[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16382-16390]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2291) to extend the authorization of the Drug-Free 
Communities Support Program for an additional 5 years, to authorize a 
National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2291

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

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

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In the next 15 years, the youth population in the 
     United States will grow by 21 percent, adding 6,500,000 youth 
     to the population of the United States. Even if drug use 
     rates remain constant, there will be a huge surge in drug-
     related problems, such as academic failure, drug-related 
     violence, and HIV incidence, simply due to this population 
     increase.
       (2) According to the 1994-1996 National Household Survey, 
     60 percent of students age 12 to 17 who frequently cut 
     classes and who reported delinquent behavior in the past 6 
     months used marijuana 52 days or more in the previous year.
       (3) The 2000 Washington Kids Count survey conducted by the 
     University of Washington reported that students whose peers 
     have little or no involvement with drinking and drugs have 
     higher math and reading scores than students whose peers had 
     low level drinking or drug use.
       (4) Substance abuse prevention works. In 1999, only 10 
     percent of teens saw marijuana users as popular, compared to 
     17 percent in 1998 and 19 percent in 1997. The rate of past-
     month use of any drug among 12- to 17-year-olds declined 26 
     percent between 1997 and 1999. Marijuana use for sixth 
     through eighth graders is at the lowest point in 5 years, as 
     is use of cocaine, inhalants, and hallucinogens.
       (5) Community Anti-Drug Coalitions throughout the United 
     States are successfully developing and implementing 
     comprehensive, long-term strategies to reduce substance abuse 
     among youth on a sustained basis. For example:
       (A) The Boston Coalition brought college and university 
     presidents together to create the Cooperative Agreement on 
     Underage Drinking. This agreement represents the first 
     coordinated effort of Boston's many institutions of higher 
     education to address issues such as binge drinking, underage 
     drinking, and changing the norms surrounding alcohol abuse 
     that exist on college and university campuses.
       (B) In 2000, the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater 
     Cincinnati surveyed more than 47,000 local students in grades 
     7 through 12. The results provided evidence that the 
     Coalition's initiatives are working. For the first time in a 
     decade, teen drug use in Greater Cincinnati appears to be 
     leveling off. The data collected from the survey has served 
     as a tool to strengthen relationships between schools and 
     communities, as well as facilitate the growth of anti-drug 
     coalitions in communities where such coalitions had not 
     existed.
       (C) The Miami Coalition used a three-part strategy to 
     decrease the percentage of high school seniors who reported 
     using marijuana at least once during the most recent 30-day 
     period. The development of a media strategy, the creation of 
     a network of prevention agencies, and discussions with high 
     school students about the dangers of marijuana all 
     contributed to a decrease in the percentage of seniors who 
     reported using marijuana from over 22 percent in 1995 to 9 
     percent in 1997. The Miami Coalition was able to achieve 
     these results while national rates of marijuana use were 
     increasing.
       (D) The Nashville Prevention Partnership worked with 
     elementary and middle school children in an attempt to 
     influence them toward positive life goals and discourage them 
     from using substances. The Partnership targeted an area in 
     East Nashville and created after school programs, mentoring 
     opportunities, attendance initiatives, and safe passages to 
     and from school. Attendance and test scores increased as a 
     result of the program.
       (E) At a youth-led town meeting sponsored by the Bering 
     Strait Community Partnership in Nome, Alaska, youth 
     identified a need for a safe, substance-free space. With help 
     from a variety of community partners, the Partnership staff 
     and youth members created the Java Hut, a substance-free 
     coffeehouse designed for youth.

[[Page 16383]]

