved in passing this particular amendment and working on 
the entire bill. There are an awful lot of people, I think, in the 
House that realize what a scourge drugs are in this country and 
particularly in the last few years with methamphetamine.
  This bill, whereas it is not a panacea, it will not solve the 
problem, it is at least a step in the right direction, and I want to 
thank my colleagues for their support.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
bipartisan amendment which will strengthen the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy's, and in turn our nation's, efforts against 
methamphetamine--the deadliest and most devastating drug that faces our 
communities today. As a founding member and Co-Chair of the 
Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, commonly 
know as the Meth Caucus, I have seen our Caucus membership enrollment 
grow just as the meth epidemic has grown.
  From a couple dozen Members representing Western states in 2001 to 
140 today, the Meth Caucus membership hails from all regions of this 
country and across the political spectrum. Even the Senate has 
established their own Meth Caucus which is modeled after the House 
caucus. Each of these Members recognize the meth epidemic that is 
ravaging our communities on so many levels--from its toll on individual 
users, to the significant social costs it thrusts onto our law 
enforcement, prisons, hospitals, social and child welfare systems, and 
the environment.
  As Mr. Chabot stated, the amendment, through commissioned studies and 
reports, will provide information critical to assisting the 
Administration and the Congress in developing necessary and up-to-date 
policies to address the meth epidemic. In addition, the amendment would 
create an online National Methamphetamine Information Clearinghouse to 
serve law enforcement and the broader community with a forum for 
sharing of ``best practices'' information regarding successful anti-
meth programs and activities. These measures will only strengthen the 
reauthorization bill and ensure that the Federal response to the meth 
epidemic does not waver.
  I would like to express many thanks to Congressman Souder for his 
support on this amendment. He has been, with his staff, relentless in 
their work to improve federal drug control policy and I appreciate 
their readiness and eagerness to involve the Meth Caucus in their 
activities. I also want to thank Congressman Chabot and his staff for 
shepherding this important amendment to the floor, and also my fellow 
Meth Caucus Co-Chairs, Representatives Cannon, Larsen and Boswell and 
their staff for their constant vigilance on this

[[Page H827]]

issue and their efforts to make this one of the most proactive and 
effective Caucus' in the House. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of the amendment and the reauthorization bill.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cuellar

  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Cuellar:
       Page 161, after line 2, insert the following:
       (n) Study of Persons Kidnapped, Killed, and Missing Along 
     the Border Between the United States and Mexico.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of National Drug Control 
     Policy shall study the specific impact on citizens of the 
     United States of violence related to drug-trafficking along 
     the international border between the United States and 
     Mexico.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Director 
     of National Drug Control Policy shall submit to Congress a 
     report, including recommendations on methods to solve the 
     offenses described in such paragraph and to reduce the 
     occurence of such offenses.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Souder and Mr. Cummings, and I also 
rise in favor of this particular bill. I want to thank Mr. Souder for 
the leadership he has taken on this very important bill that is so 
important to us and, again, Mr. Cummings, also for the work you both 
have been doing, your leadership and your bipartisan approach.
  I also want to thank my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for 
cosponsoring this amendment. My amendment to H.R. 2829 directs a study 
on the incidence of kidnapped, killed, and missing Americans along the 
United States-Mexican border. Within 180 days, the commission will 
submit a report to the U.S. Congress with recommendations on how to 
prevent these types of crime.
  According to the FBI, 41 Americans have been kidnapped in Mexico 
since August of 2004. Two have been killed, some have been returned, 
but there are still 22 missing Americans that we have not been able to 
find answers to.
  Last year, we witnessed a positive reaction from our country when we 
mobilized the resources to find the missing American in Aruba. It is my 
hope that we can also give the same type of attention to the missing 
Americans along the U.S.-Mexican border where many more people have 
gone missing.
  I fully understand that the Office of National Drug Control Policy is 
not an enforcement or investigative agency, but I believe, very 
strongly, that this office can be another group of minds that can help 
us try to find initiatives to help prevent American citizens from 
suffering the same or similar fate in the future.
  Since I have taken office, I have been asked by many of the mothers 
and fathers and the children of the missing Americans to help resolve 
the status of their loved ones. I believe that if we bring in many 
resources together that we can help to ensure we put a stop to these 
crimes, and hopefully give the families of these missing Americans some 
closure.
  Again, congratulations to Mr. Souder for the leadership that he has 
taken, and Mr. Cummings also, for coming together in a bipartisan 
approach. I believe this amendment is acceptable to both Mr. Souder and 
Mr. Cummings.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I strongly support this amendment by the gentleman from Texas. Without 
a doubt, our number one challenge is the southwest border, whether it 
is meth, whether it is cocaine, whether it is heroin, or whether it is 
marijuana.
  The biggest bust in my hometown's history in Fort Wayne, Indiana, was 
in Laredo, headed up to Fort Wayne, and a very organized thing. We have 
had multiple hearings in El Paso, but I remember at one of the hearings 
in El Paso, the prisons in El Paso are full of people trying to ship 
drugs to other parts of the country, and they do not even arrest people 
with under 200 pounds anymore because their prisons are full. When we 
challenged that, he said, what are we supposed to do in Texas? Our 
prisons are full of people running drugs to Indiana and Maryland and 
Florida and everywhere else in the United States. There is only so much 
we can do.
  Many problems along the border are related to immigration questions, 
but I do not think the violence in the southwest border is related to 
people coming up to work in manufactured housing in Indiana. The 
problem with violence at the southwest border is pretty directly 
related to drug trafficking; the assassinations we have seen on both 
sides of the border and how that spills in. Sometimes it is accidental, 
sometimes it is shootouts, sometimes it is kidnappings, sometimes it 
relates to people in law enforcement and other times it is individuals; 
whether it is at that Tohono O'odham reservation in Arizona that has 
been overrun, or whether it is ranches that have been overrun, or 
whether literally in El Paso it is assassinations that have occurred 
inside the city.
  The drug czar's office does have the ability to do this kind of 
study. They are the overarching agency. We may also need to look, just 
like we need to look at legislation on these tunnels, what specific 
legislation may need to come from this, but first we need to know what 
the facts are. I appreciate the gentleman bringing the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I wanted to just state that I wholeheartedly support the 
amendment. I think it makes a great bill an even better bill, and I 
thank the gentleman for sponsoring it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas to close.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Yes, I want to thank Mr. Souder and Mr. Cummings once 
again for their leadership on this very important issue.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Filner:
       Page 159, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph 
     (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):

       (3) Specific content related to drug tunnels between the 
     united states and mexico.--The Southwest Border 
     Counternarcotics Strategy shall include--
       (A) a strategy to end the construction and use of tunnels 
     and subterranean passages that cross the international border 
     between the United States and Mexico for the purpose of 
     illegal trafficking of drugs across such border; and
       (B) recommendations for criminal penalties for persons who 
     construct or use such a tunnel or subterranean passage for 
     such a purpose.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 713, the gentleman

[[Page H828]]

from California (Mr. Filner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank Chairman Souder and Ranking Member Cummings for 
bringing us this bill, and I have an amendment based on my experience 
as the Congressman that represents the whole California-Mexico border.
  Just a few weeks ago, we discovered almost a mile-long tunnel, half 
on each side of the border, in my district. We all like to take credit 
for things in our district, but this is one that I do not take credit 
for.

                              {time}  1315

  It was a very sophisticated tunnel the way it was constructed, the 
way it was shored up, the way it drained water, and it was even air-
conditioned. We found 2 tons of marijuana that was left behind. Who 
knows what went through that tunnel, whether it was people, drugs or 
potentially weapons of mass destruction?
  Thinking about that and looking at the reaction we had in San Diego 
over those tunnels, I thought we should slightly amend this bill to 
authorize the ONDCP to coordinate with all relevant agencies to combat 
border tunnels that are used to smuggle drugs, people, and could 
potentially be used to smuggle terrorists and their weapons, 
specifically between California and Mexico.
  It gives the office authority to join in the development and 
implementation of a strategy to fight these subterranean border tunnels 
and requires that the office submit to Congress a recommendation for 
penalties for those involved either in digging or using these tunnels.
  We have been dealing with this issue over many years. Eight tunnels 
between San Diego and Tijuana have been discovered this year alone, and 
there have been over 20 tunnels discovered in the last decade.
  We know that with all of the fences that we are building, double 
fences, triple fences, walls, what we have here is an easy way under 
all of those fences that we are building. So we need to have a far more 
coordinated policy. There is not even a law against tunneling under the 
border! There are laws for smuggling and for other parts of the crime, 
but not specifically for tunneling under our international border. So 
we have to take note of them. We have to concentrate and focus our 
efforts. We have to understand that terrorism can find a whole new 
approach to getting into the United States through these tunnels 
underneath our international border. They are a threat to us and 
America. They allow drugs and people to come through.
  These are busy times for the Border Patrol, the customs agents, 
immigration folks; but if we are going to send these agencies to fight 
a war on drugs, to fight a war against illegal behavior, we have to 
send them the proper tools. I believe this amendment will do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I do not oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to support this amendment. I do not oppose this amendment. I 
think it is a good amendment. It is a phenomenon we have dealt with for 
some time, and I appreciate Mr. Filner's long, aggressive leadership 
with how best to deal with the southwest border in his district. We 
have worked together on border questions.
  This has recently been in the news because there have been more 
tunnels discovered in the last period than we have had for some time. 
The gentleman is absolutely correct, it does not do any good to build 
fences if you dig tunnels underneath them. Some of these tunnels have 
gone into other businesses, some into homes, some into open areas. It 
has shown a gap in our legislation.
  I am working with Chairman Dreier who is taking the lead on a bill 
similar to Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl's bill to try to come up 
with appropriate laws that we need regarding these tunnels.
  Clearly, if you catch the ton of marijuana going through, that is 
clearly a violation of the law; but even the tunnel itself and digging 
the tunnel under an international border should have stiff penalties.
  I spoke yesterday with the Assistant Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security, Julie Myers, and she is head of ICE and has been 
working directly with them in trying to do more of the tunnel 
enforcement. They have stepped up DHS efforts, and Assistant Secretary 
Myers is fully aware of this. We need to develop whatever legislation 
is required.
  What we need is our ONDCP director, and ideally he would have already 
submitted proposals to us. This says come up with proposals, and it 
gives him authority to develop implementation of a strategy and 
coordinate the other agencies. Some of this may be Department of 
Justice, EPA. That is why we have an Office of National Drug Control 
Policy to coordinate the different agencies that may be involved in 
this tunnel.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the chairman for his leadership on these issues, for 
coming personally to the border to see the situation. Through my 
district, Mr. Chairman, every day 300,000 people go back and forth 
legally. That is the movement of a major amount of people, and we have 
to do that efficiently. But within that amount of movement, people take 
advantage with illegal movement. That is what we have to try to get at. 
We have to try to get at the illegal while making it efficient for all 
of those people going back and forth for trade, shopping, family 
visits, for schooling, for cultural visits. We have to allow that to 
continue efficiently while stopping, in a more efficient fashion, the 
illegal activity.
  I thank both Mr. Cummings and Mr. Souder for their support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a wonderful and very 
appropriate amendment. I think many Americans were shocked when they 
learned of this tunnel. As Mr. Filner said, heaven knows what may have 
gone through it.
  But I see another benefit, not only dealing with the drug issue, but 
certainly we are concerned about making sure that our homeland is 
properly secure. As he said, 300,000 to 400,000 people go across the 
borders legitimately every day. The fact with someone or any persons 
coming up with this scheme by which to go around the system that we 
have created, it cries out for ONDCP to look at it and I am sure other 
agencies are looking at it, too.
  I support the amendment and thank the gentleman for offering it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Graves

  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Graves:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 20. REPORT ON GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED METHAMPHETAMINE 
                   CONFERENCE.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy shall submit to Congress a report 
     explaining the rationale and circumstances leading to the 
     sponsorship by the Department of Health and Human Resources, 
     and the participation by employees of such department, in a 
     conference conducted by the Harm Reduction Coalition and the 
     Harm Reduction Project on August 19th and 20th, 2005, in Salt 
     Lake City, Utah, titled the ``1st National Conference on 
     Methamphetamine, HIV, and Hepatitis Science & Response''.
       (b) Additional Matters Covered.--The report shall include a 
     description of the management and reporting systems of the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy that are in

