[House Report 108-167]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
From the House Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
108th Congress Rept. 108-167
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session Part 2
======================================================================
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2003
_______
July 14, 2003.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2086]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2086) to reauthorize the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 1
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 12
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 13
Hearings......................................................... 14
Committee Consideration.......................................... 14
Vote of the Committee............................................ 14
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 20
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 20
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 20
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 23
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 24
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 24
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 27
Markup Transcript................................................ 56
Minority Views................................................... 187
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Office of National
Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003''.
(b) Amendment of Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 1998.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference
shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998
(Public Law 105-277; 21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; references; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Amendments to definitions.
Sec. 3. Amendments relating to appointment and duties of Director and
Deputy Directors.
Sec. 4. Amendments relating to coordination with other agencies.
Sec. 5. Development, submission, implementation, and assessment of
National Drug Control Strategy.
Sec. 6. High intensity drug trafficking areas program.
Sec. 7. Funding for certain high intensity drug trafficking areas.
Sec. 8. Amendments relating to Counter-Drug Technology Assessment
Center.
Sec. 9. Repeals.
Sec. 10. National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign.
Sec. 11. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 12. Extension of termination date.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS.
(a) Amendments to Definitions.--Section 702 (21 U.S.C. 1701) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph
(F);
(B) by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (G) and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) interventions for drug abuse and dependence;
and
``(I) international drug control coordination and
cooperation with respect to activities described in
this paragraph.''.
(2) in paragraph (9), by striking ``implicates'' and
inserting ``indicates'';
(3) in paragraph (10)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph
(B);
(B) by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) domestic drug law enforcement, including law
enforcement directed at drug users.''; and
(4) in paragraph (11)--
(A) by inserting before the semicolon in
subparagraph (A) the following: ``(including source
country programs, and law enforcement outside the
United States)'';
(B) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon in
subparagraph (B);
(C) by striking ``; and'' at the end of
subparagraph (C) and inserting a period; and
(D) by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 703(b)(3) (21 U.S.C.
1702(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(G)'' and inserting
``(H)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking ``(C)'' and inserting ``(D)''; and
(B) by striking ``and subparagraph (D) of section
702(11)''.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO APPOINTMENT AND DUTIES OF DIRECTOR AND
DEPUTY DIRECTORS.
(a) Designation of Other Officers.--Section 704(a)(3) (21 U.S.C.
1703(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``permanent employee'' and inserting
``officer or employee''; and
(2) by striking ``serve as the Director'' and inserting
``serve as the acting Director''.
(b) Responsibilities of Director.--Section 704(b) (21 U.S.C.
1703(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``Federal departments and
agencies engaged in drug enforcement,'' and inserting
``National Drug Control Program agencies,'';
(2) by inserting ``and'' at the end of paragraph (12);
(3) by striking paragraphs (13) and (14); and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (15) as paragraph (13).
(c) Review and Certification of National Drug Control Program
Budget.--Section 704(c)(3) (21 U.S.C. 1703(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Specific requests.--The Director shall not
confirm the adequacy of any budget request that--
``(i) requests funding for Federal law
enforcement activities that do not adequately
compensate for transfers of drug enforcement
resources and personnel to law enforcement and
investigation activities not related to drug
enforcement as determined by the Director;
``(ii) requests funding for law enforcement
activities on the borders of the United States
that do not adequately direct resources to drug
interdiction and enforcement as determined by
the Director;
``(iii) requests funding for drug treatment
activities that do not provide adequate result
and accountability measures as determined by
the Director;
``(iv) requests funding for any activities
of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program that
do not include a clear antidrug message or
purpose intended to reduce drug use;
``(v) requests funding to enforce section
484(r)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1091(r)(1)) with respect to
convictions for drug-related offenses not
occurring during a period of enrollment for
which the student was receiving any Federal
grant, loan, or work assistance;
``(vi) requests funding for drug treatment
activities that do not adequately support and
enhance Federal drug treatment programs and
capacity, as determined by the Director; or
``(vii) requests funding for fiscal year
2005 for activities of the Department of
Education, unless it is accompanied by a report
setting forth a plan for providing expedited
consideration of student loan applications for
all individuals who submitted an application
for any Federal grant, loan, or work assistance
that was rejected or denied pursuant to section
484(r)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1091 (r)(1)) by reason of a
conviction for a drug-related offense not
occurring during a period of enrollment for
which the individual was receiving any Federal
grant, loan, or work assistance.'';
(3) in subparagraph (D)(iii), as so redesignated, by
inserting ``and the authorizing committees of Congress for the
Office'' after ``House of Representatives''; and
(4) in subparagraph (E)(ii)(II)(bb), as so redesignated, by
inserting ``and the authorizing committees of Congress for the
Office'' after ``House of Representatives''.
(d) Reprogramming and Transfer Requests.--Section 704(c)(4)(A) (21
U.S.C. 1703(c)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
inserting ``$1,000,000''.
(e) Powers of Director.--Section 704(d) (21 U.S.C. 1703(d)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (8)(D), by striking ``have been authorized
by Congress;'' and inserting ``authorized by law;'';
(2) in paragraph (9)--
(A) by inserting ``notwithstanding any other
provision of law,'' after ``(9)''; and
(B) by striking ``Strategy; and'' and inserting
``Strategy and notify the authorizing Committees of
Congress for the Office of any fund control notice
issued;'';
(3) in paragraph (10), by striking ``(22 U.S.C. 2291j).''
and inserting ``(22 U.S.C. 2291j) and section 706 of the
Department of State Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (22
U.S.C. 229j-l);'';
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(11) not later than August 1 of each year, submit to the
President a report, and transmit copies of the report to the
Secretary of State and the authorizing committees of Congress
for the Office, that--
``(A) provides the Director's assessment of which
countries are major drug transit countries or major
illicit drug producing countries as defined in section
481(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
``(B) provides the Director's assessment of whether
each country identified under subparagraph (A) has
cooperated fully with the United States or has taken
adequate steps on its own to achieve full compliance
with the goals and objectives established by the United
Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and otherwise has
assisted in reducing the supply of illicit drugs to the
United States; and
``(C) provides the Director's assessment of whether
application of procedures set forth in section 490(a)
through (h) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
provided in section 706 of the Department of State
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, is warranted
with respect to countries the Director assesses have
not cooperated fully; and
``(12) appoint a United States Interdiction Coordinator
under subsection (i).''.