     The Java Hut is helping to change norms in the community by 
     providing a fun, youth-friendly atmosphere and activities 
     that are not centered around alcohol or marijuana.
       (F) Portland's Regional Drug Initiative (RDI) has promoted 
     the establishment of drug-free workplaces among the city's 
     large and small employers. Over 3,000 employers have attended 
     an RDI training session, and of those, 92 percent have 
     instituted drug-free workplace policies. As a result, there 
     has been a 5.5 percent decrease in positive workplace drug 
     tests.
       (G) San Antonio Fighting Back worked to increase the age at 
     which youth first used illegal substances. Research suggests 
     that the later the age of first use, the lower the risk that 
     a young person will become a regular substance abuser. As a 
     result, the age of first illegal drug use increased from 9.4 
     years in 1992 to 13.5 years in 1997.
       (H) In 1990, multiple data sources confirmed a trend of 
     increased alcohol use by teenagers in the Troy community. 
     Using its ``multiple strategies over multiple sectors'' 
     approach, the Troy Coalition worked with parents, physicians, 
     students, coaches, and others to address this problem from 
     several angles. As a result, the rate of twelfth grade 
     students who had consumed alcohol in the past month decreased 
     from 62.1 percent to 53.3 percent between 1991 and 1998, and 
     the rate of eighth grade students decreased from 26.3 percent 
     to 17.4 percent. The Troy Coalition believes that this 
     decline represents not only a change in behavior on the part 
     of students, but also a change in the norms of the community.
       (6) Despite these successes, drug use continues to be a 
     serious problem facing communities across the United States. 
     For example:
       (A) According to the Pulse Check: Trends in Drug Abuse Mid-
     Year 2000 report--
       (i) crack and powder cocaine remains the most serious drug 
     problem;
       (ii) marijuana remains the most widely available illicit 
     drug, and its potency is on the rise;
       (iii) treatment sources report an increase in admissions 
     with marijuana as the primary drug of abuse--and adolescents 
     outnumber other age groups entering treatment for marijuana;
       (iv) 80 percent of Pulse Check sources reported increased 
     availability of club drugs, with ecstasy (MDMA) and ketamine 
     the most widely cited club drugs and seven sources reporting 
     that powder cocaine is being used as a club drug by young 
     adults;
       (v) ecstasy abuse and trafficking is expanding, no longer 
     confined to the ``rave'' scene;
       (vi) the sale and use of club drugs has grown from 
     nightclubs and raves to high schools, the streets, 
     neighborhoods, open venues, and younger ages;
       (vii) ecstasy users often are unknowingly purchasing 
     adulterated tablets or some other substance sold as MDMA; and
       (viii) along with reports of increased heroin snorting as a 
     route of administration for initiates, there is also an 
     increase in injecting initiates and the negative health 
     consequences associated with injection (for example, 
     increases in HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C) suggesting that there 
     is a generational forgetting of the dangers of injection of 
     the drug.
       (B) The 2000 Parent's Resource Institute for Drug Education 
     study reported that 23.6 percent of children in the sixth 
     through twelfth grades used illicit drugs in the past year. 
     The same study found that monthly usage among this group was 
     15.3 percent.
       (C) According to the 2000 Monitoring the Future study, the 
     use of ecstasy among eighth graders increased from 1.7 
     percent in 1999 to 3.1 percent in 2000, among tenth graders 
     from 4.4 percent to 5.4 percent, and from 5.6 percent to 8.2 
     percent among twelfth graders.
       (D) A 1999 Mellman Group study found that--
       (i) 56 percent of the population in the United States 
     believed that drug use was increasing in 1999;
       (ii) 92 percent of the population viewed illegal drug use 
     as a serious problem in the United States; and
       (iii) 73 percent of the population viewed illegal drug use 
     as a serious problem in their communities.
       (7) According to the 2001 report of the National Center on 
     Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University entitled 
     ``Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State 
     Budgets'', using the most conservative assumption, in 1998 
     States spent $77,900,000,000 to shovel up the wreckage of 
     substance abuse, only $3,000,000,000 to prevent and treat the 
     problem and $433,000,000 for alcohol and tobacco regulation 
     and compliance. This $77,900,000,000 burden was distributed 
     as follows:
       (A) $30,700,000,000 in the justice system (77 percent of 
     justice spending).
       (B) $16,500,000,000 in education costs (10 percent of 
     education spending).
       (C) $15,200,000,000 in health costs (25 percent of health 
     spending).
       (D) $7,700,000,000 in child and family assistance (32 
     percent of child and family assistance spending).
       (E) $5,900,000,000 in mental health and developmental 
     disabilities (31 percent of mental health spending).
       (F) $1,500,000,000 in public safety (26 percent of public 
     safety spending) and $400,000,000 for the state workforce.
       (8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination through 
     national, State, and local or tribal leadership and 
     partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of 
     substance abuse among youth in communities across the United 
     States.
       (9) Substance abuse is perceived as a much greater problem 
     nationally than at the community level. According to a 2001 
     study sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts, between 1994 
     and 2000--
       (A) there was a 43 percent increase in the percentage of 
     Americans who felt progress was being made in the war on 
     drugs at the community level;
       (B) only 9 percent of Americans say drug abuse is a 
     ``crisis'' in their neighborhood, compared to 27 percent who 
     say this about the nation; and
       (C) the percentage of those who felt we lost ground in the 
     war on drugs on a community level fell by more than a 
     quarter, from 51 percent in 1994 to 37 percent in 2000.
       (b) Extension and Increase of Program.--Section 1024(a) of 
     the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 
     1524(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4); and
       (2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(5) $50,600,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(6) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(7) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(8) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       ``(10) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
       (c) Extension of Limitation on Administrative Costs.--
     Section 1024(b) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1524(b)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new 
     paragraph (5):
       ``(5) 6 percent for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2007.''.
       (d) Additional Grants.--Section 1032(b) of that Act (21 
     U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph (3):
       ``(3) Additional grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (F), the 
     Administrator may award an additional grant under this 
     paragraph to an eligible coalition awarded a grant under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) for any first fiscal year after the end 
     of the 4-year period following the period of the initial 
     grant under paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be.
       ``(B) Scope of grants.--A coalition awarded a grant under 
     paragraph (1) or (2), including a renewal grant under such 
     paragraph, may not be awarded another grant under such 
     paragraph, and is eligible for an additional grant under this 
     section only under this paragraph.
       ``(C) No priority for applications.--The Administrator may 
     not afford a higher priority in the award of an additional 
     grant under this paragraph than the Administrator would 
     afford the applicant for the grant if the applicant were 
     submitting an application for an initial grant under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) rather than an application for a grant 
     under this paragraph.
       ``(D) Renewal grants.--Subject to subparagraph (F), the 
     Administrator may award a renewal grant to a grant recipient 
     under this paragraph for each of the fiscal years of the 4-
     fiscal-year period following the fiscal year for which the 
     initial additional grant under subparagraph (A) is awarded in 
     an amount not to exceed amounts as follows:
       ``(i) For the first and second fiscal years of that 4-
     fiscal-year period, the amount equal to 80 percent of the 
     non-Federal funds, including in-kind contributions, raised by 
     the coalition for the applicable fiscal year.
       ``(ii) For the third and fourth fiscal years of that 4-
     fiscal-year period, the amount equal to 67 percent of the 
     non-Federal funds, including in-kind contributions, raised by 
     the coalition for the applicable fiscal year.
       ``(E) Suspension.--If a grant recipient under this 
     paragraph fails to continue to meet the criteria specified in 
     subsection (a), the Administrator may suspend the grant, 
     after providing written notice to the grant recipient and an 
     opportunity to appeal.
       ``(F) Limitation.--The amount of a grant award under this 
     paragraph may not exceed $100,000 for a fiscal year.''.
       (e) Data Collection and Dissemination.--Section 1033(b) of 
     that Act (21 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Consultation.--The Administrator shall carry out 
     activities under this subsection in consultation with the 
     Advisory Commission and the National Community Antidrug 
     Coalition Institute.''.
       (f) Limitation on Use of Certain Funds for Evaluation of 
     Program.--Section 1033(b) of that Act, as amended by 
     subsection (e) of this section, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Limitation on use of certain funds for evaluation of 
     program.--Amounts for activities under paragraph (2)(B) may 
     not be derived from amounts under section 1024(a) except for 
     amounts that are available under section 1024(b) for 
     administrative costs.''.
       (g) Treatment of Funds for Coalitions Representing Certain 
     Organizations.--Section 1032 of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1532) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Treatment of Funds for Coalitions Representing 
     Certain Organizations.--Funds appropriated for the substance 
     abuse activities of a coalition that includes a 
     representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian 
     Health Service, or a tribal government agency with expertise 
     in the field of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal 
     funds raised by the coalition for purposes of this 
     section.''.
       (h) Priority in Awarding Grants.--Section 1032 of that Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 1532) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:

[[Page 16384]]

       ``(d) Priority in Awarding Grants.--In awarding grants 
     under subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), priority shall be given to a 
     coalition serving economically disadvantaged areas.''.