[[Page H829]]

     place or that will be put in place to ensure that the policy 
     of the Federal Government is consistently supportive of 
     efforts to prevent the use of methamphetamine.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have to tell you about the epidemic abuse of 
methamphetamine that has swept this country. It has devastated States 
such as mine. Missouri has one of the worst meth problems in the 
country. From 1995 to 2002, Missouri reported a 97.4 percent increase 
in methamphetamine-related admissions to emergency rooms. In 2003, 
Missouri had the highest number of meth lab seizures in the country.
  Missouri is not alone. Meth abuse impacts every community; there is 
no State where meth cannot be found. In 2005 alone, approximately 5,000 
meth labs were seized by law enforcement officials. This serious 
epidemic requires a serious response, and I believe we have to ensure 
that all agencies are vigorously fighting the meth epidemic.
  This includes agencies such as Department of Health and Human 
Services. HHS sponsored and participated in a conference promoting the 
ideology of reducing the negative impact of drugs, or the safe use of 
drugs, rather than stopping the use of illegal drugs.
  We need to take seriously the meth epidemic sweeping our Nation. Now 
is not the time to be lax on drug enforcement. We need to take a hard 
approach to fight this menace and ensure that the administration and 
agencies are taking the meth epidemic seriously and supporting efforts 
to prevent drug abuse, not the safe use.
  My amendment is very simple. My amendment will demand that the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy conduct a report to explain how it 
happened that the Department of Health and Human Services sponsored 
this pro-meth conference and what management and reporting systems the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy will change to ensure that the 
Department of Health and Human Services is anti-meth and supportive of 
efforts fighting the meth epidemic.
  I ask all Members to support this amendment. This is a serious issue 
in combating a very dangerous drug, and obviously the meth epidemic.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The Graves amendment requires ONDCP to produce a study on why the 
Department of Health and Human Services provided sponsorship support 
and sent HHS employees to a 2005 conference on methamphetamine and harm 
reduction.
  In my opinion this amendment is totally unnecessary. The information 
sought could be obtained through regular oversight channels, and the 
request does not belong in an authorization statute. In addition, the 
amendment is an implicit ideological attack on harm-reduction efforts, 
such as needle exchange programs.
  The purpose of needle exchange programs is to reduce the risk of 
transmission of HIV among injection drugs users. The amendment 
presupposes that needle exchange and prevention are incompatible, and 
that HHS participation in a harm-reduction conference cannot be 
constructive. That assumption is simply false.
  HHS, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health 
Organization, and other health organizations have conducted 
comprehensive reviews of the research on needle exchange. Their 
research establishes the following conclusions: Needle exchange 
programs reduce the risk of transmission of HIV among injection drug 
users; they do not increase or encourage drug use; and they can be an 
important bridge to treatment aimed at achieving abstinence from drug 
use. Needle exchange can be an effective component of a strong, 
comprehensive drug reduction program. HHS and its drug prevention 
agencies have valuable expertise. HHS can and should provide 
information on treatment and prevention in settings where those 
subjects are discussed. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Graves) be able to reclaim the balance of his time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It is not going to take 
much. It will just ask that the National Office on Drug Control Policy 
explain to us their participation in this conference and show us that 
they are serious about the fight on drugs, they are serious about 
fighting this epidemic. It gives a report to Congress. That is all it 
does.
  I would like an explanation for this action. I would like an 
explanation for what took place. Again, it is a very simple amendment, 
and I do not think it is asking too much.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, we will include for the Record a series of 
letters that we have written to Secretary Leavitt. One of the panels on 
this conference was: We Do Not Need a War on Methamphetamine.
  Another title was: You Don't Have to Be Clean and Sober or Even Want 
to Be.
  Sexual topics were also there. Harm Reduction: Tweaking Tips For 
Party Boys; Barebacking: A Harm Reduction Approach Without Condoms; 
Harm Reduction: Unprotected Sex, Gay Men and Barebacking.
  It was awful, done with our tax dollars. But what is particularly 
outrageous, when we look at narcotics, is how can our Department of HHS 
be participating in something named ``We Don't Need a War on 
Methamphetamine.'' That is why we are asking ONDCP to investigate this.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Again, I reiterate. I think there are other ways to get this 
information. What is said during these conferences is not the 
responsibility of HHS, and I just think when we are in a situation 
where we are trying to make sure that we use our tax dollars 
efficiently and effectively, to go at trying to acquire this kind 
information through this method, an amendment on a very significant 
bill, I think is just inappropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  That is exactly what we are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is just ask 
that taxpayer dollars be used responsibly and not for conferences such 
as this. We need to fight drugs, not show people that they can be used 
in a safe manner. I think that is ridiculous.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I submit these letters to further 
illustrate the matter raised by Mr. Graves.

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                  Washington, DC, August 12, 2005.
     Hon. Michael O. Leavitt,
     Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       It has been my understanding, from several sources, that 
     the Department of Health and Human Services has been the 
     principal barrier preventing the Administration from 
     formulating a policy to address the methamphetamine epidemic. 
     And now I have learned that the Department of Health and 
     Human Services is a primary sponsor of a conference 
     controlled by the Harm Reduction Coalition and the Harm 
     Reduction Project in your home state of Utah, on August 19 
     and 20, 2005.
       I find this all to be deeply offensive.
       I am enormously frustrated with your Department for 
     dithering on the meth issue while the rest of America fights 
     an epidemic that is viciously tearing apart families and 
     communities throughout the country.
       A foundational premise of the so-called ``harm reduction'' 
     ideology promoted at the HHS-sponsored conference is that we 
     should not be fighting a ``war on drugs,'' but rather 
     limiting drugs' harmful effects. Harm reduction is, in fact, 
     a vehicle drug legalization proponents have hijacked to pave 
     the way to their ultimate objective.
       Any claim that your Department is unaware of the pro-
     legalization agenda and ``soft'' approach to illegal 
     narcotics of the

[[Page H830]]

     harm reduction advocates is utterly implausible. This agenda 
     is readily apparent from the conference topics sprinkled 
     throughout the program, as well as the very websites of the 
     assorted harm reduction organizations sponsoring and 
     participating in the conference.
       Shockingly, Major Session IV of the HHS-sponsored Harm 
     Reduction Coalition and Harm Reduction Project conference 
     next week is entitled, ``We Don't Need a `War' on 
     Methamphetamine.''
       Other conference topics include, ``You Don't Have to Be 
     Clean & Sober. Or Even Want to Be!'' and sexual topics 
     consistent with the harm reduction ideology that shuns an 
     abstinence-based approach for at-risk communities: ``Tweaking 
     Tips for Party Boys,'' and two sessions on engaging in sex 
     without condoms, ``Barebacking: A Harm Reduction Approach,'' 
     and ``Without Condoms: Harm Reduction, Unprotected Sex, Gay 
     Men and Barebacking.
       Among the speakers and moderators at this conference 
     sponsored by your Department, five are identified in the 
     program as representatives of the Drug Policy Alliance, 
     giving seven presentations at the conference. The Drug Policy 
     Alliance describes itself as ``the nation's leading 
     organization working to end the war on drugs.'' Along with 
     its major donor George Soros, the Drug Policy Alliance helped 
     produce It's Just a Plant, a pro-marijuana children's book. 
     Marsha Rosenbaum, who is also presenting at the HHS-sponsored 
     conference, wrote the epilogue for this disturbing book.
       Both the Harm Reduction Coalition and the Harm Reduction 
     Project are partners with the Drug Policy Alliance for its 
     upcoming 2005 International Drug Policy Reform Conference. 
     According to the Alliance's conference materials regarding 
     who should attend this meeting: ``Anyone who believes the war 
     on drugs is doing more harm than good!''
       The program for the HHS-sponsored conference next week also 
     includes a ``Special Thank You'' to a handful of people, 
     including HHS employee Dr. Glen Hanson, of the National 
     Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). As you know, NIDA's mission 
     is ``to lead the Nation in bringing the power of science to 
     bear on drug abuse and addiction.'' To what end is the 
     Department's goal to ``lead the nation'' with harm reduction 
     and drug legalization partners?
       Luciano Colonna, Executive Director of the Harm Reduction 
     Project and host of the DHHS-sponsored conference, and one 
     reported as briefing your aides in advance of the conference, 
     is quoted as stating that, ``For a lot of people, meth use is 
     a rite of passage and it really does increase sexual 
     pleasure.''
       That Administration officials from your Department are 
     consulting with harm reduction advocates such as Colonna, and 
     sponsoring conferences controlled by the harm reduction 
     network, completely undermines the work of the President, the 
     Congress, and the men and women who work in law enforcement 
     across the nation who are trying desperately to fight the 
     meth epidemic.
       Please provide the following materials no later than 5:00 
     p.m. Tuesday, August 16, 2005:
       (1) An official statement of why the Department of Health 
     and Human Services is sponsoring the August 19-20 Harm 
     Reduction conference in Salt Lake City, and how such 
     participation furthers the Administration's stated goal of 
     reducing drug use.
       (2) The names of all Department of Health and Human 
     Services staff attending the August 19-20 Harm Reduction 
     conference in Salt Lake City, and their contact information 
     so we may conduct staff interviews.
       Please provide the following materials no later than 5:00 
     p.m. Friday, August 26, 2005:
       (1) All documents relating to the Department of Health and 
     Human Services' involvement, including its role as a primary 
     sponsor, for the August 19-20 Harm Reduction conference in 
     Salt Lake City. See the attachment for a full definition of 
     ``documents'' and ``relating to.''
       Mr. Secretary, I have steadily worked for enhanced 
     treatment and prevention funding and expanded treatment 
     options. I was the House sponsor of the Drug Addiction 
     Treatment Expansion Act just signed by President Bush. 
     Treatment and prevention are not the issue here.
       The issue is that the Administration has not yet put forth 
     a strategy to address the meth epidemic, and your Department 
     bears much of the responsibility for that failure. To 
     procrastinate further while supporting the very people who 
     advocate relaxed drug laws is unconscionable.
           Sincerely,
     Mark E. Souder,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and 
     Human Resources, Government Reform Committee.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                  Washington, DC, August 19, 2005.
     Hon. Michael O. Leavitt,
     Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       Your August 17, 2005 response to my letter regarding the 
     sponsorship by the Department of Health and Human Services 
     (HHS) of this week's Harm Reduction Coalition/Harm Reduction 
     Project ``methamphetamine'' conference in Salt Lake City, 
     Utah, simply does not answer the questions I asked. In fact, 
     it raises many more serious questions.
       First, and most importantly, I am incredulous that, even as 
     you insist that HHS is not ``sponsoring'' the conference, you 
     admit that HHS provided taxpayer dollars for it, and that you 
     are sending six employees to participate in it. I would like 
     to learn how it is that you differentiate between providing 
     financing and employees for an event, and ``sponsoring'' it.
       In fact, I am inclined to agree with one of the event's 
     primary organizers, Mr. Luciano Colonna, who told a reporter, 
     ``They [HHS] were a sponsor and still are sponsors. If they 
     weren't sponsors, why didn't they just say that nationally 
     when attacked by Souder last week?'' I further note that, as 
     of Friday, August 19, 2005 at 9 a.m., the first day of the 
     conference, your Department's name remains on the conference 
     program.
       Your Department's support for, and participation in, this 
     conference has already served to confer undeserved legitimacy 
     on the drug legalization proponents who organized it. HHS 
     participation and public sponsorship of the conference 
     influenced the judgment of other government entities. For 
     example, Oklahoma state agencies originally planned to send 
     officials to the conference in large part because of the 
     federal government's sponsorship.
       Second, you did not respond to the second stated request of 
     my letter asking for the names of all HHS staff attending the 
     Harm Reduction Conference. This request stands and is 
     reiterated at the end of this letter.
       I am, moreover, bewildered by your assertion that six 
     Centers for Disease Control (CDC) employees will attend the 
     conference ``to learn how to reduce methamphetamine use.'' 
     This conference, as the organizers clearly state, concerns 
     so-called ``harm reduction'', that is, drug use maintenance. 
     That is quite different from drug use reduction.
       I believe that your Department's participation in this 
     conference is a slap in the face to the federal, state, and 
     local law enforcement, child welfare services, treatment and 
     prevention, and other personnel who work so hard to stop meth 
     trafficking, abuse, and addiction, and to clean up the 
     wreckage left by this terrible drug.
       To give you a specific example, Danni Lentine, one of the 
     CDC employees, will be moderating a panel discussion at the 
     conference entitled, ``Demythologizing Methamphetamine 
     Manufacture: Don't Believe the Hype'' on Saturday, August 20. 
     The very title of this ``discussion'' suggests that the law 
     enforcement and child welfare services personnel, who have 
     provided moving testimony to my Subcommittee of the deadly 
     health hazards posed to police officers and children at meth 
     lab sites, are perpetrating a ``myth''. That, Mr. Secretary, 
     is disturbing, particularly when the Administration has 
     proposed drastic cutbacks in federal programs that help state 
     and local law enforcement agencies find and deal with meth 
     lab sites.
       Yesterday, you joined Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and 
     Director John Walters of the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy, and announced your support for the Administration's 
     anti-meth proposals. Your words, however, ring rather hollow 
     when your Department is providing aid and support for the 
     very people who undermine antimeth policies.
       I am attaching the same questions I put to you last week. I 
     request that you provide the answers as soon as possible.
       Thank you for your attention to this serious matter.
           Sincerely,
     Mark E. Souder,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and 
     Human Resources.