(f) United States Interdiction Coordinator.--Section 704 (21 U.S.C.
1703) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) United States Interdiction Coordinator.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be in the Office a United
States Interdiction Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the
Director and shall perform duties determined by the Director
with respect to coordination of efforts to interdict illicit
drugs from the United States.
``(2) Appointment.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law (except subparagraph (B)), the
Director may appoint any individual to serve as the
United States Interdiction Coordinator.
``(B) Limitation.--The Director may not appoint to
such position any individual who concurrently serves as
the head of any other Federal department or agency or
any subdivision thereof with responsibility for
narcotics interdiction activities, except the
counternarcotics officer of the Department of Homeland
Security appointed under section 878 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 458).''.
(g) Requirement for South American Heroin Strategy.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug
Control Policy shall submit to the Congress a comprehensive
strategy that addresses the increased threat from South
American heroin, and in particular Colombian heroin.
(2) Contents.--The strategy shall include--
(A) opium eradication efforts to eliminate the
problem at the source to prevent it from reoccurring
before the heroin enters the stream of commerce;
(B) interdiction and precursor chemical controls;
(C) demand reduction and treatment;
(D) provisions that ensure the maintenance at
current levels of efforts to eradicate coca in
Colombia; and
(E) assessment of the level of additional funding
and resources necessary to simultaneously address the
threat from South American heroin and the threat from
Columbian coca.
SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES.
Section 705 (21 U.S.C. 1704) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``abuse'';
(2) by amending paragraph (3) of subsection (a) to read as
follows:
``(3) Required reports.--
``(A) Secretaries of the interior and
agriculture.--The Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior shall, by July 1 of each year, jointly submit
to the Director and the authorizing committees of
Congress for the Office an assessment of the quantity
of illegal drug cultivation and manufacturing in the
United States on lands owned or under the jurisdiction
of the Federal Government for the preceding year.
``(B) Attorney general.--The Attorney General
shall, by July 1 of each year, submit to the Director
and the authorizing committees of Congress for the
Office information for the preceding year regarding the
number and type of--
``(i) arrests for drug violations;
``(ii) prosecutions for drug violations by
United States Attorneys; and
``(iii) 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 and the authorizing
committees of Congress for the Office information for
the preceding year regarding--
``(i) the number and type of seizures of
drugs by each component of the Department 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 primarily dedicated to drug supply
reduction missions undertaken by each component
of the Department.
``(D) Secretary of defense.--The Secretary of
Defense shall, by July 1 of each year, submit to the
Director and the authorizing committees of Congress for
the Office information for the preceding year regarding
the number of air and maritime patrol hours primarily
dedicated to drug supply reduction missions undertaken
by each component of the Department of Defense.''; and
(3) in subsection (b)(2)(B), by striking ``Program.'' and
inserting ``Strategy.''.
SEC. 5. DEVELOPMENT, SUBMISSION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ASSESSMENT OF
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY.
Section 706 (21 U.S.C. 1705) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 706. DEVELOPMENT, SUBMISSION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ASSESSMENT OF
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY.
``(a) Timing, Contents, and Process for Development and Submission
of National Drug Control Strategy.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than February 1 of each year,
the President shall submit to Congress a National Drug Control
Strategy, which shall set forth a comprehensive plan for
reducing illicit drug use and the consequences of illicit drug
use in the United States by reducing the demand for illegal
drugs, limiting the availability of illegal drugs, and
conducting law enforcement activities with respect to illegal
drugs.
``(2) Contents.--
``(A) In general.--The National Drug Control
Strategy submitted under paragraph (1) shall include--
``(i) comprehensive, research-based, long-
range, and quantifiable goals for reducing
illicit drug use and the consequences of
illicit drug use in the United States;
``(ii) annual objectives and strategy for
demand reduction, supply reduction, and law
enforcement activities, specific targets to
accomplish long-range quantifiable reduction in
illicit drug use as determined by the Director,
and specific measurements to evaluate progress
toward the targets and strategic goals;
``(iii) a strategy to reduce the
availability and purity of illegal drugs and
the level of drug-related crime in the United
States;
``(iv) an assessment of Federal
effectiveness in achieving the National Drug
Control Strategy for the previous year,
including--
``(I) a specific evaluation of
whether the objectives and targets for
reducing illicit drug use for the
previous year were met and reasons for
the success or failure of the previous
year's Strategy; and
``(II) an assessment of the
availability and purity of illegal
drugs and the level of drug-related
crime in the United States;
``(v) notification of any program or budget
priorities that the Director expects to
significantly change from the current Strategy
over the next five years;
``(vi) a review of international, State,
local, and private sector drug control
activities to ensure that the United States
pursues well-coordinated and effective drug
control at all levels of government;
``(vii) such statistical data and
information as the Director deems appropriate
to demonstrate and assess trends relating to
illicit drug use, the effects and consequences
thereof, supply reduction, demand reduction,
drug-related law enforcement, and the
implementation of the National Drug Control
Strategy; and
``(viii) a supplement reviewing the
activities of each individual National Drug
Control Program agency during the previous year
with respect to the National Drug Control
Strategy and the Director's assessment of the
progress of each National Drug Control Program
agency in meeting its responsibilities under
the National Drug Control Strategy.
``(B) Classified information.--Any contents of the
National Drug Control Strategy that involve information
properly classified under criteria established by an
Executive order shall be presented to Congress
separately from the rest of the National Drug Control
Strategy.
``(C) Selection of data and information.--In
selecting data and information for inclusion under
subparagraph (A), the Director shall ensure--
``(i) the inclusion of data and information
that will permit analysis of current trends
against previously compiled data and
information where the Director believes such
analysis enhances long-term assessment of the
National Drug Control Strategy; and
``(ii) the inclusion of data and
information to permit a standardized and
uniform assessment of the effectiveness of drug
treatment programs in the United States.