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

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

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

       ``(a) Authority To Make Grants.--As part of the program 
     established under section 1031, the Director may award an 
     initial grant under this subsection, and renewal grants under 
     subsection (f), to any coalition awarded a grant under 
     section 1032 that meets the criteria specified in subsection 
     (d) in order to fund coalition mentoring activities by such 
     coalition in support of the program.
       ``(b) Treatment With Other Grants.--
       ``(1) Supplement.--A grant awarded to a coalition under 
     this section is in addition to any grant awarded to the 
     coalition under section 1032.
       ``(2) Requirement for basic grant.--A coalition may not be 
     awarded a grant under this section for a fiscal year unless 
     the coalition was awarded a grant or renewal grant under 
     section 1032(b) for that fiscal year.
       ``(c) Application.--A coalition seeking a grant under this 
     section shall submit to the Administrator an application for 
     the grant in such form and manner as the Administrator may 
     require.
       ``(d) Criteria.--A coalition meets the criteria specified 
     in this subsection if the coalition--
       ``(1) has been in existence for at least 5 years;
       ``(2) has achieved, by or through its own efforts, 
     measurable results in the prevention and treatment of 
     substance abuse among youth;
       ``(3) has staff or members willing to serve as mentors for 
     persons seeking to start or expand the activities of other 
     coalitions in the prevention and treatment of substance 
     abuse;
       ``(4) has demonstrable support from some members of the 
     community in which the coalition mentoring activities to be 
     supported by the grant under this section are to be carried 
     out; and
       ``(5) submits to the Administrator a detailed plan for the 
     coalition mentoring activities to be supported by the grant 
     under this section.
       ``(e) Use of Grant Funds.--A coalition awarded a grant 
     under this section shall use the grant amount for mentoring 
     activities to support and encourage the development of new, 
     self-supporting community coalitions that are focused on the 
     prevention and treatment of substance abuse in such new 
     coalitions' communities. The mentoring coalition shall 
     encourage such development in accordance with the plan 
     submitted by the mentoring coalition under subsection (d)(5).
       ``(f) Renewal Grants.--The Administrator may make a renewal 
     grant to any coalition awarded a grant under subsection (a), 
     or a previous renewal grant under this subsection, if the 
     coalition, at the time of application for such renewal 
     grant--
       ``(1) continues to meet the criteria specified in 
     subsection (d); and
       ``(2) has made demonstrable progress in the development of 
     one or more new, self-supporting community coalitions that 
     are focused on the prevention and treatment of substance 
     abuse.
       ``(g) Grant Amounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     total amount of grants awarded to a coalition under this 
     section for a fiscal year may not exceed the amount of non-
     Federal funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind 
     contributions, for that fiscal year. Funds appropriated for 
     the substance abuse activities of a coalition that includes a 
     representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian 
     Health Service, or a tribal government agency with expertise 
     in the field of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal 
     funds raised by the coalition.
       ``(2) Initial grants.--The amount of the initial grant 
     awarded to a coalition under subsection (a) may not exceed 
     $75,000.
       ``(3) Renewal grants.--The total amount of renewal grants 
     awarded to a coalition under subsection (f) for any fiscal 
     year may not exceed $75,000.
       ``(h) Fiscal Year Limitation on Amount Available for 
     Grants.--The total amount available for grants under this 
     section, including renewal grants under subsection (f), in 
     any fiscal year may not exceed the amount equal to five 
     percent of the amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 1024(a) for that fiscal year.
       ``(i) Priority in Awarding Initial Grants.--In awarding 
     initial grants under this section, priority shall be given to 
     a coalition that expressly proposes to provide mentorship to 
     a coalition or aspiring coalition serving economically 
     disadvantaged areas.''.

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

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

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

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy may, using amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by subsection (d), make a grant to an eligible 
     organization to provide for the establishment of a National 
     Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.
       (b) Eligible Organizations.--An organization eligible for 
     the grant under subsection (a) is any national nonprofit 
     organization that represents, provides technical assistance 
     and training to, and has special expertise and broad, 
     national-level experience in community antidrug coalitions 
     under section 1032 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act 
     of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1532).
       (c) Use of Grant Amount.--The organization receiving the 
     grant under subsection (a) shall establish a National 
     Community Antidrug Coalition Institute to--
       (1) provide education, training, and technical assistance 
     for coalition leaders and community teams, with emphasis on 
     the development of coalitions serving economically 
     disadvantaged areas;
       (2) develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, 
     and measures to better assess and document coalition 
     performance measures and outcomes; and
       (3) bridge the gap between research and practice by 
     translating knowledge from research into practical 
     information.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for purposes of activities under this 
     section, including the grant under subsection (a), amounts as 
     follows:
       (1) For each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, $2,000,000.
       (2) For each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, $1,000,000.
       (3) For each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, $750,000.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATION OF EFFORT.

       The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
     shall ensure that the same or similar activities are not 
     carried out, through the use of funds for administrative 
     costs provided under subchapter II of the National Narcotics 
     Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.) or funds 
     provided under section 4 of this Act, by more than one 
     recipient of such funds.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 2291.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, it is appropriate and an honor that the first 
legislation we are to address upon our return is to fund community-
based drug prevention programs. Nothing is tearing at the social fabric 
of our Nation like the abuse of illegal narcotics and alcohol.
  Madam Speaker, the Drug-Free Communities Support Program 
Reauthorization Act is one of the cornerstones of our national strategy 
to reduce the demand for illegal drugs; and its reauthorization has 
strong bipartisan support, not only here in the House, but also in 
communities across the Nation.
  The bill is also a priority for the Bush administration. The Drug-
Free Communities Support Program, administered by the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy, works to prevent drug use among youth at 
the community level by providing Federal financial incentives for 
coalitions to join together at the local level to keep their children 
from using drugs.
  This legislation will reauthorize the program for 5 years through 
fiscal year 2007 and improve the services provided to grantees in 
several important ways.
  I would like to thank the primary House sponsors of this bill, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), as well as the primary Senate sponsors, Senator Grassley and 
Senator Biden, for their bipartisan and bicameral leadership on this 
bill.
  I would also like to thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), for his work on the bill, and particularly for 
his efforts to ensure that drug-free communities' assistance reaches 
economically disadvantaged areas.
  Madam Speaker, prevention and treatment is probably the most 
challenging area of our Nation's narcotic