  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Hooley

  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Ms. Hooley:
       Page 161, after line 2, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (n) Requirement for Methamphetamine Strategy.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy shall submit to Congress a 
     comprehenisve strategy that addresses the increased threat 
     from methamphetamine.
       (2) Matters covered.--The strategy shall include--
       (A) interdiction and precursor chemical controls;
       (B) demand reduction and treatment;
       (C) alternative development programs;
       (D) efforts to prevent the diversion of precursor chemicals 
     on an international level; and

[[Page H831]]

       (E) an assessment of the specific level of funding and 
     resources necessary to significantly to reduce the production 
     and trafficking of methamphetamine.
       (3) Treatment of classified or law enforcement sensitive 
     information.--Any content of the strategy that involves 
     information classified under criteria established by an 
     Executive order, or whose public disclosure, as determined by 
     the Director or the head of any relevant Federal agency, 
     would be detrimental to the law enforcement or national 
     security activities of any Federal, foreign, or international 
     agency, shall be presented to Congress separately from the 
     rest of the strategy.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to thank Chairman Souder for all of his incredibly hard 
work that he has done on methamphetamine and all the work he has done 
in committee.
  In my three decades of public service, I do not think I have ever 
seen a problem as pervasive or as damaging as the methamphetamine 
epidemic that is sweeping our country. This epidemic is tearing apart 
families, neighborhoods, communities. More and more States are taking 
action to cut off pseudoephedrine sales to methamphetamine 
manufacturers who cannot make this poison without this common-cold 
medication.
  While a number of States, including Oregon, have enacted tough rules 
to control the availability of pseudoephedrine, this has become a 
national problem. The States need strong Federal support if we are 
going to have a fighting chance against this epidemic, and yet this 
administration and ONDCP have not focused on the drug as they should.
  The meth epidemic is impacting all of us. Children in particular can 
face some of the most devastating effects, with tens of thousands of 
children suffering the consequences of their family meth habit. When 
parents crash after speeding on meth, their children are left to fend 
for themselves, sometimes for days. Parents can become abusive, and 
their children are exposed to highly toxic chemicals. The cost is 
overwhelming both in terms of human lives and financial resources 
needed to take care of our children.
  Meth also brings increased crime to a community. A district attorney 
in Clackamas County, which is in my district, estimates that 99 percent 
of all ID thefts and 90 percent of all property crimes are related to 
meth.
  This amendment would require the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy to submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy to address the 
increased threat of methamphetamine. The strategy would include 
interdiction and precursor chemical controls, demand reduction and 
treatment, efforts to prevent the diversion of precursor chemicals on 
an international level, and an assessment of the funding and resources 
necessary to significantly reduce the production and trafficking of 
methamphetamine.
  ONDCP must make fighting meth a top priority, and this amendment 
would ensure that they did. The spreading of methamphetamine is a 
multifaceted problem ranging from the mom-and-pop labs to the 
sophisticated illegal drug factories in foreign countries. It is one 
that requires a multifaceted solution. We must take action to control 
the supply of, and access to, its ingredients both on a domestic and 
international level, which we have begun to do with the Combat Meth 
Act. But we also need to reduce the demand for this drug by educating 
our youth about the dangers of methamphetamine and ensure that addicts 
get the treatment they need.
  The stated role of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is to 
establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation's drug-
control program. Their job is to reduce illicit drug use, 
manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and 
drug-related health consequences; and yet they refuse to devote the 
resources or attention that is needed to fight our meth epidemic while 
more and more Americans become addicted to this deadly drug.
  As any cop in America will tell you, methamphetamine is destroying 
our communities; and fighting the production and importation of this 
dangerous drug has been one of my top priorities as a Member of 
Congress. It is long past time for ONDCP to join in the fight, and this 
amendment will require them to do so, so we have a fighting chance in 
this battle.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Souder) will control the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not oppose this amendment. It is an excellent amendment. It 
requires ONDCP in 90 days to come up with a comprehensive strategy 
addressing the threat of methamphetamine.
  In this bill we already require a coordinated strategy to combat 
South American and Afghan heroin, which we have not had. We already 
require a Southwest border narcotics strategy, which has not been 
effective.
  But there has been nothing on meth, and this not only requires a 
strategy for the supply side, how it gets in internationally through 
the border, but the demand side as well. The National Ad Campaign has 
basically been absent, part of the ONDCP, on the meth issue; yet we 
have reduced the funding here. But this House clearly showed they would 
increase the funding on the National Ad Campaign if they put it in 
meth, and then they wonder why they cannot get more dollars for the 
National Ad Campaign.
  We have had to do meth hot spots to try to address that at the grass-
roots. That was opposed by the administration. We have now authorized 
that as part of the terrorism bill in the Combat Meth Act. An amazing 
individual in the State of Montana has put together a private sector 
program that is more effective in fighting meth than we have been able 
to come up with in the public sector.
  This amendment will help direct and force the Department of ONDCP, 
the drug czar's office, to address in a coordinated way meth strategy.
  I commend the gentlewoman from Oregon. The Portland Oregonian has 
been a champion nationally and internationally in identifying this. She 
has championed this issue in Oregon; as well Congressman Walden in the 
eastern side of Oregon that has been hit so hard; and we really 
appreciate all the efforts of those in the Northwest as this drug rips 
through the rest of the country, into Congressman Peterson of 
Pennsylvania's district. Titusville, Pennsylvania is the capital of 
meth in Pennsylvania, ripping into North Carolina. We are doing a 
hearing with Congressman McHenry in the next few weeks. As we see it 
march into the East, this has now become a national problem; and we 
appreciate the leadership from the Northwest.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I too stand in support of Ms. Hooley's 
amendment. We have spent a tremendous amount of time in our 
subcommittee on methamphetamine. We see it as a problem that is 
spreading in many instances like wildfire. And I want to thank Ms. 
Hooley for her leadership and for the amendment.
  We have expressed on numerous occasions to the drug czar the fact 
that we see methamphetamine and addressing the methamphetamine problem 
should be a major, major priority. And I think that this just helps us 
along the way with regard to addressing this very significant problem, 
and again I congratulate the gentlewoman and support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon 
will be postponed.

[[Page H832]]

          Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Section 6 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       (n) Requirement for an Assessment of Illicit Drug and 
     Alcohol Use by Children, and Appropriate Intervention 
     Methods.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of National Drug Control 
     Policy shall complete an assessment of report materials, 
     studies, and statistics with respect to the 5-year period 
     before the date of enactment of this Act, to determine the 
     extent to which children who are 12 to 17 years of age--
       (A) experiment with and regularly use marijuana, alcohol, 
     cigarettes, prescription drugs without a prescription, 
     designer drugs (such as ecstasy), and other illicit drugs 
     (such as cocaine); and
       (B) have access to intervention services or programs, 
     including drug testing, counseling, rehabilitation, legal 
     representation, and other services or programs associated 
     with prevention, treatment, and punishment of substance 
     abuse.
       (2) Assessment procedure.--In completing the assessment 
     under paragraph (1), the Director--
       (A) shall consider relevant public health and academic 
     research materials and studies, and may also consider 
     relevant statistics concerning illicit drug and alcohol use, 
     and criminal convictions related to such use; and
       (B) shall make findings, based on the information 
     considered under subparagraph (A), regarding the nature and 
     extent of illicit drug and alcohol use among children who are 
     12 to 17 years of age, and the availability of preventative, 
     intervention, and rehabilitation services and programs to 
     such children.
       (3) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit a 
     report to Congress regarding the assessment under this 
     subsection and the findings under paragraph (2)(B). Such 
     report shall include, with respect to children who are 12 to 
     17 years of age, the following information:
       (A) Services and programs that have been effective in 
     preventing such children from experimenting with and 
     beginning the regular use of illicit drugs and alcohol.
       (B) The extent to which chronic drug and alcohol use occurs 
     in such children.
       (C) The extent to which schools and other public 
     institutions provide intervention for such children who are 
     chronic users of illicit drugs and alcohol, the specific 
     roles such schools and institutions play, and the extent to 
     which such interventions are successful.
       (D) Additional resources schools and other public 
     institutions need to provide successful intervention to such 
     children, including funding.
       (E) The role of Federal agencies in providing intervention 
     to such children who are chronic users of illicit drugs and 
     alcohol, and the extent to which Federal agency intervention 
     is successful.
       (F) Additional resources Federal agencies need to provide 
     successful intervention to such children, including funding.
       (G) The role of the Federal, State, and local criminal 
     justice systems in providing intervention to such children 
     who are chronic users of illicit drugs and alcohol, and the 
     extent to which criminal justice interventions are 
     successful.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to acknowledge again Mr. Souder and Mr. Cummings and certainly 
the members of the full committee, ranking member Waxman and Chairman 
Davis. We can all have our approaches to dealing with this fast-moving 
drug crisis in America, and it would seem that in 2006 we might be 
using other language other than ``drug crisis,'' because I recall the 
Select Committee on Narcotics. I was not a Member of this body, but it 
had a very high profile. That committee, of course, chaired by 
Congressman Rangel, was at a time when drug use in urban centers of 
America was at a fast-moving pace.
  My amendment is one that seeks to be a tool for intervention, a 
guidepost for the right kinds of programs that can affect our youth. 
This is an amendment that in its simplicity says that we know that drug 
use among the ages of 12 to 17, and in many instances girls, is going 
up. The data is clear. We also know that there are many programs, a lot 
funded by this agency, of course, but we also need to have a complete 
understanding of the assessment of these programs, how they can be 
effective in local, State, and Federal governments.
  Mr. Chairman, a recent Washington Post article from this past 
February describes how girls are trying alcohol and drugs at higher 
rates than boys. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 
730,000 girls between the ages of 12 and 17 started smoking cigarettes 
in 2004, compared with 565,000 boys; and 675,000 girls started using 
marijuana, compared with 577,000 boys; 14.4 percent of girls and 12.5 
percent of boys in this study reported misusing prescription drugs; 1.5 
million girls started drinking alcohol in 2004, compared to 1.28 
million boys.
  We also know that our particular communities have seen that at least, 
if it has not increased, it is still the same. There were 20,692 drug-
related arrests in Houston, Texas, in 2003. In their lifetime, 32.9 
percent of female and 48.9 percent of male Houston-area high school 
students will have a lifetime use of marijuana. In 2000 there were 
115,589 Federal arrests made, 28 percent for drug offenses; 10.8 
percent of youth 12 to 17 years old have used drugs in the past month 
alone. Among State prisoners, 83.9 percent were involved in alcohol or 
drugs at the time of their offenses; 53 percent of high school seniors 
reported using an illicit drug at least once in their lives.
  These numbers are good for the record, but they impact people's 
lives. And frankly I believe that we have an opportunity to assess and 
report back to Congress on the programs that have been effective in 
preventing or responding to drug and alcohol use, the extent to which 
chronic use occurs in children, the extent to which schools and public 
institutions play a role in these programs, and the role of the Federal 
Government in these programs and the role of the criminal justice 
system.
  Let me say that I am very grateful that this bill is silent on the 
issue dealing with scholarships because, unfortunately, we know that 
children and young people have used drugs but have straightened their 
lives up because of these intervention programs, and we want to make 
sure that they are not then thwarted and stopped from being able to 
finish their education. This, however, is a program that assesses the 
right kind of intervention. Certainly we know that we have drug courts. 
We want to know how effective they are. We know there is an amendment 
that has focused on that.
  This focuses on, really, the kinds of programs that may be offered by 
nonprofits, the faith community, local governments so that funding can 
be both direct, correct, and effective.
  Our children are our greatest resource. We are finding that they are 
victims, but also they are ripe for the target. They are ripe for 
amphetamines. They are ripe for over-the-counter drugs such as cough 
medicine. They are ripe for raiding their parents' prescription drugs 
in their medicine cabinet at home. So I am hoping that we can join 
together and understand the usage of these drugs, the alcohol in 
particular.
  Now, let me make note of the fact that we know that smoking 
cigarettes or cigarettes and alcohol are legal aspects of potential 
addiction, but we believe that still the programs that deal with those 
elements, cigarette smoking, alcohol, are likewise equally involved in 
the idea of intervention and assessment of what programs work.
  Let me conclude by simply saying a life saved, a life off the beaten 
path put on the straight path, is an investment in America's future. I 
believe this amendment helps us understand how to invest in America's 
future.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have some serious reservations with this amendment, 
not with the goals, but whether many of these studies are not already 
being conducted. We have tried to work with the gentlewoman from Texas 
to sort that through. I have agreed to support this amendment and 
accept this