``(3) Process for development and submission.--
``(A) Consultation.--In developing and effectively
implementing the National Drug Control Strategy, the
Director--
``(i) shall consult with--
``(I) the heads of the National
Drug Control Program agencies;
``(II) Congress;
``(III) State and local officials;
``(IV) private citizens and
organizations with experience and
expertise in demand reduction;
``(V) private citizens and
organizations with experience and
expertise in supply reduction;
``(VI) private citizens and
organizations with experience and
expertise in law enforcement; and
``(VII) appropriate representatives
of foreign governments;
``(ii) with the concurrence of the Attorney
General, may require the El Paso Intelligence
Center to undertake specific tasks or projects
to implement the National Drug Control
Strategy;
``(iii) with the concurrence of the
Director of Central Intelligence and the
Attorney General, may request that the National
Drug Intelligence Center undertake specific
tasks or projects to implement the National
Drug Control Strategy; and
``(iv) may make recommendations to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services on
research that supports or advances the National
Drug Control Strategy.
``(B) Recommendations.--Recommendations under
subparagraph (A)(iv) may include recommendations of
research to be performed at the National Institutes of
Health, including the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
or any other appropriate agency within the Department
of Health and Human Services.
``(C) Inclusion in strategy.--The National Drug
Control Strategy under this subsection shall include a
list of each entity consulted under subparagraph
(A)(i).
``(4) Submission of revised strategy.--The President may
submit to Congress a revised National Drug Control Strategy
that meets the requirements of this section--
``(A) at any time, upon a determination by the
President, in consultation with the Director, that the
National Drug Control Strategy in effect is not
sufficiently effective; or
``(B) if a new President or Director takes office.
``(b) Performance Measurement System.--Not later than February 1 of
each year, the Director shall submit to Congress a description of the
national drug control performance measurement system, designed in
consultation with affected National Drug Control Program agencies, that
includes performance measures for the National Drug Control Strategy
and activities of National Drug Control Program agencies related to the
National Drug Control Strategy.''.
SEC. 6. HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 707 (21 U.S.C. 1706) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 707. HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Office a program
to be known as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program (in
this section referred to as the `Program').
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Program are the following:
``(1) To reduce drug availability and facilitate
cooperative efforts between Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies in areas with significant drug trafficking
problems that harmfully impact other parts of the Nation.
``(2) To provide assistance to agencies to come together to
assess regional threats, design coordinated strategies to
combat those threats, share intelligence, and develop and
implement coordinated initiatives to implement the strategies.
``(c) Designation.--The Director, upon consultation with the
Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, heads of the National Drug Control Program agencies,
and the Governor of each applicable State, may designate any specified
area of the United States as a high intensity drug trafficking area.
``(d) Factors for Consideration.--
``(1) In general.--In considering whether to designate an
area under this section as a high intensity drug trafficking
area, the Director shall consider, in addition to such other
criteria as the Director considers to be appropriate, the
extent to which--
``(A) the area is a major center of illegal drug
production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution
for the United States as compared to other areas of the
United States;
``(B) State and local law enforcement agencies have
committed resources to respond to the drug trafficking
problem in the area, thereby indicating a determination
to respond aggressively to the problem;
``(C) drug-related production, manufacturing,
importation, or distribution in the area is having a
significant harmful impact in other areas of the United
States; and
``(D) a significant increase in allocation of
Federal resources is necessary to respond adequately to
drug-related activities in the area.
``(2) Considerations.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), in
considering whether an area is a major center of illegal drug
production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution as
compared to other areas of the United States, the Director
shall consider--
``(A) the quantity of illicit drug traffic entering
or transiting the area originating in foreign
countries;
``(B) the quantity of illicit drugs produced in the
area;
``(C) the number of Federal, State, and local
arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for drug
trafficking and distribution offenses in the area;
``(D) the degree to which the area is a center for
the activities of national drug trafficking
organizations; and
``(E) such other criteria as the Director considers
appropriate.
``(e) Southwest Border.--The Director may not designate any county
contiguous to the international land border with Mexico as part of any
high intensity drug trafficking area other than as part of a single
Southwest Border high intensity drug trafficking area.
``(f) Removal From Designation.--The Director may remove an area or
portion of an area from designation as a high intensity drug
trafficking area under this section upon determination that the area or
portion of an area no longer is a high intensity drug trafficking area,
considering the factors in subsections (d) and (e) in addition to such
other criteria as the Director considers to be appropriate.
``(g) Authority of the Director.--After making such a designation
and in order to provide Federal assistance to the area so designated,
the Director may--
``(1) obligate such sums as appropriated for the Program;
``(2) direct the temporary reassignment of Federal
personnel to such area, subject to the approval of the head of
the department or agency that employs such personnel; and
``(3) take any other action authorized under section 704 to
provide increased Federal assistance to those areas.
``(h) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Limitation.--No funds appropriated for the Program
shall be expended for drug prevention or drug treatment
programs.
``(2) Limitation on applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not
apply with respect to the Baltimore/Washington high intensity
drug trafficking area.
``(i) Terrorism Activities.--
``(1) Assistance authorized.--The Director may authorize
use of resources available for the Program to assist Federal,
State, and local law enforcement agencies in investigations and
activities related to terrorism and prevention of terrorism,
especially but not exclusively where such investigations are
related to drug trafficking.
``(2) Limitation.--The Director shall ensure--
``(A) that assistance provided under paragraph (1)
remains incidental to the purpose of the Program to
reduce drug availability and carry out drug-related law
enforcement activities; and
``(B) that significant resources of the Program are
not redirected to activities exclusively related to
terrorism.
``(j) Board Representation.--None of the funds appropriated under
this section may be expended for any high intensity drug trafficking
area, or for a partnership under the Program, if the executive board or
equivalent governing committee with respect to such area or partnership
is not comprised of equal voting representation between representatives
of Federal law enforcement agencies and representatives of State and
local law enforcement agencies.
``(k) 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.
``(l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to carry out
this section--
``(1) $230,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(2) $240,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006;
and
``(3) $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 and
2008.''.
(b) Review of Current Areas.--Within one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of National Drug Control Policy
shall--
(1) review each of the areas currently designated as a high
intensity drug trafficking area to determine whether it
continues to warrant designation as a high intensity drug
trafficking area, considering the factors in section 707(d) of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act
of 1998, as amended by this section, in addition to such other
criteria as the Director considers to be appropriate; and
(2) terminate such description for an area or portion of an
area determined to no longer warrant designation.