[[Page 16385]]

strategy, largely because it remains so difficult to determine with 
certainty which strategies and programs work and which do not.
  The Drug-Free Communities Support Program, however, is one of the few 
programs which have clearly had a meaningful impact on reducing drug 
abuse by our youth, and it deserves not only our strong support but 
also the significant increases in authorized funding which are provided 
in the bill.
  The program today assists 307 communities in 49 States, from 
Ketchikan, Alaska to Kauai, Hawaii; from Old Town, Maine to Fort 
Lauderdale, Florida, and to San Juan, Puerto Rico, all of which raise 
the majority of their funds from the private sector rather than from 
government grants.
  I would like to highlight two coalitions from my district with which 
I am very familiar: Drug-Free Noble County and the United Way of Allen 
County, both in northeast Indiana.
  In Fort Wayne, multiple groups, including faith-based organizations, 
have joined together to help prevent usage of illegal narcotics. Drug-
Free Noble County, under the commendable leadership of Judge Michael 
Kramer and Barry Humble, won national recognition for the excellence of 
his PRIDE program, which was supported by Drug-Free Communities Support 
funds.
  Rural communities often do not have the resources to adequately 
address drug prevention issues, and the success of the Drug-Free Noble 
County program demonstrates how this program helps build meaningful 
partnerships between local grass roots coalitions and the Federal 
government in such rural and small town areas.
  We also know that the Drug-Free Communities Support Program can make 
a meaningful difference from the results obtained by other coalitions 
nationwide. In Miami, the percentage of seniors who reported using 
marijuana dropped from over 22 percent in 1995 to 9 percent in 1997.
  In San Antonio, the average age of first illegal drug use among teens 
increased from 9.4 years in 1992 to 13.5 years in 1997. In Nashville, 
school attendance and test scores rose measurably as a result of the 
efforts of the Nashville Prevention Partnership.
  All of these successes support not only the reauthorization of the 
program, but also increased funding. This bill supports President 
Bush's request to increase the authorization from $43.5 million to 
$50.6 million in fiscal year 2002, accompanied by steady increases each 
year through fiscal year 2007.
  This program has had steadily increasing interest from communities 
across the Nation looking for assistance with community anti-drug 
efforts. Our purpose in increasing the authorized funding in this bill 
was to ensure that adequate funds would be available for grants to 
deserving communities.
  We have also encouraged ONDCP, as well as our oversight committee, to 
conduct careful evaluation and oversight to ensure that the increased 
funding does not dilute the recognized quality of drug-free communities 
support programs or coalitions.
  The bill also provides for several improvements to the Drug-Free 
Communities Support Program over the next 5 years, each of which is 
aimed at improving the quality of services to be offered to grantees 
and local coalitions.
  First, we have provided for additional grants to be made available to 
successful coalitions for the purpose of mentoring prospective new 
coalitions. The program was always intended as one which would foster 
grass roots anti-drug activity and interaction, and I believe that this 
new provision will work to achieve that goal.
  Also, experience has shown that successful coalitions have already 
been enlisted to help others in neighboring areas build their own 
program. It is not fair to ask the taxpayers of those areas to bear the 
cost for others. I believe that Federal assistance is appropriate.
  Second, the bill provides for the creation and modest funding to 
initially support a new Community Antidrug Coalitions Institute to act 
as a national clearinghouse for technical assistance and training to be 
provided to local coalitions.
  Just as with the grants to the coalitions themselves, the institute 
is eventually intended to be financed entirely by the private sector. 
Given the significant increase in the prospective number of coalitions, 
the committee believed that the creation of the institute was a good 
and prudent step to ensure the continued quality and effectiveness of 
the work of the drug-free communities participants.
  I would finally like to highlight a couple of additional issues which 
were addressed in the subcommittee and full committee and are reflected 
in the reported bill which is the committee amendment under 
consideration this afternoon.
  First, although each of the new entities we are creating to assist 
grantees is needed and appropriate, it is important to ensure that 
there is no duplication of effort among the several entities that will 
now be providing assistance, and the committee amendment directs ONDCP 
to take steps to prevent such duplication.
  Second, the subcommittee has reduced the proposed increase in the 
current 3 percent statuary cap for administrative expenses from 8 
percent down to 6 percent. An analysis of this issue is available in 
the committee's report. We wanted to ensure, however, that the maximum 
possible amount of funding in fact is to go to community coalitions.
  I very much appreciate the willingness of the bill's sponsors to work 
with us on this issue.
  Third, the committee bill includes an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), which I supported, to ensure 
that drug-free communities assistance is targeted to economically 
disadvantaged areas.
  Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton), the chairman, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman 
Tauzin), of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for working with us 
to move this bill quickly to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record an exchange of correspondence 
regarding the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
     Hon. Dan Burton,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Burton: I am writing with regard to H.R. 
     2291, which the Committee on Government Reform ordered 
     reported on July 25, 2001. The Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce was named as an additional Committee of jurisdiction 
     upon the bill's introduction.
       I recognize your desire to bring this bill before the House 
     in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not exercise 
     the Committee's right to exercise its referral. By agreeing 
     to waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy 
     and Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over 
     H.R. 2291. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee 
     reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of 
     the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House-
     Senate conference that may be convened on this or similar 
     legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request 
     by the Energy and Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 
     2291 or similar legislation.
       I request that you include this letter as a part of the 
     Committee's report on H.R. 2291 and in the Congressional 
     Record during debate on its provisions. Thank you for your 
     attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                            W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
     Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 
     2001, regarding H.R. 2291, a bill to extend the authorization 
     of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program.
       I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid 
     jurisdictional claims to certain provisions of this 
     legislation, and I appreciate your decision not to exercise 
     your referral in the interest of expediting consideration of 
     the bill. I agree that by foregoing your right to consider 
     this legislation, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not 
     waiving its jurisdiction. I will also support your 
     Committee's request to seek conferees on provisions of the 
     bill that fall within your jurisdiction, should the bill go 
     to a House-Senate conference. Further, as you requested, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report 
     on the bill