[[Page H833]]

amendment on the condition that we will continue to work in conference 
and to the degree there is not duplication, because I agree with two 
fundamental underlying points. One is that we have seen a rise in drug 
use among girls and women; in methamphetamine in particular we have 
seen a startling rise. Secondly, in our prisons, we need to continue to 
look at that.
  I believe there are a number of private sector studies in addition to 
what ONDCP does that will reach much of that data. But I share her 
goals, and will continue to work in conference to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly, by the way, support this 
amendment. Ms. Jackson-Lee talked about a recent Washington Post 
article from February 10 describing how girls are trying alcohol and 
drugs at a higher rate than boys, and then she went on to talk about 
the national survey on drug use and how it found that some 730,000 
girls between the ages of 12-17 started smoking cigarettes in 2004, and 
it got compared with 565,000 boys, and then the 675,000 girls starting 
to use marijuana compared to 577,000 boys. It seems that there is 
something going on here that we definitely need to look at.
  I know the chairman will work in conference to try to make sure that 
we address all of these problems. I would definitely support the 
amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, and I want to thank the chairman 
very much.
  I look forward to making sure as we work our way to conference and 
through conference that we, too, have an effective amendment that 
addresses the concerns that we are all mutually concerned about: this 
ascending rate of usage by girls and boys, but by girls, and, of 
course, making sure we have an assessment of the effective programs. I 
look forward to working with the chairman, and I thank the chairman 
very much.
  Mr. Chairman, and fellow members of the committee, I would like to 
draw your attention to an amendment that I think is crucial in ensuring 
the effectiveness of our Office of National Drug Control Policy 
domestically. A recent Washington Post article from February 10 
described how girls are trying alcohol and drugs at higher rates than 
boys. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 730,000 
girls between the ages of 12 and 17 started smoking cigarettes in 2004, 
compared with 565,000 boys, and 675,000 girls started using marijuana, 
compared with 577,000 boys. In this study, 14.4 percent of girls and 
12.5 percent of boys reported misusing prescription drugs. In 2004, 1.5 
million girls started drinking alcohol compared with 1.28 million boys.
  This is appalling, and saddening, and my amendment would directly 
address this by asking the Director of the ONDCP to assess the drug 
usage by children, as well as the existing preventive and treatment 
programs.
  We can't let our children poison themselves--but in order to take 
decisive and effective action, we must know more about what the current 
situation is, and inform our decisionmaking. I hope you will agree that 
this is an urgent issue, and that this amendment begins the search for 
a solution.
  Thank you for your consideration and your support, and thank you Mr. 
Chairman.
  Rebuttal to the argument that the National Youth Media Campaign 
addresses this issue and the amendment would be redundant:
  This amendment first and foremost requires the ONDCP to document and 
produce solid research on the occurrence of this problem nationwide. At 
this point in time, we have a single survey and anecdotal evidence. I 
think it is crucial to get the ONDCP to take responsibility for this 
issue and begin to inform decisionmakers.
  The amendment specifies items to assess that were not considered by 
the National Survey on Drug Use and Health such as the role of Federal, 
State, and local criminal justice systems in providing interventions.
  I would like to believe that the ONDCP can be considered an authority 
on matters having to do with drug use and abuse by children, and this 
amendment simply asks for an assessment and a report to Congress on the 
matter.
  There were 20,692 drug related arrests in Houston in 2003 (ONDCP).
  In their lifetime, 32.9 percent of females and 48.9 percent of male 
Houston area high school students will have a lifetime use of marijuana 
(ONDCP).
  In 2000, there were 115,589 federal arrests made--28 percent for drug 
offenses.
  In the past month alone, 10.8 percent of youth 12-17 years old have 
used drugs.
  Among State prisoners, 83.9 percent were involved with alcohol and 
drugs at the time of their offense.
  Fifty-three percent of high school seniors reported using an illicit 
drug at least once in their lives.
  White House office of National Drug Control Policy--130 member group 
led by John Walters.
  Some estimates say that the U.S. consumes 60 percent of the illicit 
drugs in the world.
  Fiscal year 2007 budget request--35 percent for reducing demand of 
drugs, 65 percent for crackdown of supplies.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


    Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California.
       Page 161, after line 2, insert the following:
       (n) Model State Drug Laws.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy shall provide for a corporation that is 
     described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code 
     to--
       (A) advise States on establishing laws and policies to 
     address alcohol and other drug issues, based on the model 
     State drug laws developed by the President's Commission on 
     Model State Drug Laws in 1993; and
       (B) revise such model State drug laws and draft 
     supplementary model State laws to take into consideration 
     changes in the alcohol and drug abuse problems in the State 
     involved.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,500,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1992, while serving as California's attorney 
general, I was privileged to be appointed by President George H.W. Bush 
to be a commissioner on the President's Commission on Model State Drug 
Laws. This was a congressionally established commission that was 
charged with creating a model code of laws to help States effectively 
address alcohol and other drug abuse.
  This commission conducted a thorough process which included five 
public hearings, 25 working sessions, travels around the country for 
that purpose, and input from hundreds of individuals and organizations 
working at the State and local levels, to address substance abuse.
  The result of that commission was 44 model drug laws and policies 
which offered a comprehensive continuum of responses and services to 
address substance abuse problems. We had people from various 
disciplines in the mental health arena, in the law enforcement arena, 
in the educational arena, in the social services arena, all coming 
together to see whether or not they could come up with a continuum of 
responses to this terrible problem.
  Since fiscal year 1995, Congress has provided funding for a nonprofit 
entity to advise States on laws and policies to address alcohol and 
other drug issues using as its base the model acts crafted by the 
President's Commission on Model State Drug Laws, to revise these model 
State drug laws and to draft supplementary model acts to meet changes 
in State substance abuse problems. They actually work with the States. 
They work with local governments to come up with these comprehensive 
approaches.
  Having these services available to the States has been an enormous 
asset in combating substance abuse as States introduce and pass newer 
enhanced drug laws, create new guidelines and

[[Page H834]]

policies, coordinate funding streams to use resources effectively and 
efficiently and develop or strengthen multidisciplinary partnerships at 
the State and local level. That is absolutely necessary if we are going 
to make real progress on this war on drugs and war on other types of 
substance abuse. Just look at the number of States that addressed 
methamphetamine-related problems through legislation this past year 
alone. Many of them benefited from the services I mentioned.
  Because effective and cost-efficient State drug laws and policies are 
vital components of a strong national effort to address substance 
abuse, this amendment is offered to authorize appropriations of $1.5 
million for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to better ensure 
that these key functions in assisting States are retained in the 
national drug control effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment. I think it is an 
excellent amendment. Mr. Lungren of California, who I like to think of 
as the Charlie Weis of Congress in the sense that since he has come in, 
he has helped organize us in homeland security and organize us in 
narcotics issues based on his experience as attorney general, and once 
again showing why the University of Notre Dame produces such great 
graduates who grasp the issue.
  He has worked at the State level. We need clearer model State drug 
laws. We need to establish laws that are effective. I appreciate his 
leadership in this effort in multiple committees, on the Judiciary and 
Homeland Security.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, we certainly join in support of the 
amendment. We think it is a good amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Lynch

  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Lynch:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     conforming changes as may be necessary to the table of 
     contents):

     SEC. 20. STUDY ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ASSOCIATED WITH 
                   IATROGENIC ADDICTION.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy shall request the Institute of Medicine 
     of the National Academy of Sciences to enter into an 
     agreement under which the Institute agrees to conduct a study 
     examining certain aspects of prescription drugs associated 
     with iatrogenic addiction, including oxycodone hydrochloride 
     controlled-release tablets.
       (b) Requirements.--The study conducted pursuant to this 
     section shall evaluate--
       (1) the rate and impact of iatrogenic addiction associated 
     with the use of prescription drugs described in subsection 
     (a); and
       (2) the relative addictiveness of prescription drugs 
     described in subsection (a) when compared with other opioids 
     and other substances included in schedule I or II of the 
     schedules of controlled substances established by section 202 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
       (c) Report.--The Director of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy shall ensure that the agreement under 
     subsection (a) provides for the submission of a report to the 
     Congress, not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, on the results of the study conducted 
     pursuant to this section.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed will each control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Indiana and the gentleman from Maryland on their leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have offered simply requests that 
the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy ask the 
Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
study to examine certain aspects of iatrogenic addiction, which is 
associated with prescription drugs like OxyContin.
  Back in September, our Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs For 
Government Reform held a field hearing in Boston and it regarded the 
regulation of prescription drugs such as OxyContin. One of the primary 
concerns raised at those hearings by the experts was that they 
testified that the lack of information on the addictiveness of these 
type of drugs has created a great problem in society.
  For this reason, the amendment calls for a study that would first 
look at the rate and impact of iatrogenic addiction; that is, addiction 
to properly prescribed prescription drugs, which is associated with the 
use of prescription drugs like OxyContin.
  Iatrogenic addiction is addiction which occurs as a result of 
prescribed medical care. These are the accidental addicts, who, through 
no fault of their own, become hopelessly addicted to drugs like 
OxyContin, and in effect these individuals become customers for life.
  Because there are some legitimate medicinal uses for some of these 
painkillers, it is increasingly difficult to balance the need of those 
people who are desperately in need of these drugs, to try to balance 
that against the problems of addiction. For this reason, it is 
necessary to have the information on addictiveness of drugs associated 
with iatrogenic addiction, including OxyContin.
  I want to relate briefly, Mr. Chairman, a story of a young woman, and 
this is just one example of thousands, a young woman in my district 
from a good family who went to the dentist's office with tooth pain.
  After the tooth extraction, she was given a prescription of 
OxyContin, and, after completing that, exhausting that prescription, 
she went back again for an additional prescription. Sometime 
thereafter, she went back in, complaining of additional tooth pain and 
had another tooth extracted, and again was given another prescription 
of OxyContin. It happened a third time.
  To make a long story short, I met this young woman during an effort 
to create a detox center in my district, and she confesses now in rehab 
that she had become addicted to the first couple of prescriptions and 
she went back, falsely claiming tooth pain, just so she could get 
additional prescriptions for OxyContin. She became hopelessly addicted 
to OxyContin through no fault of her own.
  Another observation in my own district, it is quite common, traveling 
to pharmacies in the malls or drugstores in my local downtown area, it 
is not uncommon to see big signs in the front windows of my pharmacies 
that say, ``We do not carry OxyContin on the premises.'' In other 
words, please don't rob us.
  There have been so many robberies trying to acquire this drug of 
addicts that now the pharmacies are just saying we don't carry it on 
the premises, do not rob us. I think it is a sad statement of the 
addictive quality of this drug and also our inability to police it.
  At this point, there are no studies that help us understand why 
certain people become addicted, while others don't, to drugs like 
OxyContin. By conducting this study, we will be better able to 
understand how the brain interacts with this drug.
  Secondly, the study will look at the relative addictiveness of 
prescription drugs such as OxyContin when compared with other pain 
killers as well as other controlled substances under Schedule I and 
Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Souder and Mr. Cummings again for 
their leadership on this effort. I think they too are shining examples 
of bipartisanship on an issue that is very important to the American 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition.

[[Page H835]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to this amendment, it is an excellent 
amendment, and I wanted to address the subject for a few minutes.
  Mr. Lynch has been a leader in this, as he has also been in the 
steroids battle, in the committee. I appreciate that. Chairwoman 
Candice Miller conducted a hearing in his district on this subject. We 
worked together as committees, although I could not be at the hearing.
  We also conducted a hearing on OxyContin down in Orlando. OxyContin 
has also hit my districts hard. There was a series of bank robberies 
and other robberies of pharmacies in the area, I think 19 total, that 
when people become addicted to this or become distributors of it, it 
can lead to other sorts of crime and organized crime in many areas of 
the country.
  It is a little known fact that cocaine is not the number one killer 
in America through drug abuse, nor is heroin, nor is methamphetamine. 
It is abuse of prescription drugs. It is very hard for us, and we are 
going to see, as we make progress on methamphetamines through our 
control of pseudoephedrine and trying to get better control of the 
border at least someday in the future on crystal methamphetamine and 
some of the other drugs, that legal drugs are going to be possibly our 
biggest challenge.
  One of the struggles with this, as we found out in the hearing in 
Orlando, that many of the medical community, not only are we fighting 
the pharmaceutical community, as we did in the methamphetamine bill and 
pseudoephedrine, we are also fighting the medical community.
  Here we got in a very testy exchange about how we define pain 
control, and that comes as to how we regulate this, and what 
constitutes one person's pain control may not be another's, and it 
becomes an excuse for having no regulations on OxyContin.