SEC. 7. FUNDING FOR CERTAIN HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Dawson Family
Community Protection Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) In the early morning hours of October 16, 2002, the
home of Carnell and Angela Dawson was firebombed in apparent
retaliation for Mrs. Dawson's notification of police about
persistent drug distribution activity in their East Baltimore
City neighborhood.
(2) The arson claimed the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Dawson and
their 5 young children, aged 9 to 14.
(3) The horrific murder of the Dawson family is a stark
example of domestic narco-terrorism.
(4) In all phases of counter-narcotics law enforcement--
from prevention to investigation to prosecution to reentry--the
voluntary cooperation of ordinary citizens is a critical
component.
(5) Voluntary cooperation is difficult for law enforcement
officials to obtain when citizens feel that cooperation carries
the risk of violent retaliation by illegal drug trafficking
organizations and their affiliates.
(6) Public confidence that law enforcement is doing all it
can to make communities safe is a prerequisite for voluntary
cooperation among people who may be subject to intimidation or
reprisal (or both).
(7) Witness protection programs are insufficient on their
own to provide security because many individuals and families
who strive every day to make distressed neighborhoods livable
for their children, other relatives, and neighbors will resist
or refuse offers of relocation by local, State, and Federal
prosecutorial agencies and because, moreover, the continued
presence of strong individuals and families is critical to
preserving and strengthening the social fabric in such
communities.
(8) Where (as in certain sections of Baltimore City)
interstate trafficking of illegal drugs has severe ancillary
local consequences within areas designated as high intensity
drug trafficking areas, it is important that supplementary High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program funds be committed to
support initiatives aimed at making the affected communities
safe for the residents of those communities and encouraging
their cooperation with local, State, and Federal law
enforcement efforts to combat illegal drug trafficking.
(c) Funding for Certain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas.--
Section 707 (21 U.S.C. 1706) is further amended in subsection (h) by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Specific purposes.--
``(A) In general.--The Director shall ensure that,
of the amounts appropriated for a fiscal year for the
Program, at least $1,000,000 is used in high intensity
drug trafficking areas with severe neighborhood safety
and illegal drug distribution problems.
``(B) Required uses.--The funds used under
subparagraph (A) shall be used--
``(i) to ensure the safety of neighborhoods
and the protection of communities, including
the prevention of the intimidation of potential
witnesses of illegal drug distribution and
related activities; and
``(ii) to combat illegal drug trafficking
through such methods as the Director considers
appropriate, such as establishing or operating
(or both) a toll-free telephone hotline for use
by the public to provide information about
illegal drug-related activities.''.
SEC. 8. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COUNTER-DRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
CENTER.
(a) Chief Scientist.--Section 708(b) (21 U.S.C. 1707(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the heading by striking ``Director of Technology.--
'' and inserting ``Chief Scientist.--''; and
(2) by striking ``Director of Technology,'' and inserting
``Chief Scientist,''.
(b) Additional Responsibilities of Director.--Section 708(c) (21
U.S.C. 1707(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Additional Responsibilities of the Director of National Drug
Control Policy.--
``(1) In general.--The Director, acting through the Chief
Scientist, shall--
``(A) identify and define the short-, medium-, and
long-term scientific and technological needs of
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
relating to drug enforcement, including--
``(i) advanced surveillance, tracking, and
radar imaging;
``(ii) electronic support measures;
``(iii) communications;
``(iv) data fusion, advanced computer
systems, and artificial intelligence; and
``(v) chemical, biological, radiological
(including neutron, electron, and graviton),
and other means of detection;
``(B) identify demand reduction (including drug
prevention) basic and applied research needs and
initiatives, in consultation with affected National
Drug Control Program agencies, including--
``(i) improving treatment through
neuroscientific advances;
``(ii) improving the transfer of biomedical
research to the clinical setting; and
``(iii) in consultation with the National
Institute on Drug Abuse and the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, and
through interagency agreements or grants,
examining addiction and rehabilitation research
and the application of technology to expanding
the effectiveness or availability of drug
treatment;
``(C) make a priority ranking of such needs
identified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) according to
fiscal and technological feasibility, as part of a
National Counter-Drug Enforcement Research and
Development Program;
``(D) oversee and coordinate counter-drug
technology initiatives with related activities of other
Federal civilian and military departments;
``(E) oversee and coordinate a technology transfer
program for the transfer of technology to State and
local law enforcement agencies; and
``(F) pursuant to the authority of the Director of
National Drug Control Policy under section 704, submit
requests to Congress for the reprogramming or transfer
of funds appropriated for counter-drug technology
research and development.
``(2) Priorities in transferring technology.--In
transferring technology under the authority of paragraph
(1)(E), the Chief Scientist shall give priority, in
transferring technologies most likely to assist in drug
interdiction and border enforcement, to State, local, and
tribal law enforcement agencies in southwest border areas and
northern border areas with significant traffic in illicit
drugs.
``(3) Limitation on authority.--The authority granted to
the Director under this subsection shall not extend to the
award of contracts, management of individual projects, or other
operational activities.''.
(c) Assistance from Secretary of Homeland Security.--Section 708(d)
(21 U.S.C. 1707(d)) is amended by inserting ``, the Secretary of
Homeland Security,'' after ``The Secretary of Defense''.
SEC. 9. REPEALS.
The following provisions are repealed:
(1) Sections 709 and 711 (21 U.S.C. 1708 and 1710).
(2) Section 6073 of the Asset Forfeiture Amendments Act of
1988 (21 U.S.C. 1509).
SEC. 10. NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN.
(a) In General.--The Act is further amended by inserting after
section 708 (21 U.S.C. 1707) the following:
``SEC. 709. NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall conduct a national media
campaign in accordance with this section for the purpose of reducing
and preventing illicit drug use among young people in the United
States, through mass media advertising.
``(b) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Amounts made available to carry out this
section for the media campaign may only be used for the
following:
``(A) The purchase of media time and space.
``(B) Creative and talent costs.
``(C) Advertising production costs.
``(D) Testing and evaluation of advertising.
``(E) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the media
campaign.
``(F) The negotiated fees for the winning bidder on
requests for proposals issued either by the Office or
its designee for purposes otherwise authorized in this
section.
``(G) Partnerships with community, civic, and
professional groups and government organizations
related to the media campaign.