[[Page 16386]]

     and in the Congressional Record as part of the floor debate.
       Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Dan Burton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Madam Speaker, the Drug-Free Communities Act is one of the most 
successful demand reduction programs and has had a meaningful impact on 
local communities across the country. I strongly support its 
reauthorization and urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, as the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, it gives me great 
pleasure to express my wholehearted support of H.R. 2291, which 
authorizes the highly successful and highly popular Drug-Free 
Communities Support Program for an additional 5 years.
  From its original enactment in 1997, the Drug-Free Communities Act 
has enjoyed remarkable bipartisan support in Congress. The concept of 
providing direct matching grants and technical assistance to community-
based coalitions with a demonstrated will and capacity to combat 
substance abuse has broad appeal to Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Communities across the country have rallied to the challenge by 
making a long-term commitment to fighting substance abuse through 
broad-based community anti-drug coalitions. The Drug-Free Communities 
Support Program is unique and important because it recognizes that 
substance abuse does not just affect individual users and their loved 
ones. Substance abuse has a cumulative impact on communities in every 
aspect of community life.
  No one has a better reason or incentive to fight the spread of 
substance abuse than the people who live, work, and serve in those 
communities.
  The Drug-Free Communities Support Program reinforces this inherent 
incentive, encouraging all sectors of a community to coalesce at the 
grass roots level around the objective of substance abuse prevention 
and anti-drug education. The bill before us both renews and amplifies 
our commitment to this approach.
  H.R. 2291 reflects a great deal of time and effort put forth by the 
bill's authors, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and Senators Grassley and Biden, who have 
worked hand-in-hand with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the 
Community Antidrug Coalitions of America to produce a bill that, like 
the original Drug-Free Communities Act, deserves the support of all 
Members in this body.
  Their collective efforts have given us a bill that not only provides 
for a 5-year extension of the existing Drug-Free Communities-based 
Grant Program, but also significantly increases the funding levels for 
the program in fiscal year 2002 and in each of the out-years.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) must be congratulated for his 
efforts in making this a priority of our subcommittee; and I do 
appreciate, and I know our entire committee and this Congress 
appreciates, the bipartisan spirit in which he led us through the 
process of bringing this bill.

                              {time}  1430

  As we put it out of committee, moreover, the bill incorporates an 
amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a fellow member 
of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, that further augments the 
authorization levels for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007.
  Increasing the authorization levels will afford us the flexibility to 
allow the program to expand, to meet greater-than-expected demands 
should that circumstance arise. Apart from providing for additional 
grant money, H.R. 2291 also augments the existing grant program in 
three very important ways. First, it authorizes coalitions that have 
completed the 5-year funding cycle to apply immediately for renewal 
grants subject to an increased match requirement. Second, it creates a 
new supplemental mentoring program to enable mature coalitions to 
mentor young and emerging ones. Third, it provides an additional $2 
million to establish a national community anti-drug coalition institute 
for the purpose of stimulating new coalition activity and disseminating 
state-of-the-art research and technical assistance to coalitions 
nationally.
  In my view, Madam Speaker, the goals of providing mentoring support 
to emerging coalitions and stimulating new coalition activity are 
especially important because, in spite of the program's success to 
date, not all communities affected by the problems of substance abuse 
have been able to participate in a drug-free community support program. 
Indeed, even while the increased funding levels in H.R. 2291 will 
enable more eligible coalitions to participate, more money alone will 
not undo the hard truth described in the timeless song, ``God Bless the 
Child.'' ``Them that's got shall have. Them that's not shall lose.''
  Sadly, Madam Speaker, that poignant lyric aptly describes the tragic 
plight of many economically disadvantaged communities that are in the 
most desperate need of assistance in their fight against the dreadful 
menace of substance abuse.
  A case in point is my own district in Baltimore City. Few, if any, 
areas in the Nation have been as severely affected by the scourge of 
drugs as some of the neighborhoods that I represent in Baltimore. Yet 
despite serious efforts to establish and maintain a community anti-drug 
coalition capable of qualifying for a drug-free communities matching 
grant, no funding has yet been awarded to a coalition in the Baltimore 
area.
  At the same time, Madam Speaker, it is plainly ironic and clearly 
problematic from a public policy standpoint that the very devastation 
caused by substance abuse also places communities like Baltimore City 
at serious disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for matching 
grants. I tell my colleagues firsthand that the lack of drug-free 
communities coalition in Baltimore City is by no meanings a function of 
insufficient will. Fundamentally, it is a question of resources.
  We must find a way to enable disadvantaged communities to exercise 
their will to make their neighborhoods and keep their young children 
drug-free. An amendment that I authored during the mark up of H.R. 2291 
in the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources seeks to address this problem. Quite simply, its provisions 
amend the original bill to target base grants, supplemental mentoring 
grants, and institute support to coalitions that seek to serve 
economically disadvantaged areas.
  By giving priorities to such coalitions, economically depressed areas 
such as my own district in Baltimore City can begin to reap the 
benefits that the drug-free community support program is providing 
already to hundreds of communities across this great Nation.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, I wanted to congratulate the bill's 
authors for their hard work. I also thank the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Police and Human Resources, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), for his support of H.R. 2291 and 
for assisting with my amendment.
  I look forward to our moving H.R. 2291 a step closer to enactment 
today. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this very, very 
important and effective legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) whose efforts in Cincinnati were an 
early model for this and who, without his persistence at a time when 
Congress was not adapting too many new programs, managed to move this 
bill through and is really the father of this legislation.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me