                              {time}  1400

  So we had therapists opposed to us; we had certain medical 
communities opposed to us, who may have legitimate uses. But the bottom 
line is that we have an epidemic of abuse occurring with this and other 
prescription drugs.
  We do not need to hear how not to regulate it. What we need to work 
with these industries is how best to regulate it, and part of that is 
getting a study on accuracy of how this addiction works. I appreciate 
the gentleman's leadership with this. I will support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I, too, support this amendment. I want to 
thank Mr. Lynch for his leadership. OxyContin is something that we have 
taken a look at, and we realize that it has had, as Mr. Lynch has 
described, just all kinds of damaging effects. I think that the good 
thing is that this gives us an opportunity to get more information 
about it, because I think it is almost impossible to truly make good 
policy unless you have an adequate amount of information. So I think 
this will be helpful to our subcommittee as we move forward in trying 
to address this issue. The interesting thing that we note is it seems 
as if from time to time, and depending on the area in the country, 
certain drugs seem to become the drug of the time.
  And so what we are constantly trying to do is make sure that we have 
every bit of detail that we possibly can so that we can create the kind 
of policies to effectively counter the abuse of certain drugs.
  So, again, I applaud Mr. Lynch. Thank you for bringing this to us. I 
thank you for yielding me time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming the balance of my time, as Mr. Cummings just 
said, this shows the diversity of things that we tackle in our 
committee, in narcotics areas across the United States. We saw new 
shocking revelations yesterday on Barry Bonds. Masking agents are 
increasingly a challenge in trying to deal with steroids and other 
vitamin supplements and things that people are using in excess 
quantities to create artificial advantages in competition.
  How this thing goes down to young people whose bodies cannot handle 
this, as we heard in our steroids hearing, watching OxyContin, which is 
one of the most effective painkillers being used by people, taking 
people's lives, and it becomes a way that people rob banks and 
pharmacies and violence in society, abuse of other prescription drugs.
  In addition to cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, different areas 
will have different things come up at different times. But we need to 
know the science behind it. We need to know how it affects the human 
brain. We need to know the best ways to fight this. We need 
comprehensive efforts.
  That is what the Office of National Drug Control Policy is supposed 
to do. I commend the gentleman and support this amendment from the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the last two points in closing: we have had to in my 
district open up two brand-new adolescent, one adolescent boys facility 
to deal with this problem and one adolescent girls facility.
  I have extensive waiting lists at both facilities trying to deal with 
this problem. I think that somewhere down the line we have to address 
the fundamental question in this country about how addictive, how 
addictive are we going to let drugs become that are sold over the 
counter commercially. Because, eventually, we have to realize that 
there is a commercial advantage to selling an addictive drug.
  And those drug companies, they are creating customers for life here 
who have no other alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Paul

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Paul:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 20. SUNSET.

       After section 716, as redesignated by section 14 of this 
     Act, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 717. SUNSET.

       ``This Act shall not be in effect after September 30, 
     2011.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. I thought it 
would be very noncontroversial, because it merely sunsets our 
provision. We have just gone through a period of time of 2 years where 
there has been no authorizations, but we have done appropriations as 
necessary.
  The amendment merely says, this act shall not be in effect after 
September 30, 2011. So that is 5 years, which I think is very adequate. 
But I would want to express my agreement with the authors of this 
particular bill, because we do have a very serious problem in this 
country with drugs.
  I, as a physician, am very much aware of the seriousness of it. I 
also agree that prescription drugs are probably every bit as bad or 
much worse, because there is so much dependency on psychotropic drugs.
  But, nevertheless, I come down on the side of saying no matter how 
good legislation like this is, it backfires; there are too many 
unintended consequences. In such a short period of time, all I can 
suggest to my colleagues is that prohibition in the ultimate sense was 
tried with alcohol.
  And alcohol is still now a severe problem in this country. And we 
knew

[[Page H836]]

that Prohibition produced many more problems than the alcohol itself. I 
think that is true with drugs. I think we have allowed ourselves to be 
carried away, to a large degree, because now we have laws that lack 
compassion. We do know, in the medical field, that marijuana can be 
helpful to cancer patients and AIDS patients can be helped where our 
drugs are not helpful; and to me this is just sad that we override 
State laws that permit it.
  The overwhelming number of people in the country now are saying that 
we ought to allow marijuana to be used for very sick patients. Not too 
long ago, just this week, I had a meeting with a student that came from 
a central Asian country. He was an exchange student. He says the big 
subject at his school was, what is the age limit when I can drink 
alcohol? They would ask him that and he said, there is no age limit.
  So I asked him, I said, is there a drinking problem in your country? 
And he says no. He says it is uneventful. It is the excitement of 
something being illegal that actually makes the problem a lot worse.
  And even in our country, we had a grand experiment from the beginning 
of our country up until about 35 years ago. We had very few of these 
laws. Yet all we can notice now is that we have spent, in today's 
dollars, over $200 billion in the last 35 years, and we do not have a 
whole lot to show for it.
  So I would grant you there is a serious problem. We should do 
whatever we can to help. I just do not think more legislation is 
required.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume. On the surface it looks fairly mild, but it is actually an 
attempt to eliminate the drug czar's office.
  The gentleman from Texas is certainly the most principled Libertarian 
that we have in the Congress and probably one of the most principled 
Libertarians in the country. I presume he would favor sunsetting most 
Departments in the Federal Government. The question is, why would we 
single out the drug czar's office?
  We have many programs that are unauthorized. That is an unfortunate 
thing. I believe all programs should, in fact, be authorized; and that 
is why we are going through this authorization. It got lost at the end 
of the last session in the Senate side, and we are proceeding again 
with Senate support.
  It would be tragic if we got in the position where each Department, 
if Congress could not decide on the exact wording of the authorization 
bill, the office suddenly disappeared, and we would not have a national 
anti-drug media, we would not have the HIDTA programs, we would not 
have the technology that goes forth.
  Dr. Paul and I have deep differences on the effectiveness of 
narcotics. We both share a skepticism in the ability of government to 
solve things. But I believe in the drug policy area we can at least 
make a difference. And I believe it is an important difference.
  He and I have our deep philosophical differences on this, but I very 
much respect his consistent opposition, basically to most legislation 
that comes forth in front of Congress. But I need to oppose this 
amendment.
  This amendment would have the effect of singling out the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy solely among Cabinet positions to be put 
under this regulation. And it could, indeed, like many other programs 
that we do not get reauthorization, such as juvenile justice, such as 
Head Start, has at times not had its authorization, we have many 
different programs that do not get authorized.
  We would not want to fold those programs merely because the two 
bodies could not agree on their final wording.
  I also would like to at this time, I got a copy of the 
administration's statement of policy of why they oppose this bill, in 
spite of the fact it has gone unanimously through the subcommittee, 
unanimously through the full committee, gone with complete support of 
multiple other committees in Congress.
  It is, quite frankly, a relatively insulting document. It says, for 
example, that it infringes on the prerogatives of the executive by 
designating ONDCP as a Cabinet-level official. As we explained earlier, 
that is not what the law says it does.
  It says it has to be treated like a Cabinet-level position. Which, by 
the way, was what Congress passed in the beginning. It was a 
congressional designation. The bill duplicates the drug certification 
process, is another one of their complaints at the State Department. 
That is true. But ONDCP is a narcotics agency, and they should be 
advising the State Department, which has multiple different concerns 
when they do certification. It complains about the interdiction 
coordinator in the Department of Homeland Security being under a 
national drug control strategy, which seems odd that ONDCP would be 
objecting to this being in their Department.
  Once again, it reiterates that they want to move the HIDTAs away 
right now in the Justice Department from ONDCP. The reason we have them 
there is the State and locals were drawn into HIDTA relationship where 
they had a vote and could have influence in the decision-making.
  The administration's proposals would gut the funding, over half of 
it; would take away the vote of State and local officials, all of whom 
said unanimously they would withdraw from the program if the 
administration persists with this, which was denied in both Houses last 
year, denied overwhelmingly again by their own people.
  When the narcotics officers of America unanimously oppose this, when 
the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas unanimously oppose it, how 
can the administration keep sending up this type of document? They are 
supposed to be the leaders of the world on narcotics, not fighting 
every police officer in America, every State trooper in America, every 
HIDTA in America. I do not understand this.
  It also says that we are reducing its flexibility in the National 
Anti-drug Media Campaign. We certainly are. Because we are frustrated 
that they have not dealt with the problem of methamphetamine. So that 
allegation happens to be true. We are reducing the flexibility because 
he has refused to respond to the counties of America that 
methamphetamine is their number one problem in America, to the HIDTAs; 
and particularly he has been after the methamphetamine HIDTAs that were 
created, the Rocky Mountain HIDTA, the Missouri HIDTA, the Iowa HIDTA.
  It has been very frustrating to see this persistent, persistent, even 
after we passed the Methamphetamine Act this past week, even as we 
moved this bill through, continuing to resist the efforts of Congress 
to try to tackle the problems of methamphetamine.
  Also they dislike that we have restricted their reprogramming 
ability. Yes we have restricted their reprogramming ability, because 
every time the local HIDTAs or others try to deal with the 
methamphetamine problem, they want to reprogram the money away from the 
problem. So we have given them most of the flexibility there.
  But while some of their charges are true, they fail to point out why 
the House and Senate unanimously from both parties are so frustrated 
that we have had to go forth with this. It would be tragic if my friend 
from Texas's amendment passed and would not let us move forward with 
this bill.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the 
gentleman from Texas that calls for the sunset of this legislation in 5 
years, if enacted.
  You know, I have heard a lot from the other side of the aisle about 
poverty programs that did not work, and I saw a lot of work to get rid 
of those programs.
  This is a program that does not work. We need to get rid of it, and 
we need to get serious about doing something about drugs in America. We 
are sitting here talking about these HIDTAs. We are talking about 
advertisements while we have an unprotected border with the drug lords 
shooting it out with our sheriffs down in Texas and other places, 
bringing drugs into our country.
  HIDTA does nothing to stop that. We have the deaths from overdoses 
from methamphetamines, crack cocaine, cocaine, pills, Ecstasy, heroin, 
marijuana, you name it. And we are doing nothing. America can do better 
than this.

[[Page H837]]

  Why should we keep a program without reviewing it, just put it into 
law forever? This is what you are trying to do. We need to sunset it. 
Period. As a matter of fact, I would get rid of it; it would not even 
be authorized. But if you insist, at least review it. Why do you want 
to put it in law forever without the kind of reviews that are necessary 
to determine its effectiveness?

                              {time}  1415

  This does not work. It is costing the American taxpayers $870 million 
to run this ineffective program. I think we should get rid of it, and I 
support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
given 2 additional minutes.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier I mentioned that prohibition was a total 
failure with alcohol and that it is very similar, and I think the 
gentleman from Indiana helped make my point. He is a bit frustrated 
with the enforcement of the laws on the books, and for what reason I do 
not know, but we certainly ought to be frustrated with the results. But 
the laws are difficult to enforce and I understand and sense his 
frustration with this.
  One of the major reasons why I object to this approach is not only 
the cost. The cost is pretty important and I think it is pretty 
important to realize it does not work very well, if at all; but we also 
ought to look at the damage done with our mistaken thoughts that this 
is doing a lot of good.
  Once a war is declared, whether it is a war overseas or whether it is 
a domestic war on some evil here, that is when the American people 
should look out for their civil liberties. There, the issue of privacy 
is attacked. So now we have a war on terrorism and we have the PATRIOT 
Act and all these other things that intrude on the civil rights and 
civil liberties of Americans, and, at the same time, not achieving a 
whole lot of good results.
  This is what happens when there is a war on. Those people who are 
trying to avoid taxes, all law-abiding citizens have to obey all these 
laws. So as soon as there is a war, look out for your civil liberties 
and your privacy. The war on drugs has done a great deal of harm to our 
right of privacy.
  Once again, I agree with the argument, there are a great deal of 
problems in this country with the illegal use of drugs, but what I am 
saying is it does not help to have this type of a war on drugs because 
it tends to distort things. It raises prices artificially high. It 
causes all kind of ramifications that actually cause more killing and 
dying. This is why prohibition of alcohol was stopped, because people 
died from drinking bad alcohol, and the gangs sold the alcohol. The 
same thing happens today.
  Like I mentioned, that student that lived in the country, and he was 
16 years old, and there were no rules or laws against teenagers 
drinking beer or alcohol and there was no problem. Kids did not drink. 
It was not exciting to do it. So there is a certain element of truth to 
that. Kids smoking cigarettes is against the law. You sneak off and 
smoke cigarettes. That happens to be what teenagers do.
  So no matter how well-intended legislation like this is, it tends to 
have too many unintended consequences, it costs too much money. And we 
fail to realize that we in this country live with a greater amount of 
personal liberty and respect for State and local law enforcement, we 
had less drug problems. Think about it. Through the latter part of the 
18th century, the 19th century, the early part of the 20th century, 
essentially no laws, and we had a lot less problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, this amendment is whether you 
support the director's office or not. The fact is that we sunset 
everything every year, because if we do not appropriate, they do not 
have any dollars. If it never gets reauthorized and then you do not 
appropriate, it is sunsetted. We have sunset provisions in every piece 
of legislation we pass. All we have to do is not fund it. Then they do 
not have any staff. They do not have any offices. They do not have any 
rent.
  This is a legitimate debate about whether the Federal Government 
should be involved in drug law enforcement.
  I disagree with my colleague from Texas, across the board. We do not 
even agree on prohibition. Quite frankly, prohibition reduced alcohol 
abuse. It reduced spouse abuse. It reduced child abuse. People wanted 
to drink and we had a history of drinking. And it came back in mostly 
for political reasons, not because of all the other side reasons you 
have heard. In fact, it accomplished its goals; it just had a side 
goal, given the history of alcohol use in the United States. And ever 
since then we have been trying to control it even down to the point of 
now regulating bartenders who serve drinks to people who have consumed 
too much.
  We still see the ravages of alcohol abuse. We see States that have 
passed liberal marijuana laws repealing those laws. Denmark and The 
Netherlands are retreating because when they legalized marijuana, it 
was not like the drug traffickers disappeared. They just moved to 
harder drugs and started to sell those. The marijuana that we see today 
isn't the ditch weed we used to have in Indiana or the sixties' 
marijuana. It is this hydroponic marijuana with 30 to 40 percent THC 
that sells on the streets much like crack cocaine. It has an impact on 
your brain much like crack cocaine.
  The fact is that this is a great danger to this country, that we have 
made progress. The keen attitudes towards marriage have consistently 
declined. The cocaine in the United States has shown some movement 
based on what has happened in Columbia. Right now we have a problem 
that we cannot control the heroin out of Afghanistan. We are tackling 
the meth question. In fact, we have seen a broad move across the United 
States that has reduced drug abuse. It is important that we have a 
director there. We just want to see the director being more effective.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Rehberg