``(H) Entertainment industry outreach, interactive
outreach, media projects and activities, public
information, news media outreach, and corporate
sponsorship and participation.
``(I) Operational and management expenses.
``(2) Specific requirements.--
``(A) Creative services.--
``(i) In using amounts for creative and
talent costs under paragraph (1)(B), the
Director shall use creative services donated at
no cost to the Government wherever feasible and
may only procure creative services for
advertising--
``(I) responding to high-priority
or emergent media campaign needs that
cannot timely be obtained at no cost;
or
``(II) intended to reach a
minority, ethnic, or other special
audience that cannot reasonably be
obtained at no cost.
``(ii) No more than $1,000,000 may be
expended under this section each fiscal year on
creative services, except that the Director may
expend up to $2,000,000 in a fiscal year on
creative services to meet urgent needs of the
media campaign with advance approval from the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate upon a
showing of the circumstances causing such
urgent needs of the media campaign.
``(B) Testing and evaluation of advertising.--In
using amounts for testing and evaluation of advertising
under paragraph (1)(D), the Director shall test all
advertisements prior to use in the media campaign to
ensure that the advertisements are effective and meet
industry-accepted standards. The Director may waive
this requirement for advertisements using no more than
10 percent of the purchase of advertising time
purchased under this section in 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 media campaign.
``(C) Evaluation of effectiveness of media
campaign.--In using amounts for the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the media campaign under paragraph
(1)(E), the Director shall--
``(i) designate an independent entity to
evaluate annually the effectiveness of the
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
media campaign is evaluated in a manner that
enables consideration of whether the media
campaign has contributed to reduction of
illicit drug use among youth and such other
measures of evaluation as the Director
determines are appropriate.
``(3) Purchase of advertising time and space.--For each
fiscal year, not less than 77 percent of the amounts
appropriated under this section shall be used for the purchase
of advertising time and space for the media campaign, subject
to the following exceptions:
``(A) In any fiscal year for which less than
$125,000,000 is appropriated for the media campaign,
not less than 82 percent of the amounts appropriated
under this section shall be used for the purchase of
advertising time and space for the media campaign.
``(B) In any fiscal year for which more than
$195,000,000 is appropriated under this section, not
less than 72 percent shall be used for advertising
production costs and the purchase of advertising time
and space for the media campaign.
``(c) Advertising.--In carrying out this section, the Director
shall devote sufficient funds to the advertising portion of the media
campaign to meet the goals of the media campaign.
``(d) Prohibitions.--None of the amounts made available under
subsection (b) may be obligated or expended for any of the following:
``(1) To supplant current antidrug community-based
coalitions.
``(2) To supplant pro bono public service time donated by
national and local broadcasting networks for other public
service campaigns.
``(3) For partisan political purposes, or express advocacy
in support of or to defeat any clearly identified candidate,
clearly identified ballot initiative, or clearly identified
legislative or regulatory proposal.
``(4) To fund advertising that features any elected
officials, persons seeking elected office, cabinet level
officials, or other Federal officials employed pursuant to
section 213 of Schedule C of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations.
``(5) To fund advertising that does not contain a primary
message intended to reduce or prevent illicit drug use.
``(6) To fund advertising containing a primary message
intended to promote support for the media campaign or private
sector contributions to the media campaign.
``(e) Matching Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--Amounts made available under subsection
(b) shall be matched by an equal amount of non-Federal funds
for the media campaign, or be matched with in-kind
contributions of the same value.
``(2) No-cost match advertising direct relationship
requirement.--The Director shall ensure that at least 70
percent of no-cost match advertising provided directly relates
to substance abuse prevention consistent with the specific
purposes of the media campaign, except that in any fiscal year
in which less than $125,000,000 is appropriated to the media
campaign, the Director shall ensure that at least 85 percent of
no-cost match advertising directly relates to substance abuse
prevention consistent with the specific purposes of the media
campaign.
``(3) No-cost match advertising not directly related.--The
Director shall ensure that no-cost match advertising that does
not directly relate to substance abuse prevention includes a
clear antidrug message. Such message is not required to be the
primary message of the match advertising.
``(f) Financial and Performance Accountability.--The Director shall
cause to be performed--
``(1) audits and reviews of costs of the media campaign
pursuant to section 304C of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 254d); and
``(2) an audit of the cost of the media campaign described
in section 306 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 256).
``(g) Strategic Guidance and Donations.--The Partnership for a Drug
Free America shall serve as the primary outside strategic advisor to
the media campaign and be responsible for coordinating donations of
creative and other services to the campaign, except with respect to
advertising created using funds permitted in subsection (b). The
Director shall inform the Partnership for a Drug Free America of the
strategic goals of the campaign and consider advice from the
Partnership for a Drug Free America on media campaign strategy.
``(h) Report to Congress.--The Director shall submit on an annual
basis a report to Congress that describes--
``(1) the strategy of the media campaign and whether
specific objectives of the media campaign were accomplished;
``(2) steps taken to ensure that the media campaign
operates in an effective and efficient manner consistent with
the overall strategy and focus of the media campaign;
``(3) plans to purchase advertising time and space;
``(4) policies and practices implemented to ensure that
Federal funds are used responsibly to purchase advertising time
and space and eliminate the potential for waste, fraud, and
abuse; and
``(5) all contracts entered into with a corporation,
partnership, or individual working on behalf of the media
campaign.
``(i) Local Target Requirement.--The Director shall, to the maximum
extent feasible, use amounts made available under this section for
media that focuses on, or includes specific information on, prevention
or treatment resources for consumers within specific local areas.
``(j) Prevention of Marijuana Use.--
``(1) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
``(A) 60 percent of adolescent admissions for drug
treatment are based on marijuana use.
``(B) Potency levels of contemporary marijuana,
particularly hydroponically grown marijuana, are
significantly higher than in the past, rising from
under 1 percent of THC in the mid-1970s to as high as
30 percent today.
``(C) Contemporary research has demonstrated that
youths smoking marijuana early in life may be up to
five times more likely to use hard drugs.
``(D) Contemporary research has demonstrated clear
detrimental effects in adolescent educational
achievement resulting from marijuana use.
``(E) Contemporary research has demonstrated clear
detrimental effects in adolescent brain development
resulting from marijuana use.