[[Page 16387]]

time and for his strong support of this program.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 2291, legislation introduced with 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) to reauthorize the Drug-free 
Communities Act. This legislation is both bipartisan and bicameral. We 
have worked very closely with Senator Grassley and Senator Biden to 
draft this reauthorization. I would like to thank and credit all of 
them for their efforts in bringing this consensus bill to the floor 
today.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) of the 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources for 
their strong personal commitment to reducing substance abuse in their 
communities and around this country. They bring a lot of knowledge and 
passion to this issue, also for their good work to improve this 
legislation as it worked through the process. I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) to not just improve the legislation, but to move it 
expeditiously through the subcommittee and through the committee and 
also to achieve a waiver from another important committee of this 
Congress to get this to the floor today.
  Madam Speaker, almost every American family has felt the pain of 
substance abuse. We are here to talk about a very positive, proactive 
approach to lessening that pain. The Drug-free Communities Act is an 
innovative program first established in 1997. It establishes a matching 
grant program to support and encourage local communities that have 
shown that they have a comprehensive, long-term commitment to reducing 
substance abuse among young people. The grants which have to be matched 
dollar for dollar with non-Federal resources, have now been awarded 
directly to 307 of these community coalitions in 49 States, the 
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
  The drug-fee communities act takes a very different approach than 
this Congress has taken in the past on the so-called war on drugs. 
Instead of trading new Federal bureaucracies, instead of looking for 
solutions outside of our borders, this legislation and program deals 
directly with local coalitions working to reduce the demand for drugs 
in communities through effective education and prevention. And it is 
working.
  Coalitions are successful because they devise prevention strategies 
and methods specific to the communities and because they are inclusive, 
involving all of those who influence a young person's decisions.
  In his Rose Garden speech announcing the new nominee for ONDCP 
director, the President made the point well that the most effective way 
to reduce the supply of drugs to America is to dry up the demand. He 
specifically mentioned the Drug-free Communities Act as an effective 
tool to achieve demand reduction.
  I am pleased to say that these community-based coalitions around the 
country are making real progress. In my own community in Cincinnati, 
the coalition for drug-free Greater Cincinnati has now trained over 
6,000 parents in how to talk to their children about drugs and have 
launched a new program to reach even more parents. We have partnered 
with local TV, radio and print media to implement one of the most 
aggressive anti-drug media campaigns in the country. Last year alone, 
over $1 million of free public-service time was donated to our effort.
  We also fielded the most comprehensive drug use survey ever done in 
our area to make sure our efforts are truly targeted. Our own survey 
shows there is a very strong correlation between the number of ads our 
teens see, these public-service ads, and their choice to remain 
substance free. We have also spearheaded the faith community initiative 
which has trained over 100 local congregations to implement substance 
abuse prevention programs in their churches, mosques and synagogues.
  Our student Congress now involves young people from over 25 junior 
and senior high schools. They are ambassadors who go back to their 
schools and promote Teen Institute and other good programs in the 
schools at the peer level. Our drug-free work-place task force has led 
to over 100 new certified drug-free work places in our area alone.
  These are the types of efforts, Madam Speaker, this legislation can 
help spread throughout our Nation.
  H.R. 2291 continues funding for the Drug-Free Communities Act through 
fiscal year 2007. It also authorizes a new national anti-drug coalition 
institute which provides needed education, training and technical 
assistance to coalitions. The institute will be vital, I believe, in 
developing and disseminating evaluation and testing mechanisms to 
assist coalitions in the very important and sometimes overlooked area 
of measuring and assessing our performance in the area of prevention.
  The ultimate goal of the Drug-free Communities Act is to get as much 
bang for the buck as possible and to send dollars and assistance 
directly into community efforts with a minimal amount being spent on 
administrative expenses. I am thus pleased that the bill continues to 
cap administrative costs at a modest level, although some adjustments 
were made that I think were probably necessary.
  It is important to keep in mind that the Drug-free Communities Act 
was intended to be a catalyst for communities and not a steady stream 
of funding to cover coalition operating expenses. Therefore, coalitions 
must start over and reapply for drug-free community grants after an 
initial 5-year period and must match 125 percent of any new grants, not 
just 100 percent. Thereafter, it goes up to a 150 percent march. This 
in effect will encourage coalitions to grow their programs and become 
less reliant on Federal dollars.
  Madam Speaker, some of our larger, more successful coalitions spend a 
lot of time sharing information and practices with smaller, sometimes-
struggling coalitions. That, and trying to get off the ground by these 
smaller coalitions, is a real struggle.
  I am pleased this bill acknowledges this and builds on it. H.R. 2291 
includes an optional $75,000 supplemental to the drug-free communities 
grant application that would foster mentoring among these coalitions. 
These grants are meant to supercede the basic drug-free communities 
grant program, and only those meeting very strict criteria will be 
eligible to be mentors. By the way, this is capped at 5 percent of the 
total funding.
  The bill also includes language suggested by the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) that will ensure that economically depressed 
areas will continue to be served by the drug-free communities program. 
We talked about that a moment ago. Specifically, that will be helpful 
when it comes to mentoring. I applaud the gentleman for his efforts in 
this area.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to thank once again the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), Senator Grassley and Senator Biden, and of 
course my partner in this, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for 
crafting a bill that will continue to redo the demand for drugs in 
America through what we know works. I urge my colleagues to join us in 
supporting the continuation of this effective approach to substance 
abuse.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I begin by thanking the sponsors of this 
legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for their leadership on this very critical 
issue.
  I am very pleased today to rise in support of this legislation 
because it truly has bipartisan support.
  H.R. 2291, the Drug-free Communities Support Program Reauthorization 
Act, address one of the most serious problems we have in America today, 
the scourge of drug use and drug abuse. Unfortunately, many of our 
efforts in the

[[Page 16388]]