  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Rehberg:
       Page 213, after line 6, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(k) Prevention of Methamphetamine Abuse and Other 
     Emerging Drug Abuse Threats.--
       ``(1) Requirement to use 10 percent of funds for 
     methamphetamine abuse prevention.--The Director shall ensure 
     that, of the amounts appropriated under this section for the 
     national media campaign for a fiscal year, not less than 10 
     percent shall be expended solely for--
       ``(A) the activities described subsection (b)(1) with 
     respect to advertisements specifically intended to reduce the 
     use of methamphetamine; and
       ``(B) grants under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Grant authority.--The Director may award grants to 
     private entities for purposes of methamphetamine media 
     projects. Any such project--
       ``(A) shall have as its goal the significant reduction of 
     the prevalence of first-time methamphetamine use among young 
     people; and
       ``(B) shall focus solely on the prevention of 
     methamphetamine use, through, at a minimum, public service 
     messages that are based on research showing what is effective 
     in substantially reducing such use among young people, 
     including public service messages in both print and 
     electronic media and on websites.
       ``(3) Authority to use funds for other drug abuse upon 
     certification that methamphetamine abuse fell during fiscal

[[Page H838]]

     year 2007.--With respect to fiscal year 2008 and any fiscal 
     year thereafter, if the Director certifies in writing to 
     Congress that domestic methamphetamine laboratory seizures 
     (as reported to the El Paso Intelligence Center of the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration) decreased by at least 75 percent 
     from the 2006 level, the Director may apply paragraph (1)(A) 
     for that fiscal year with respect to advertisements 
     specifically intended to reduce the use of such other drugs 
     as the Director considers appropriate.
       Page 213, line 7, strike ``(k)'' and insert ``(l)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First of all, let me begin by thanking Mr. Souder for his tremendous 
leadership on this issue, and in taking a look at this amendment, this 
is an extremely important amendment.
  What the amendment does is it ensures that no less than 10 percent of 
the national media campaign funds will be expended on advertisements 
specifically intended to reduce methamphetamine use, and it allows the 
director to award grants to private entities.
  I heard the joke not long ago that said, creativity is nice but 
plagiarism is a whole lot quicker. Usually plagiarism is not a good 
thing, but in this particular case I want to talk about a project in 
Montana that is worthy of copying in all the other 49 States.
  Some of you computer nerds might recognize the name Siebel. Tom 
Siebel sold his business to Oracle, so he is out of that business. He 
set up a 501(c)(3) called The Meth Project in Montana. The Montana Meth 
Project is the first affiliate.
  We are spending currently about $10 million just on methamphetamine 
use alone, trying to get a targeted message to 12- to 17-year-olds. Our 
children are using meth. We need to get to it.
  It is a fabulous program. We do not need to recreate the wheel. What 
we do need to do is allow the director the opportunity to have the 
flexibility to grant monies from this program to other entities to 
prove that there are other advertising strategies out there.
  When you go to the doctor with an illness, usually you go to a family 
practitioner; but when you finally find out what is wrong, you will 
probably go to a specialist. Methamphetamine is a cancer. We can carve 
out surgically the problem if we identify it. We use a rifle-shot 
approach if we follow a model similar to what is happening in Montana. 
Let me use the numbers. Within the last 6 months we have had 30,000 
minutes of television, 30,000 minutes of radio advertising, print, 
billboards, Internet ads. We are reaching each teen in Montana, on 
average, 3 times a day. It is phenomenal and we are seeing the numbers 
drop.
  These are the kinds of exciting programs that, once you make the 
determination that not all good ideas originate in Washington, D.C., 
there are ideas throughout the Nation, the rest of the country will be 
jealous. They will want the opportunity to copy what we have got going 
on in Montana.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I think we have 
a situation where I have been a big proponent of the National Youth 
Anti-Drug Media Campaign, but I think we have to be very careful in how 
we spend our money.
  There are parts of our country that are suffering tremendously with 
regard to methamphetamine. And I do not think it is unreasonable to 
take that 10 percent and make sure it is directed towards that problem. 
The fact still remains, and one of the things that I do like about this 
amendment is that if there is a decrease in the methamphetamine labs, 
then that money is then put back to be used for other purposes. I think 
that makes sense. Perhaps we ought to do that more in other legislation 
that we pass out of this House.
  I support the gentleman. Our subcommittee has been very, very 
concerned about methamphetamines. This is just another way that perhaps 
we can prevent some of our young people from going that route.
  During much of the testimony by the way that we received, there was a 
lot of testimony with regard to young people now looking more and more 
at ads, by the way, on the Internet. And I think that just as we have 
to adjust when we find that certain drugs become the drug of the day or 
the drug of the year, we have to adjust our methodology, too, and the 
amount of money that we are spending with regard to, like I say, a 
program like this for addressing methamphetamines.
  I support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
given 5 additional minutes, given the numbers of speakers that we have 
on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Montana 
(Mr. Rehberg) for working with me on this issue.
  Meth abuse is prevalent in all the States and imposes a high cost on 
society, Mr. Chairman. Meth is highly addictive and its effects are 
severe and longlasting. Recent studies have demonstrated meth causes 
more damage to the brain than heroine, alcohol, or cocaine. Its abuse 
impacts not only the users but also the user's family and the general 
public. Thousands of children across the country have been taken away 
from their meth-abusing parents, placed with relatives, or shifted into 
the already overcrowded foster care system.
  It is our duty in Congress to ensure that the public is informed and 
educated about the dangerous effects of this drug, and that is why I 
helped introduce this amendment.
  This amendment is an important tool to fight the meth epidemic. It 
will require that at least 10 percent of the media budget for the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy be spent on advertising fighting 
meth abuse. With this minimum percentage we can ensure that the public 
is educated about the dangers and risks of this deadly drug and help 
prevent its further abuse.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
I want to compliment Mr. Rehberg and the group of cosponsors who have 
all been active in the anti-meth efforts. Montana has been truly a 
model of what the private sector can do.
  The campaign that Mr. Rehberg was talking about is so much more 
dramatic than what we have seen out of the Federal Government. It is 
extremely disappointing that we need to look at how to use this Montana 
model in how to get our national ad campaign engaged.
  As has been pointed out, there are some risks when you designate a 
percentage of the national media campaign to be devoted to one 
particular drug. But this says if there is a reduction and there is a 
proven reduction, then that requirement will not be there. Plus, if the 
Congress of Counties in the United States say this is the number one 
drug problem in America, if we are hearing about it in basically in all 
50 States now, but 37 States have heard about it so aggressively that 
they are banning pseudoephedrine or moving to ban pseudoephedrine. And 
we just passed a bill in the United States Congress to in effect reduce 
cold medicines from 120 choices down to 20 because of the ravages of 
meth, if we are willing to take those drastic strategies; if the county 
officials across the country say meth is the number one epidemic; if 
local law enforcement is telling us that in big cities like Minneapolis 
and St. Paul or Omaha or Portland that the bulk of their people that 
are in jail, kids in child custody, are because of meth; if small rural 
towns in the Midwest and the West are hard hit by meth, California has 
these super labs that are there; if we are seeing it move into 
Pennsylvania and

[[Page H839]]

North Carolina and down into Florida, and now getting into New England; 
if this is that big of a problem, is this so outrageous to ask that 10 
percent of the national ad campaign be devoted to fighting meth?

                              {time}  1430

  Where have they been? I thank the gentleman who brought this 
amendment forward and strongly support the amendment.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), one of the sponsors.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Rehberg, and we have really 
enjoyed working on this. I rise also in strong support. The only 
reservation I have at all is perhaps 10 percent is not enough. We are 
dealing with a situation that in Arkansas, started in the Midwest, 
started in Arkansas, States like that, very rapidly spread across the 
country.
  When I talk to anybody in enforcement in my State, they tell us that 
65 to 70 percent of crime in Arkansas now is directly attributed to 
methamphetamine. Our shelters are full. When you use this drug for an 
extended period of time you tend to get paranoid. You start beating up 
your family, and it is at an age when the children are invariably 
involved because it is in your 20s to 40s.
  While I was waiting to come and speak on this, I went in and talked 
to my MediVac folks who are out there that wanted to tell me about 
their issues in transporting patients. I mentioned I was going to come 
here and speak on this bill. They started relating story after story of 
transporting burn patients, children, men and women that had been 
injured as they were cooking meth that exploded.
  So, again, I appreciate the chairman and ranking member and strongly 
support the amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for the 
time.
  I want to add that I, too, believe it should be more than 10 percent. 
Of course, the ONDCP director has that flexibility.
  I would also like to additionally comment a little bit more on the 
statement of administration policy and the bill in general that shows 
our frustration.
  I mentioned in the State Department on the certification process that 
the State Department has certification, but there are many other 
variables. In fact, that clause has been weakened to say ``demonstrably 
failing.'' What this says is the drug czar has to show whether these 
nations, such as Mexico, whether the pseudoephedrine producers such as 
India and China are fully cooperating, because we need to have the drug 
czar say what is happening on narcotics, and the State Department can 
make their own rulings.
  Furthermore, we have a big debate about how the budget should be 
counted. We believe that the administration has been misrepresenting 
what we are actually spending on narcotics in multiple ways. For 
example, in prisons, they count treatment as the only part of the 
prisons that is counted in the drug control budget. Well, we know many 
people are in jail because of narcotics. It leads to us not 
understanding what the actual costs of what we are doing are.
  Now, I support all that. I am not trying to say it should be cut, but 
understating it does not give Congress an accurate impression of what 
we are spending on narcotics. Similarly, in the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  So we are pushing in this legislation to address a wide range of 
things, and this particular amendment addresses one of the most 
egregious problems we have had, which anybody who has been watching 
this full debate sees, one amendment after another coming up on meth. 
That is because the people are speaking out. It is not just in the 
rural Midwest.
  It started out in Hawaii, in Honolulu, had to fumigate certain 
apartments because you can endanger the children and the people moving 
in the next time. When we did a hearing in Congressman Turner's 
district in Wilmington, Ohio, that very day in Dayton, Ohio, which is a 
large city, they found a string of seven houses that had the drug labs 
internally because you can smell it. That is partly why people go to 
rural areas, but they found the first big bust in Dayton because they 
brought up a string of houses so they could not smell it, much like 
they do with hydroponic marijuana. This is a thing with not only the 
crystal meth but even the drug labs are hitting the big cities. This is 
something that needs to be tackled.
  This is one where we can win. This is one when you show the ads, like 
are shown in Montana, they capture the people. They understand the 
danger of this drug, and what we need to do is make sure our national 
ad campaign includes that.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just say this: I think that Mr. Souder makes a very good 
point. One of the things that I think we probably need to see, and 
particularly our young folk, is the devastation of meth and to see what 
it causes people to do to themselves and the effect that it has had on 
communities. I am convinced that if our young people just had any idea 
of what happens to people when they use meth, I think some of them 
would turn around.
  During one of our hearings, we were shown numerous pictures of young 
people. One picture was taken before they used meth and then another 
taken even sometimes two or three months later, and the difference was 
incredible. Many of them looked like they had aged about 10 years in 
about three or four, five months. Many of them looked very drawn and, I 
mean, just had all kinds of blisters and marks on their faces and their 
bodies. If there is one thing that we have learned about certain 
actions of young people, many of them want to continue to look good. We 
discovered that when we dealt with the whole issue of steroids.
  So I think it is important. We have not seen the kind of reduction 
that we would like to see in methamphetamine use. As a matter of fact, 
it is pretty stable, but we would like to see it go down, and I think 
that this is the appropriate approach.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King) who has played a very, very important role in the whole 
meth issue, and I thank him for helping to cosponsor this.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Rehberg for 
leading on this amendment and giving me an opportunity to participate 
in this.
  I would like to also thank the Chairman, Mr. Souder, for the 
intensive work that he has done on meth. It has been a real catalyst 
for all of us that have joined together on this team.
  This amendment would dedicate a minimum of 10 percent of the funds to 
the anti-meth ad campaign to win the war on meth. Meth destroys our 
rural communities from the inside out. We need to make sure that 
people, especially our young people, get the message: meth kills.
  In Iowa, we are turning the tide in the war on meth with an 80 
percent reduction in the number of meth labs after passing a tough 
precursor law. Unfortunately, meth continues to pour in from our 
southern border, primarily Mexico. The dedicated dollars in this 
amendment will help stop young people, especially, from using meth in 
the first place.
  Meth is more than 10 percent of the illegal drug problem in America. 
Spending 10 percent on this ad campaign is the minimum that we should 
commit.
  I thank you.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank everybody, everybody who has 
talked on the issue today, everybody who has been involved on this 
amendment and the bill as well. Mr. Cummings, Mr. Souder, your 
leadership on the whole drug issue has been very important to this 
country.
  We are lucky in Montana. We have 930,000 people. We have 147,000 
square miles, and we decided to make ourselves the pilot project to see 
if it could work, if we could have a massive