``(F) An estimated 9,000,000 Americans per year
drive while under the influence of illegal drugs,
including marijuana.
``(G) Marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent
more of certain cancer causing chemicals than tobacco
smoke.
``(H) Teens who use marijuana are up to four times
more likely to have a teen pregnancy than teens who
have not.
``(I) Federal law enforcement agencies have
identified clear links suggesting that trade in
hydroponic marijuana facilitates trade by criminal
organizations in hard drugs, including heroin.
``(J) Federal law enforcement agencies have
identified possible links between trade in marijuana
and financing for terrorist organizations.
``(2) Emphasis on prevention of youth marijuana use.--In
conducting advertising and activities otherwise authorized
under this section, the Director may emphasize prevention of
youth marijuana use.
``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Office to carry out this section, $195,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and $210,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2008.''.
(b) Repeal of Superseded Provisions.--The Drug-Free Media Campaign
Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is repealed.
SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 714 (21 U.S.C. 1711) is amended--
(1) by striking ``title,'' and inserting ``title, except
activities for which amounts are otherwise specifically
authorized by this title,''; and
(2) by striking ``1999 through 2003'' and inserting ``2004
through 2008''.
SEC. 12. EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATE.
Section 715(a) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2003, this
title and the amendments made by this title are repealed'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2008, this title is repealed''.
Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 2086, the ``Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003'' is to reauthorize
the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) within the
Executive Office of the President for 5 years, through the end
of FY 2008. It also renews congressional authorization for
national programs administered by ONDCP, including the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. The current authorization
for ONDCP expires on September 30, 2003. The office was
originally created in 1988 and is the President's principal
adviser with respect to drug control policy development and
program oversight. ONDCP's current statutory mission is to
guide the Nation's efforts to both reduce the use,
manufacturing, and trafficking of illicit drugs, and to reduce
the associated crime, violence, and health consequences of
illegal drug use.
H.R. 2086 was referred to the Committee on Government
Reform on May 14, 2003. The Committee reported H.R. 2086 with
an amendment on June 19, 2003 (H.Rept. No. 108-167, Part I).
The Committee on the Judiciary received an extension on its
secondary referral to July 14, 2003.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Since its inception, the ONDCP has been the cornerstone of
Federal drug policy in America, improving the lives of all
Americans by reducing the impact of drugs and the consequences
of their abuse in our society and communities. Congress
established the office through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988
and the current statutory authorization will expire this
September. The Director advises the President on national and
international drug control policies and strategies, formulates
the National Drug Control Strategy, reviews and certifies the
budgets of National Drug Control Program Agencies, and works to
ensure the effective coordination of drug programs by the
National Drug Control Program agencies.
The Director reviews the annual budget requests for each
Federal department and agency charged with implementing a
Federal drug control program and is empowered to require
funding levels and initiatives the Director believes are
sufficient for those goals. Additionally, the National Drug
Control Strategy is submitted to Congress annually to
coordinate the Nation's anti-drug efforts and establish
programs, budgets, and guidelines for cooperation among
Federal, state, and local entities. The document contains a
number of mandated statistics and assessments related to drug
policy and serves as a strategic review of Federal programs by
evaluating their coordination and effectiveness.
ONDCP also administers approximately $500 million in
programs, including: the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
(HIDTA) program, which provides assistance for state and local
law enforcement to work with Federal agencies to stop drug
traffic in critical areas of the country impacting national
drug traffic, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign that
supports the airing of anti-drug television and print ads, the
Drug-Free Communities grant program, and the Counter Drug
Technology Assessment Center (CTAC).
To carry out these responsibilities at a senior level, in
addition to the Director, ONDCP also authorizes a Deputy
Director of National Drug Control Policy and Deputy Directors
for Demand Reduction, Supply Reduction, and State and Local
Affairs, all of whom are appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate. ONDCP has a total staff of
approximately 110 employees and an overall budget of
approximately $523 million.
Hearings
No hearings were held on H.R. 2086 in the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Committee Consideration
On July 9, 2003, the Committee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2086 with an amendment
by voice vote, a quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the committee sets forth the
following rollcall votes that occurred during the markup of
H.R. 2086.
1. An amendment was offered by Mr. Coble to strike the
allocation of funding language in section 6 of the bill
relating to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA)
Program. The amendment was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 13
to 9.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Smith....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Jenkins..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon......................................................
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Hostettler.................................................. X
Mr. Green....................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Ms. Hart........................................................ X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Carter......................................................
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................
Mr. Conyers.....................................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman..................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 13 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to strike
language in the bill that states that no HIDTA Program funds
may be used for drug prevention or drug treatment programs. The
amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 11 to 17.
ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Smith....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Jenkins..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon......................................................
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Hostettler.................................................. X
Mr. Green....................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Ms. Hart........................................................ X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Carter...................................................... X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mrs. Blackburn.................................................. X
Mr. Conyers..................................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman..................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson Lee as modified
by an amendment by Mr. Watt to require the Director of ONDCP to
reject any budget request that fails to provide adequate
funding for the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block
Grant program and the Targeted Capacity Expansion grant
program. The amendment as modified was defeated by a rollcall
vote of 11 to 17.
ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Smith....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Jenkins..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Hostettler.................................................. X
Mr. Green....................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Ms. Hart........................................................ X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Carter...................................................... X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mrs. Blackburn.................................................. X
Mr. Conyers..................................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman..................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to require the
Director of ONDCP to reject any budget request that requests
funding to enforce any Federal law in a state or local area
that is contrary to the public policy of that state or local
government relating to the use of marijuana for medical
purposes. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 11
to 17.
ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Smith....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Jenkins..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Hostettler.................................................. X
Mr. Green....................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Ms. Hart........................................................ X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Carter...................................................... X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mrs. Blackburn.................................................. X
Mr. Conyers..................................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman..................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to require the
Director of ONDCP to reject any budget request that fails to
provide funding for adequate research on the relative efficacy
of strategies to reduce drug use. The amendment was defeated by
a rollcall vote of 12 to 18.
ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Smith....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Jenkins..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Bachus...................................................... X
Mr. Hostettler.................................................. X
Mr. Green....................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Ms. Hart........................................................ X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Carter...................................................... X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mrs. Blackburn.................................................. X
Mr. Conyers..................................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman..................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 12 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to insert
language in the bill that the Director of ONDCP is not required
to take action to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of
marijuana for medical purposes. The amendment was defeated by a
rollcall vote of 12 to 16.
ROLLCALL NO. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Smith....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Jenkins..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Bachus...................................................... X
Mr. Hostettler.................................................. X
Mr. Green....................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Ms. Hart........................................................
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Carter...................................................... X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mrs. Blackburn.................................................. X
Mr. Conyers..................................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman..................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 12 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson Lee to require
that an annual report that the Attorney General must compile
regarding the number of arrests for drug violations and the
number of prosecutions for drug violations by United States
Attorneys be broken down according to the race, ethnicity,
gender, and age of individuals arrested and prosecuted. The
amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 12 to 17.
ROLLCALL NO. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Smith....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Jenkins..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Bachus...................................................... X
Mr. Hostettler.................................................. X
Mr. Green....................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Ms. Hart........................................................ X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Carter...................................................... X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mrs. Blackburn.................................................. X
Mr. Conyers..................................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman..................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 12 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. An amendment was offered by Ms. Waters to strike the
bill. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 10 to 18
and 1 voting present.
ROLLCALL NO. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Smith....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Jenkins..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Bachus...................................................... X
Mr. Hostettler.................................................. X
Mr. Green....................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Ms. Hart........................................................ X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Carter...................................................... X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mrs. Blackburn.................................................. X
Mr. Conyers..................................................... X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman..................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 10 18 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 2086, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 14, 2003.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed estimate for H.R. 2086, the ``Office of
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003.''
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 2086--Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act
of 2003.
SUMMARY
H.R. 2086 would reauthorize the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP) and programs administered by that office
through 2008. Most major programs administered by that office
are authorized through 2003 and include the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas program, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign, and the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center.
In total, CBO estimates that the bill would authorize the
appropriation of $573 million in 2004. CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 2086 would cost $2.5 billion over the 2004-
2008 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
By reauthorizing ONDCP's authority to accept and spend
gifts, enacting H.R. 2086 could affect direct spending and
revenues, but CBO estimates that any such impact would be
negligible.
H.R. 2086 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal
governments.
ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2086 is shown in the
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within
budget functions 750 (administration of justice) and 800
(general government).
BASIS OF ESTIMATE
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be
enacted near the end of fiscal year 2003, that the necessary
amounts will be provided each year, and that spending will
follow historical patterns for the ONDCP and its programs.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
The bill would authorize the appropriation of $230 million
in fiscal year 2004, $240 million annually over the 2005-2006
period, and $250 million annually over the 2007-2008 period for
the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program. In addition,
H.R. 2086 would authorize the appropriation of $195 million for
each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and $210 million annually
over the 2006-2008 period for the National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign program. CBO estimates that implementing those
programs over the 2004-2008 period would cost $1.8 billion.
In addition, H.R. 2086 would authorize the appropriation of
such sums as necessary to operate other Federal drug control
programs, ONDCP, and the Counterdrug Technology Assessment
Center through fiscal year 2008. The current authorization for
ONDCP expires at the end of fiscal year 2003.
Because the bill does not specify funding levels, CBO
estimated the cost of continuing to operate other Federal drug
control programs, ONDCP, and the Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center by adjusting 2003 funding for anticipated
inflation. On that basis, we estimate that implementing those
programs over the 2004-2008 period would cost $690 million.
Revenues and Direct Spending
H.R. 2086 would reauthorize ONDCP to accept donations of
real and personal property. Gifts are classified in the budget
as revenues, and spending of such sums would constitute direct
spending. According to ONDCP, it has not received any gifts in
recent years and does not expect to receive any under this
authority. Hence, CBO estimates that additional revenues and
direct spending under H.R. 2086 would be negligible.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT
H.R. 2086 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on State,
local, or tribal governments.
PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATE
On June 16, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
2086 as ordered reported by the House Committee on Government
Reform on June 5, 2003. The two versions of the bill are
similar, and the cost estimates are identical.
ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:
Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford and Mark Grabowicz (226-2860)
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah Puro
(225-3220)
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226-2940)
ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:
Peter H. Fontaine
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis
Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals and objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions
of the report.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the ``Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003.''
Section 2. Amendments to definitions
The bill modifies definitions in current law of the terms
``demand reduction,'' ``State and local affairs,'' and ``supply
reduction'' as they relate to the Office of National Drug
Control Policy.
Section 3. Amendments relating to appointment and duties of Director
and Deputy Directors
In addition to making technical and conforming changes, the
bill specifically reserves the discretion of the Director to
determine the adequacy of agency budgets under the statutory
criteria. A new subparagraph (C) is added to the certification
mechanism (21 U.S.C. 1703(c)(3)) that allows the Director to:
1) prohibit certification of the adequacy of funding for
Federal law enforcement activities that do not adequately
compensate for transfers of drug enforcement resources and
personnel to law enforcement and investigation; 2) prohibit
budget certification of drug treatment activities that do not
provide adequate result and accountability measures as
determined by the Director; 3) require that activities of the
Safe and Drug Free Schools program include a clear anti-drug
message or purpose intended to reduce drug use as a fixed
prerequisite to budget certification; and 4) prohibit
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. This
last section is intended to deal with a misinterpretation of
that statute which has improperly deprived loans from students
whose drug convictions predated their enrollment in school.
Section 4. Amendments relating to coordination with other agencies
Section 4 restates and expands requirements of existing law
relative to reporting on matters related to drug control of
individual cabinet departments. The additions made by the bill
to existing law primarily relate to statistics that will allow
better evaluation of resource allocation for drug control
activities within individual agencies.
Section 5. Development, submission, implementation, and assessment of
national drug control strategy
The bill significantly revises and streamlines the process
for development and issuance of the National Drug Control
Strategy and modifies previous law to include clearer and more
specific performance and outcome goals and objectives. Previous
law required the President to submit a massive 5-year drug
control strategy adhering to pages of detailed and quickly
outdated requirements and mandated statistical reporting. The
bill significantly simplifies and increases the responsiveness
of the process by requiring the submission of annual Strategies
that maintain the principles of previous law but give the
Director much greater flexibility to effectively adjust to
emerging needs and conditions. The bill also includes more
detailed and specific overall performance measurements, most
notably requiring an assessment of Federal effectiveness in
accomplishing the previous year's strategy that includes a
specific evaluation of whether the targets for reducing drug
use were met. Finally, the bill includes a new requirement that
the Strategy include data and information to permit a
standardized and uniform assessment of the effectiveness of
drug treatment programs in the United States.