war against drugs have been very disappointing. Fortunately, however, 
this program is a notable expect. It focus on two very important 
elements: first, it focuses on children, early intervention to prevent 
young people from getting involved in drugs, prevent young people from 
developing the drug habit. Second and critically and we have heard talk 
about this today, it focuses on local communities. Not all the 
knowledge resides here in Washington. And it is very important that we 
allow local communities, coalitions to come together to provide 
solutions that make sense in their neighborhoods.
  At the heart of this program are grants to broad-based local 
coalition groups composed of representatives of children, parents, 
businesses, the media, law enforcement, religious and other civic 
groups, health care professionals and others all working together to 
combat drug abuse in their communities.
  In my own district, an organization called the Community Services 
Coalition receives Federal funds which they match to serve these useful 
purposes. According to the project director, the program has identified 
some of the risk factors that lead to drug abuse and drug use. It has 
been a benefit not just to the individuals who are affected but also to 
their families and to the larger community. The grant helps identify 
successful programs and also helps identify gaps in services because 
sometimes our intentions do not meet our efforts. We also need to 
identify areas which require further monitoring.
  Madam Speaker, I think this program is an excellent program. I am 
very pleased to support it on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, this program is rooted in real local 
experience. About 5 years ago the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and 
I were preparing notes. We told each other how successful our efforts 
were in our local communities. In.
  My case, one community in particular, where there had been a 
coalition which had brought together a very diverse group of people 
from law enforcement, from schools, elected officials, from the 
religious community, businessmen, parents and students, we asked 
ourselves in this battle against substance abuse if these were examples 
of success in Cincinnati and in my case in Troy, Michigan, how could we 
spread this success throughout the country. So it was the local 
experience that was the germination of this idea and which led with the 
help of so many others to the 1997 law.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for working with 
us in taking this program farther down the road because now, instead of 
a few coalitions, there are over 300, well over 300, which have been 
supported with seed money, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) 
indicated.
  This is not an effort to give people or coalitions or groups money 
and then they use that money; they have to use their own resources, 
their own talents, their own imagination. This is seed money.
  So now, while 10 years ago there was one coalition in the district I 
represent, now there are seven, plus two umbrella organizations. We 
have learned from this experience, and the gentleman from Indiana and 
the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Ohio have enumerated 
that.
  We have expanded the authorization levels and we have encouraged 
self-sufficiency by making sure if there is a further grant, there is 
additional match. We have also made sure that there is a mentoring 
program here so that successful entities can parent those that are in 
their infancy.
  Madam Speaker, as mentioned, we have added a new idea, a training and 
technical assistance institute. I also want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) or say a word about that because 
it is so important that this effort spread in those communities, often 
so much in need where there is not perhaps the immediate access to 
resources, receive the support that is necessary. So the amendment of 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is an important amendment.
  Let me just close by saying, we all know there is no magic wand to 
this effort against drug abuse. We all know there is no single answer. 
We all know that we have to strive to find the answers. We owe it to 
our children, to our grandchildren, to our friends, to people of all 
ages at all places, in all circumstances. This is an effort to say to 
the country, this Congress is serious.
  We extend a hand. We extend some resources. Ultimately the job is up 
to the community. So far so good; and we hope with the help of this 
program there will be more good efforts in this country to tackle this 
continuing serious problem, drug abuse.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who has been at the 
forefront of this fight.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank the gentleman for his excellent bipartisan work with 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) on this important bill which 
sailed through the Committee on Government Reform, on its merits, for 
good reason.
  Madam Speaker, I am indebted to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for taking a good idea 
and nationalizing it. This bill deals with alcohol abuse, drug abuse, 
tobacco abuse, and researchers know, perhaps it is in the biology of 
young people, to get a person hooked, get them hooked when they are 
young. So it is impossible to overemphasize the importance of reaching 
people early.
  This is an extraordinary bill for the way it leverages almost 
nothing. It essentially goes into communities and says, here is a 
little bit of money, let the community do it. What we are doing here 
with these grants is to say that communities can do far more cheaply 
and devotedly what it takes a lot more professionals to do if we do not 
get in there early.
  I want to mention a grant that we have in the District of Columbia. 
We have only one; it is a $100,000 grant. The grants are very 
competitive. The grant in the District of Columbia is an example of 
what the faith-based community can do. We have an enormously 
controversial faith-based bill here, full of constitutional traps, 
discriminatory patterns.
  But look at what the D.C. Community Prevention Partnership is doing 
with none of that controversy. It increases awareness of faith-based 
institutions and effective prevention principles.
  So take the churches and the faith-based organizations and teach them 
about the principles, and the churches will do the rest. It also links 
community-based youth-serving organizations with neighborhood faith-
based institutions. Again, none of the controversy, but leveraging 
faith-based institutions.
  Madam Speaker, I congratulate Members on their authorship of this 
bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), who sits on the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, 
Drug Policy and Human Resources, and was very instrumental in making 
sure that this legislation was appropriately amended.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
2291, the Drug-Free Communities Support Program reauthorization. I also 
commend the sponsors, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). I also commend the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for 
their cooperation in moving this legislation to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I also acknowledge and thank the recently appointed 
drug

[[Page 16389]]