[[Page H840]]

campaign run like pretty much a political campaign. We have polling. We 
have focus groups. We have monitoring to see if our advertising is 
effective. We have both Senators, Senator Baucus, Senator Burns and 
myself, Governor Schweitzer.
  We have the State legislature, law enforcement, district courts, 
Supreme Court, the judges and the U.S. Marshal all involved in this 
issue. It is the most phenomenal program I have ever seen, and I want 
to welcome you to the program, and I would like to share with you, as 
well, if you are interested in seeing the ads, if you would like a 
presentation, it is the kind of program that will make a government 
program that is already funded here in Washington even better.
  We are not trying to replace it. All we are trying to do is present 
the idea to the drug czar, to the administration, to the director and 
say if you are interested in something like this, you ought to have the 
ability to either grant to an organization like this or this 
organization. It is a 501(c)(3), so it is a not-for-profit, but it is a 
great idea. So what we want to do is provide the flexibility.
  Forty-four percent of teens believe meth helps you lose weight. 
Thirty-nine percent of teens believe that meth makes you feel happy. 
Thirty-five percent of teens believe meth gives you more energy. 
Twenty-three percent of teens have close friends who use meth. It 
scares me to death. I have a teenage daughter. I have one coming up 
shortly behind. Our children will tell you they are confronted by this 
problem every day at school. We did not have the fear that they do of 
going to school and being confronted with something that you use it 
once and it is proven it stays in your brain for many, many years, a 
drug that makes you want to pull your hair out, pick your skin off. You 
start bleeding. You lose your teeth.
  This is the kind of thing we cannot allow in our country. There are a 
lot of issues we deal with on a daily basis in Congress. Sometimes we 
name post offices. Other days we deal with issues like September 11, 
and on a scale of 1 to 10 this is an 11. When it comes to issues that 
this country needs to deal with and this Congress needs to address, 
this methamphetamine use and drug use within our general population, 
especially among some of our most vulnerable, which are our teens, 13 
to 17 or 12 to 17, we have got a program we would like to share with 
you as a pilot project.
  There are many ideas out there coming up from all over the country, 
and what my amendment does is give the director the flexibility to try 
some new and creative things and require at least a simple 10 percent 
of the money for advertising be spent on methamphetamine.
  Again, they have come in this year for a budget request of about $120 
million. So this means at least $12 million would be spent. We are 
spending that much almost this year in Montana. So 10 percent is not 
enough.
  Let me point out and thank at this time the other major players in 
this whole arena: television stations, radio stations, newspapers, the 
Internet. They are all voluntarily matching dollar for dollar every 
dollar that is being put in the Montana meth project. This is a 
tremendous volunteer organization and a tremendous advertising program. 
I think you will like it if you see it.
  Again, I hope you will support the amendment; and to all my 
colleagues that spoke today, that worked on this amendment, thank you 
for giving us the consideration that you have. Please favorably look at 
this amendment and vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Renzi

  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Renzi:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 20. REPORT ON TRIBAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN HIDTA 
                   PROCESS.

       (a) Report Requirement.--The Director of the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy shall prepare a report for 
     Congress on the representation of tribal governments in the 
     High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program and in high 
     intensity drug trafficking areas designated under that 
     Program. The report shall include--
       (1) a list of the tribal governments represented in the 
     Program and a description of the participation by such 
     governments in the Program;
       (2) an explanation of the rationale for the level of 
     representation by such governments; and
       (3) recommendations by the Director for methods for 
     increasing the number of tribal governments represented in 
     the Program.
       (b) Deadline.--The report prepared under subsection (a) 
     shall be submitted not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``High Intensity 
     Drug Trafficking Areas Program'' means the program 
     established under section 707 of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1706)

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am fortunate to represent more Native Americans than 
any other district in Congress, and this amendment addresses the needs 
for the tribes and the Office of National Drug Control Policy to work 
together to combat drug trafficking throughout Indian Country.
  The purpose of HIDTA is to enhance and coordinate drug control 
efforts among local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies; and 
the HIDTA has proved to be an effective tool, and yet tribal 
governments need to play a greater role.
  Our amendment will do just that. It requires a report from the 
director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy on the 
representation of tribal governments in the HIDTA process. The report 
would detail a list of tribal governments represented. It would explain 
the rationale for the level of tribal inclusion and would ask for 
recommendations to increase the number of tribal governments 
participating in the program.
  I represent the Navajo Nation, the White Mountain Apaches, the San 
Carlos Apaches, the Yavapai Apaches. Their reservations alone are 
roughly the same size as the States of Maryland, New Jersey, 
Massachusetts, and Vermont all combined.

                              {time}  1445

  These large land masses provide an ideal safe haven for drug 
smugglers, felons on the run, and these drug dealers. The reservations 
consist of vast rural areas, with little or no law enforcement to help 
provide protection. In addition, there is an abundance of tribal youth 
who in the eyes of these drug dealers serve as perfect innocent drug 
users.
  In recent years, the choice of drugs on these reservations and 
throughout my district has been methamphetamines. It has destroyed the 
rule of law among the reservation people. It is killing our tribal 
youth in this country. More than 90 percent of the meth that comes into 
Arizona comes in through Mexico, and yet we have superlabs on the 
reservation that produce some of the purest form of highly addictive 
blend of toxics that make up methamphetamine. And the meth that is 
produced in these superlabs on the reservation sells for cheaper value 
on the street than the meth that is produced off the reservation.
  My colleagues, I have to thank Chairman Souder. He has been out to 
northern Arizona. He is a champion of those among Indian country, 
particularly on this issue as it relates to helping so many of our 
youth combat the drug issue. I commend his efforts and I would ask my 
colleagues to help us with the most impoverished of our Nation and help 
our tribal youth say no

[[Page H841]]

to methamphetamine and be included in the HIDTA process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and, as I said, I do not oppose this amendment. It is an excellent 
amendment.
  We have known for a long time that drug and alcohol abuse has been 
particularly devastating where there is lack of job opportunities on 
many of the reservations of our Indian nations in America, and it has 
been historic in fetal alcohol syndrome and other challenges.
  What is astounding to me is that the administration's Attorney 
General Gonzalez recently made the statement that meth is an epidemic, 
but the office that is supposed to control all this, the drug czar's 
office, continues to downplay meth and has actually said that it is not 
growing. Yet on the ground, none of us are hearing this.
  For example, in the Indian nations, where it is relatively quiet in 
the sense of the national knowledge of what Mr. Just described, at a 
hearing in Minnesota, the U.S. Attorney was there. He is the lead for 
the northern tribes in Montana, Minnesota, North and South Dakota and 
so on, and he said that meth is tearing through the Indian nations in a 
way they haven't seen in other narcotics; at reservation in the 
southern part of Arizona, which is right on the border, and there they 
are right on the front lines of all kinds of narcotics as well, as the 
crystal meth that is going to come across.
  This meth is going to move into upstate New York, where we have the 
reservation, the historic Mohawk reservation up on the Saint Lawrence 
Seaway, which once again is at a critical border point. And as we watch 
meth tearing through these Indian nations, we need to make sure when we 
put together these High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas that are under 
this, that those tribal nations are included as representatives.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona taking the lead and making 
sure that as we have in these urban areas, whether it be in Arizona, 
whether it be in Minnesota, whether it be the Rocky Mountain HIDTA, or 
whether it be the northern upstate New York and other areas where we 
have major Indian nations, that they are included as we try to tackle 
drug trafficking and as we particularly get at the new scourge of 
methamphetamines.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I take this moment to support the amendment. I think it 
is a very good amendment.
  Our dealings in the subcommittee with HIDTA is that HIDTA allows for 
all of our law enforcement agencies to come together to address the 
issue of drugs. And certainly where there is a problem, we want to make 
sure that law enforcement is there.
  I have often said that we cannot deal with drugs just from a law 
enforcement standpoint, but we have to couple that with effective 
treatment and try to prevent folks from even going on drugs. But the 
fact is I think it is a good amendment and it makes our bill a better 
one.
  I think that what the gentleman has done through the amendment has 
brought something to the attention of the committee and certainly sort 
of shined a little light on so that perhaps we can more effectively 
deal with those problems in those tribal areas.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
I want to again compliment the gentleman from Arizona. The Navajo 
nation is in northern Arizona and spills over into New Mexico and is a 
huge dominant entity, and he has worked aggressively to defend their 
interests and to make sure they are included in efforts like this, 
where sometimes they are forgotten.
  Oklahoma, which has been ravaged by narcotics, and as we see it go 
into the mountains of North Carolina, clearly the Cherokee nation and 
other nations are at risk with this, too. The gentleman's amendment 
will help in many of these areas as we try to tackle meth and other 
narcotics.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for his kind words and his 
bipartisanship on this issue. It truly is bigger than any one party.
  Also, I want to again thank the chairman for coming out to Arizona 
and seeing it firsthand, and I will end with this message: What alcohol 
did to our Native Americans in the late 1800s is now what is occurring 
with the methamphetamine pandemic across Indian country in our Nation.
  These gentlemen and their committees stand in the gap to stop that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time on behalf of Mr. Terry to 
offer his amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 printed in House Report 109-387 offered by 
     Mr. Souder:
       Page 143, after line 11, insert the following:
       (1) Section 704(c)(2) is amended by inserting ``and the 
     head of each major national organization that represents law 
     enforcement officers, agencies, or associations'' after 
     ``agency''.
       Page 143, line 12, strike ``Section 704(c)(2)'' and insert 
     the following:
       (2) Section 704(c)(2).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 713, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Congressman Lee Terry brought this amendment to the 
Rules Committee, and I strongly support this amendment. One of the 
things I should point out is that this has been an unusual day. We have 
been asking for some time to be able to have a meth day. Clearly, this 
has turned into a meth day, as well as when we did the terrorism bill. 
We had methamphetamines as part of that. And the reason is because we 
are hearing from the grass roots and they want to tackle the 
methamphetamine issue.
  Earlier today, interestingly, we had the Meth Caucus and others who 
were not able to come to the floor because there was a major press 
conference with DEA and other agencies to talk about the bill that we 
passed earlier this week, the largest methamphetamine act in the United 
States' history as part of the terrorism bill. And Mr. Terry and other 
Members, including Coach Osborne and others who come to the floor 
regularly on meth, are over at the White House for the signing ceremony 
on the methamphetamine bill. So I have been here on the floor today, 
and some Members have been able to make it over, but this has been a 
meth day and beyond on the House floor, and it is meth day at the White 
House as well as throughout Capitol Hill.
  This particular amendment directs the director of ONDCP, the ``drug 
czar'' to consult with the head of each major national organization 
that represents law enforcement officers, agencies, or associations. 
That would include, for example, Ron Brooks of the National Narcotics 
Officers Associations Coalition, the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
national HIDTA directors. He must consult them prior to making 
recommendations to the President on national budget for drug control 
enforcement each year.
  So why would we need this kind of amendment in this bill? I would 
think that this is what the director does for a living. But when we had 
a hearing and asked why the HIDTAs were being moved to the Justice 
Department at this hearing, we had the director of the narcotics 
officers who said they hadn't been consulted. We had the director of 
the Chicago HIDTA, the Speaker's HIDTA, and he said he hadn't been 
consulted. We had the directors of the Southwest border HIDTA, and they

[[Page H842]]

said they had not been consulted. We had the director of the Baltimore-
Washington HIDTA, and he said he had not been consulted. We had the 
director of the Missouri HIDTA, the sheriff of our Whip Roy Blunt's 
home area, and he said he had never been consulted.
  The question is: Who did they consult? If they didn't consult the 
HIDTA directors, any of them, if they didn't consult the narcotics 
officers, if they didn't consult the police officers, on what grounds 
are they making recommendations to in effect gut these programs and 
move them to other departments? On what grounds are they proposing to 
wipe out the Byrne grants and the drug czar be silent or actually 
supportive? On what grounds are they proposing to wipe out the meth hot 
spots?
  I think it would be just basic good procedure that the director would 
talk to these groups before he would make these recommendations. Yet 
all these groups say he has never had a meeting with them. He is not 
meeting with them before he makes these recommendations. I think, quite 
frankly, it is a sad day when the United States Congress has to put 
into a bill that the director meets with the people who are on the 
street fighting the drug war, which he should be doing as part of his 
job.
  But I strongly commend Mr. Terry for this amendment, because we need 
the director. If we are going to have a director, a drug czar who is 
going to make recommendations that impact State and local law 
enforcement all over the country, that impact our HIDTAs all over the 
country, we ought to at least know, and he can still make whatever 
recommendations he wants, and the President can still make whatever 
recommendations he wants, but we would like to know before that 
recommendation comes over that he has at least talked to the people 
doing the job at the grassroots level.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I do support this amendment.
  Let me go back for a minute, though. I agree with Mr. Souder in that 
I think it is unfortunate that we have to come to the floor of the 
House to ask ONDCP to consult with law enforcement. There is a thin 
blue line. We have our officers come in and ask us for all kinds of 
things in our subcommittee. And I always say that these are the people 
who are on the front lines. They are the ones who so often have to 
burst into houses when they do not know what is behind that door. They 
are the ones who leave home so often in the morning not knowing whether 
they are going to return to their families. They are the ones, for 
example in HIDTA, who sit down with the locals and the State folk and 
the Federal folk and come up with all kinds of strategies. They know 
what they need to do the job.
  I have often heard the President say that when it comes to the war in 
Iraq, he wants to make sure he gets advice from the people that are on 
the ground. These are the folk that are on the ground.
  But if I had my say about this amendment, I would expand it not only 
to our law enforcement folk but also to those people who day after day 
work, for example, in the drug-free communities effort, citizens who 
are working hard every day sacrificing their time and their resources 
to make their communities better. Hopefully, this will send a message, 
a very strong message to the drug czar.
  What has happened is we have found ourselves, and I can understand 
our committee's frustration, because we get policies coming down from 
the White House which seem contrary to the very things that the people 
who are on the ground say that they need and the way they would like to 
see us proceed. Then we have to then change the White House policy so 
as to fit what is the reality on the ground. There just has to be a 
better way.
  Again, one of the things we are concerned about, and I have said it 
many times, I think Republicans and Democrats can agree on one major 
thing, and that is that we want the people's tax dollars to be spent 
effectively and efficiently. And when the HIDTA folks came in and said 
to us, person after person, HIDTA after HIDTA, that they could not 
understand why it was that they were being shifted to the Justice 
Department and part of their budget was being taken away, I never got 
the impression for one second that it was just about a turf war or it 
was about just being petty in any way.

                              {time}  1500

  But I got the impression because they deal with this every day, they 
wanted to make sure that they had the tools and had the atmosphere and 
what they do, they could most effectively and efficiently do their job.
  So like I said, it is unfortunate that we have to come to this point 
to basically mandate that consultation take place. But so often in our 
society we have a tendency to talk about each other and not talk to 
each other. I think perhaps, just perhaps by forcing folks to come 
together and at least talk, we will be able to address these problems 
more effectively so we do not have to go through this process over and 
over and over again.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
given 5 additional minutes.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think Mr. Cummings' point is a fitting conclusion as we move to the 
end of this debate. Our frustration is that since there has not been an 
authorization, the director of ONDCP has proposed a number of changes 
which would greatly undermine what this Congress intended.
  When we set up the High Intensity Drug Trafficking programs, the 
HIDTA, it was meant initially to focus on the Southwest border, which 
has not been particularly effective. In case anybody noticed, we do not 
have great control there, partly because we do not have an integrated 
Southwest border strategy. We have starts, we have a Southwest border 
HIDTA, but we need a Southwest border strategy.
  In these High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, we move to the 
biggest cities and say, this is how the drugs come in and move into 
Indiana from Chicago and Detroit. You need the Baltimore-Washington 
HIDTA and the Los Angeles HIDTA, the Phoenix and the Houston HIDTAs 
behind the border.
  Other States then saw the effectiveness. What made HIDTA effective? 
The idea was if the Federal Government tried to do everything through 
DEA, FBI, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Customs, it would not work. 
Sometimes even our Federal agents were arresting each other, and we 
were not getting integrated with State and local law enforcement.
  So the goal in HIDTA was if we put a 1 million, $2 million into an 
area, first off, we would require all of the Federal agents to be there 
and they would get half the votes, and then we would get the States and 
locals and they would get half the votes, and they would feel actual 
ownership of it. If they felt ownership, they would participate.
  As the head of the Phoenix Police Department told us at a hearing, it 
was moved over to OCDETF. It has done wonderful work, but OCDETF talks 
to supposedly State and local law enforcement, but State and local law 
enforcement do not get a vote. So they get put on a board, and they 
come to a meeting once in a while. HIDTA actually gives them a vote. 
The head of the Phoenix Police Department said his city council asks 
him on a regular basis, can you justify this, can you justify that. He 
has kept three officers in the HIDTA because he sees how that HIDTA 
money gets leveraged with the State police, with the U.S. Attorney's 
Office, with the U.S. Marshals, with the FBI, DEA, and with everybody 
else.
  Why, when we finally get a program that works at the State and local 
levels that leverages these dollars, would we gut it without even 
talking to the people involved? The Phoenix police chairman said he 
would pull his three officers out of the narcotics effort if it

[[Page H843]]

was moved. So did Chicago. So did city after city. And it is so 
exasperating that they continue to persist on this. But it shows it has 
done a great job of educating the HIDTAs.
  The New York City HIDTA is integrated completely with terrorism, and 
it is an amazing operation as we see those to links occur. The national 
ad campaign we are addressing throughout this bill because we think it 
has been effective and we need to make it more effective, and it needs 
to include meth.
  The administration was also proposing dramatic changes to the 
technology center. It is one of the most valuable things to State and 
local law enforcement because not only do we give them goods, but it is 
a model for what we are trying to do on homeland security, that is, 
when a police department says I would like this kind of radio, night 
goggle, protective gear, they analyze it. In my district, take Albion, 
1,500, Kendallville is 10,000 people, Fort Wayne is 230,000 people. 
They can go through their list and say we would like these goggles, but 
then it goes through a review process and they say this is probably not 
what you need in Albion. Unless you can make a defense, you don't get 
that. You have to submit what kind of drug challenges you have, what 
types of things you need, and the Technology Assessment Center then, 
off of your list, you match up what your departments need.
  Everybody in homeland security gets this pool of money, and now they 
have all kinds of things that they may not ever need and mismatches. 
Now we are trying to have the State say, what is your homeland security 
plan; to have the locals say, what is your homeland security plan. Then 
in a technology center, we should have it work like in the drug czar's 
office, except the drug czar wants to get rid of his own Department.
  It is baffling why there is this persistent goal in the 
administration to wipe out the things that most benefit State and local 
and keep the parts that are nationally under their control.
  So I think this bill will comprehensively address a whole series of 
those concerns. I am pleased that we have been able to do this. The 
Meth Caucus has been bipartisan; this subcommittee has been bipartisan 
with Mr. Cummings and the full active membership of subcommittee. We 
have all been able to bring a bill forth and move through the full 
committee unanimously. Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, Education, and 
Intelligence committees all participated in this process, individual 
Members with their amendments as well as the Meth Caucus.
  I hope this bill will receive unanimous support. Three of the 
amendments we need a ``yes'' on. There is one amendment that would get 
rid of ONDCP, and I urge a ``no'' vote on that.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to this amendment for just a second. 
When I think about the entire process here and our subcommittee, we 
realized that there are experts in the area of narcotics, and we bring 
them before us all the time to seek their advice. In seeking their 
advice, we learn a lot. One of the things that we also realize is that 
this world of drugs is ever-changing from day to day, from hour to 
hour.
  We also realized, as we moved throughout the country, that there are 
various law enforcement methods that may be effective against one drug 
versus another.
  I think we have a situation here when we talk about the drug czar 
consulting with, and that is ONDCP consulting with law enforcement, 
there is a certain level of respect that many of these officers have 
said that they simply desire, respect for what they do every day.
  I think a lot of times when they come to us and they come shaking 
their heads, one of the things that I know our subcommittee worries 
about is their morale when they are out there putting their lives on 
the line. And I have talked to these officers. I know Mr. Souder has. 
They will say to us, we are doing the best we can with what we have 
got. They say in most instances, we do not have enough; but if you are 
going to take away some of the tools that we do have, it is going to 
become even more difficult for us to do our job.
  Basically, what they are asking for is simply to be consulted, 
somebody to sit down and say, How is it going in Idaho or Baltimore, 
or, How is it going in California? And we have learned so much from 
these HIDTAs because they have an opportunity to work on all levels of 
government. So they can bring things I would think to the drug czar's 
office that the drug czar may not be aware of.
  That is why I am so supportive of this amendment; but I have to say, 
I do feel it is very unfortunate that we have to go through this 
process. I would hope that perhaps by doing this it will open those 
doors of communication so that these great men and women who 
courageously put their lives on the line and who have taken a 
phenomenal amount of time and energy to learn law enforcement, to 
understand it, to understand how the drug trade works, to understand 
the methods of combating folks who want to violate our drug laws, that 
we would have the benefit, that the drug czar would have the benefit of 
their knowledge and expertise so when we have legislation, we can have 
it from the very, very best.
  I must tell you that I do believe that we have some of the best law 
enforcement in the entire country. But again as I have said to Mr. 
Souder, I wish that it went beyond just law enforcement, because I 
think if we are going to address the whole issue of drugs in 
consultation with the drug czar, it must also be with all of those 
people who are out there dealing in the area of prevention, dealing in 
the area of interdiction, addressing our children, dealing with 
methamphetamines and so on.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
given an additional 2 minutes.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana and 
probably the leader in Congress in helping fight our war against drugs 
in our communities across this Nation.
  I stand with my colleagues here in discussing a problem in our towns 
and our neighborhoods, particularly in Nebraska, and it is 
methamphetamines. Also, our teenagers are experimenting with 
prescription drugs where they can get a hold of them.
  It is our police officers and our sheriffs and then our State patrol 
that are on the front lines. It was they 2 years ago who were telling 
me that some of the gangs in Omaha that had cocaine or marijuana were 
changing their product of distribution away from those drugs to crystal 
meth made in Mexico.
  Mr. Souder held a hearing with Mr. Walters a year ago, who was 
really, I am not exaggerating here, flabbergasted that some of the 
grant moneys that the administration had zeroed out was actually being 
used for task forces against methamphetamines and these gangs, and yet 
my police department knew about it 2 years ago.
  I know that this amendment that I have drafted sounds almost 
nonsensical in its common sense. Why would the national director of our 
drug policy not be communicating with local police officers who are our 
front line in this battle? But the reality is they have detached 
themselves and are advancing a policy to move all of this over to the 
Justice Department where there will be even less communication with 
those on the ground that know exactly what is occurring in our 
communities and what then we must do on the national level to make sure 
that we arm them correctly to protect our families from these 
international drug lords.
  This is a commonsense amendment that I would encourage all of my 
colleagues to support.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:

[[Page H844]]

  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Paul of Texas.
  Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Rehberg of Montana.

                              {time}  1515

  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). The pending business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 403, 
noes 2, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 34]

                               AYES--403

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--2

     Flake
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Bachus
     Burton (IN)
     Cantor
     Costa
     Davis (FL)
     Deal (GA)
     Evans
     Ford
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Honda
     Jenkins
     Linder
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Price (GA)
     Reynolds
     Royce
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Shays
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1540

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Hooley

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 403, 
noes 3, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 35]

                               AYES--403

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)

[[Page H845]]


     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--3

     Flake
     Paul
     Taylor (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Bachus
     Brady (TX)
     Burton (IN)
     Cantor
     Costa
     Davis (FL)
     Deal (GA)
     Evans
     Ford
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Jenkins
     Linder
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Peterson (PA)
     Price (GA)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Shays
     Sodrel
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Westmoreland


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1548

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  amendment no. 12 offered by mr. paul

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 85, 
noes 322, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 36]

                                AYES--85

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Campbell (CA)
     Capuano
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lee
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Paul
     Payne
     Poe
     Pombo
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Slaughter
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Watson
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--322

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bachus
     Burton (IN)
     Cantor
     Costa
     Davis (FL)
     Deal (GA)
     Dicks
     Evans
     Foley
     Ford
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Jenkins
     Linder
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Peterson (PA)
     Price (GA)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Shays
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Westmoreland


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1556

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page H846]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 36 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Rehberg

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana 
(Mr. Rehberg) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 399, 
noes 9, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 37]

                               AYES--399

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--9

     Delahunt
     Flake
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Paul
     Scott (VA)
     Velazquez
     Watt

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bachus
     Burton (IN)
     Cantor
     Costa
     Davis (FL)
     Deal (GA)
     Evans
     Ford
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Jenkins
     Linder
     Markey
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Peterson (PA)
     Price (GA)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Shays
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Westmoreland


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1604

  Mr. DELAHUNT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, the question is 
on the committee amendment in the nature of the substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2829) to 
reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act, pursuant to 
House Resolution 713, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 399, 
noes 5, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 38]

                               AYES--399

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay

[[Page H847]]


     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--5

     Frank (MA)
     McDermott
     Paul
     Stark
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bachus
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Cantor
     Costa
     Davis (FL)
     Deal (GA)
     Evans
     Flake
     Ford
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Linder
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Peterson (PA)
     Price (GA)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Shays
     Smith (WA)
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1622

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________