czar, former Representative Hutchinson, for visiting with me to discuss 
these issues back at home in Illinois.
  I am pleased to support the reauthorization of this vital program 
because it goes a long way towards reducing drug use in our 
communities.
  All of us are aware of the tremendous drug use problems. We are aware 
of the fact that even young people today are beginning to use habit-
forming drugs at an early age. When we talk about getting a bang for 
the buck or getting the most for the dollars that we spend, what we are 
really doing is taking a little bit of money, no more than $100,000, 
but we are empowering large numbers of people to become engaged, to 
become involved, to interact with each other, to discuss issues, to 
find ways to combat a problem.
  Madam Speaker, I suggest this is one of the most effective 
utilizations of small amounts of money that we could ever have. I thank 
the Committee on Government Reform for accepting my amendment. I thank 
the chairman and ranking member for their tremendous leadership in 
moving this legislation.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, not long after we held a hearing on this 
legislation, Judge Michael Kramer of Noble County, Indiana, sent me a 
note. He testified at our hearing. He talked about how he had to step 
out of the role as a judge and do things in the community, to do some 
prevention-type things because he had seen so much pain come before 
him. One of the things that he said in his note was he said, we have 
been doing a pretty good job, and he happens to be from the district of 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), and we want to share what we 
are doing with people in Baltimore and other areas.
  Going back to what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) talked 
about, the whole idea of people working together to address this 
problem, here was a wonderful judge in, I am sure, a rural area of our 
country extending his hand to help us out in the City of Baltimore. The 
fact is that this is what this is all about: trying to give people an 
opportunity to affect their lives, to be empowered in their own 
community and take control of situations.
  Madam Speaker, as I listened to the many witnesses that came before 
us, it was clear that there are so many people that want to do 
something, and they have two problems: One, they need a limited amount 
of resources; two, a lot of times they need somebody to help them, to 
show them how to do what they have to do. This legislation addresses 
both of those issues very effectively.
  As I said in the Committee on Government Reform, and I will say it no 
matter where I go, out of the many things that I have been a part of in 
this Congress, this is one of the most important things. One of the 
things that this legislation does, Madam Speaker, is clearly it saves a 
lot of lives and it saves a lot of pain. So I am very, very pleased to 
urge this House to support this legislation unanimously.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Souder) and the ranking member for all of their support for 
getting this legislation to the floor. I urge that we adopt this 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is a worldwide battle. It is not a battle just in 
the United States. Yesterday five Colombian national police were 
painfully gassed in police headquarters in large part because of a war 
caused in Colombia because of American drug consumption.
  Last week some Members were in Venezuela at the Andean parliament 
session to discuss antinarcotics efforts in the Andean nations where 
most of our cocaine and heroin comes from. As they look at creative 
ways to reduce the amount of poppy and coca that is grown, as they look 
for ways to reduce the consumption in their area, what we do in America 
has a direct impact on South America and Central America.
  Madam Speaker, we went up to Pucalpa and we saw in the Amazonian 
jungle fires coming up throughout this national park as peasants 
stripped the woods along the Amazon basin in order to plant more coca 
for American consumption.
  While Plan Colombia is important and the Andean Initiative is 
important, and law enforcement efforts are important and interdiction 
efforts are important, the fact is, unless we concentrate more 
aggressively on prevention and treatment in America where the demand 
begins, we cannot make any other program work. The demand is beginning 
here, and this bill is the anchor of our Federal prevention efforts in 
America. This is a desperate battle we cannot afford to lose.
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2291, the Reauthorization of the Drug Free Communities Act (DFCA). I 
want to commend my colleague, Representative Portman, for introducing 
this important legislation.
  This program is a major component of our national demand reduction 
strategy. Over the last five years, through its program of distributing 
grants to community organizations, the DFCA has demonstrated itself to 
be a resounding success.
  This success is due in part to the nature of the grant recipients, 
various anti-drug coalitions. These coalitions are community groups 
containing representatives of youth, parents, private industry, media 
and press, law enforcement, health care professionals and religious and 
civic leaders working together to provide a cohesive, effective anti-
drug message and strategy.
  H.R. 2219 reauthorizes the (DFCA) for an additional five years, and 
increases its overall funding levels by $10 million each year. Prior 
awardees would be able to apply for new grants, in addition to being 
eligible for ``mentoring grants'' in order to assist new coalitions 
with their initial start-up efforts.
  Madam Speaker, the threat posed by illegal drugs is one of the 
largest national security threats facing our nation.
  In addition to costs associated with supply and demand reduction, 
drug use costs our nation billions each year in health care expenses 
and lost productivity. Moreover, it also has intangible costs in terms 
of broken families and destroyed lives.
  Our children are on the front lines as victims of the drug war. They 
are the primary target of both the drug producers and the sellers. The 
(DFCA) has a proven track record of success in reducing demand for 
drugs among our younger population. Given that today's adolescents are 
potentially the addicts of tomorrow, I wholeheartedly support extending 
and expanding a Federal program that has demonstrated past success in 
our war on drugs.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to give this bipartisan bill their 
wholehearted support.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, substance abuse is one of our Nation's most 
pervasive problems. It is a disease that does not discriminate on the 
basis of age, gender, socioeconomic status, race or creed. And while we 
tend to stereotype drug abuse as an urban problem, the steadily growing 
number of heroin and methamphetamine addicts in rural villages and 
suburban towns shows that is simply not the case.
  We have nearly 15 million drug users in this country, 4 million of 
whom are hard-core addicts. We all know someone--a family member, 
neighbor, colleague or friend--who has become addicted to drugs or 
alcohol although we may be unaware. And we are all affected by the 
undeniable correlation between substance abuse and crime--an 
overwhelming 80 percent of the 2 million men and women behind bars 
today have a history of drug and alcohol abuse or addiction or were 
arrested for a drug-related crime.
  All of this comes at a hefty price. Drug abuse and addiction cost 
this Nation $110 billion in law enforcement and other criminal justice 
expenses, medical bills, lost earnings and other costs each year. 
Illegal drugs are responsible for thousands of deaths each year and for 
the spread of a number of communicable diseases, including AIDS and 
Hepatitis C. And a study by the National Center on Addiction and 
Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA) shows that 7 out of 10 
cases of child abuse and neglect are caused or exacerbated by substance 
abuse and addiction.
  Another CASA study recently revealed that for each dollar that States 
spend on substance-abuse related programs, 96 cents goes to dealing 
with the consequences of substance abuse and only 4 cents to preventing 
and treating it. Investing more in prevention

[[Page 16390]]

and treatment is cost-effective because it will decrease much of the 
street crime, child abuse, domestic violence, and other social ills 
that can result from substance abuse.
  If we can get kids through age 21 without smoking, abusing alcohol, 
or using drugs, they are unlikely to have a substance abuse problem in 
the future. But there are still those who shrug their shoulders and say 
``kids are kids--they are going to experiment.'' Others find the 
thought of keeping kids drug-free too daunting a task, and they give up 
too soon.
  But the truth is that we are learning more and more about drug 
prevention as researchers isolate the so-called ``risk'' and 
``protective'' factors for drug use. In other words, we now know that 
if a child has low self-esteem or emotional problems; has a substance 
abuser for a parent; is a victim of child abuse; or is exposed to pro-
drug media messages, that child is at a higher risk of smoking, 
drinking and using illegal drugs. But the good news is that we are also 
learning what decreases a child's risk of substance abuse.
  The Drug Free Communities program allows coalitions to put prevention 
research into action in cities and towns nationwide by funding 
initiatives tailored to a community's individual needs. It currently 
funds more than 300 community coalitions across the country that work 
to reduce drug, alcohol, and tobacco use.
  And they are making a difference, which is just one of the reasons 
that I am proud to support this important bill reauthorizing the 
program.
  Drug abuse plagues the entire community. We all feel the 
consequences--crime, homelessness, domestic violence, child abuse, 
despair--and we all need to do something about it. Prevention messages 
must come from all sectors of the community, from a number of different 
voices. Coalitions bring those groups together, give them information 
they need, help develop programs that work, and nurture them to 
success.
  I believe that the Drug Free Communities program is a powerful 
prevention initiative and I urge my colleagues to support its 
reauthorization.
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2291, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________