Section 6. High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program
Section 6 reauthorizes the High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas (HIDTA) program whose purpose is to facilitate Federal,
State, and local law enforcement anti-drug cooperation in areas
with significant narcotics trafficking problems that harm other
parts of the nation. The HIDTA program, ONDCP's principal law
enforcement assistance initiative, was first authorized in 1988
by the legislation creating ONDCP, and reauthorized in 1994 and
1998. Under the Program, the Director may designate a specific
geographic area within the United States as a high intensity
drug trafficking area. Each HIDTA is then eligible to receive
Federal assistance and funding for joint Federal, State, and
local law enforcement initiatives targeted at drug trafficking
activity.
New section 707(c) provides that the Director shall retain
authority to designate individual HIDTAs. The bill adds the
Secretary of Homeland Security to the list of officials that
the Director should consult with before making such a
designation, to reflect the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security containing some of the Federal Government's
principal drug interdiction agencies. The bill also creates one
single Southwest Border HIDTA as opposed to the current five
HIDTAs.
An amendment that was adopted by the Committee deleted a
provision of this section that took away the discretion of the
Director for the funding of the different HIDTAs by imposing
specific percentages of appropriated funds to a set number of
areas. On May 22, 2003, John Walters, the Director of ONDCP,
testified before the Committee on Government Reform about this
provision and described it as ``problematic.'' Mr. Walters
stated that ``by imposing specific percentages of appropriated
funds to a set number of areas, the provision limits the
Director's discretion to manage the Program using performance
information along with threat intensity.'' Mr. Walters further
testified that in order to ``maximize the Program's
effectiveness, the Director needs the authority to integrate
performance and budget throughout the Program and have the
flexibility to respond to the changing nature of the domestic
drug threat.'' The Committee agrees with the position of the
Director.
This section also states that no funds may be used for drug
prevention or treatment programs, however, there is an
exception for the Baltimore/Washington HIDTA. Finally, the bill
authorizes $230 million for FY04, $240 million for FY05 and
FY06, and $250 million for FY07 and FY08 for ONDCP to carry out
the HIDTA program.
Section 7. Funding for certain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
This section incorporates the ``Dawson Family Community
Protection Act'' (H.R. 1599), which was introduced in response
to the violent death of members of the Dawson Family at the
hands of drug traffickers in Baltimore, Maryland. This section
provides that at least $1,000,000 of the amounts appropriated
for the HIDTA program shall be used in HIDTAs with severe
neighborhood safety and illegal drug distribution problems.
These funds are to be used in the manner provided for in new
section 707(h)(6)(B) by protecting potential witnesses and
facilitating citizens' communication with law enforcement
authorities concerning illegal drug trafficking in their
neighborhoods.
Section 8. Amendments relating to counter-drug technology assessment
center
This section changes the current designation of the head of
the Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC) from
``Director of Technology'' to ``Chief Scientist,'' which
reflects customary usage in the field. The remainder of Section
8 primarily restates existing law, with the inclusion of a new
requirement that the Chief Scientist give priority in
distributing law enforcement assistance developed under the
program most likely to assist in drug interdiction and border
enforcement to southwest border areas and northern border areas
with significant traffic in illegal drugs.
Section 9. Repeals
Section 9 repeals three sections of current law: (1) 21
U.S.C. 1708 which provided for a senior-level President's
Council on Counter-Narcotics within the Executive Branch--the
body was never formally constituted and did not meet; (2) 21
U.S.C. 1710, which provided certain reporting requirements with
respect to drug interdiction--pertinent requirements of this
nature have been moved to the sections relating to the National
Drug Control Strategy and coordination with other agencies; and
(3) 21 U.S.C. 1509, which created the ``Special Forfeiture
Fund,''--has been repealed as that mechanism is no longer used
to appropriate funds for ONDCP programs.
Section 10. National youth anti-drug media campaign
This section authorizes the National Youth Anti Drug Media
Campaign (Media Campaign) through a 5-year reauthorization,
subject to several reforms intended to address ongoing issues.
The bill clarifies that the primary purpose of the Media
Campaign is ``reducing and preventing illicit drug use among
young people in the United States, through mass media
advertising.'' This section requires evaluation of the
effectiveness of the Campaign as a whole based on data from
several accepted studies that track the level of youth drug
abuse. The bill retains prohibitions contained in existing law
and tightens them in many respects to clarify that campaign
advertising may not be used for express advocacy in support of
or to defeat any clearly identified candidate, clearly
identified ballot initiative, or clearly identified legislative
or regulatory proposal. The bill requires an annual report to
Congress on the Media Campaign, the requirements of which are
clearly stated. Finally, the Media Campaign is authorized to
expend $195 million for each of Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 and
$210 million for each of Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008.
Section 11. Authorization of appropriations
The authorization for appropriation of such sums as are
necessary does not apply to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas Program and the National Youth Anti Drug Media Campaign,
each of which is provided with a specific authorization ceiling
in the relevant section.
Section 12. Extension of termination date
Section 12 extends the authorization for appropriations for
ONDCP through Fiscal Year 2008.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1998
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION
* * * * * * *
SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Demand reduction.--The term ``demand
reduction'' means any activity conducted by a National
Drug Control Program agency, other than an enforcement
activity, that is intended to reduce the use of drugs,
including--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(F) drug-free workplace programs; [and]
(G) drug testing[.];
(H) interventions for drug abuse and
dependence; and
(I) international drug control coordination
and cooperation with respect to activities
described in this paragraph.
* * * * * * *
(9) Office.--Unless the context clearly
[implicates] indicates otherwise, the term ``Office''
means the Office of National Drug Control Policy
established under section 703(a).
(10) State and local affairs.--The term ``State and
local affairs'' means domestic activities conducted by
a National Drug Control Program agency that are
intended to reduce the availability and use of drugs,
including--
(A) * * *
(B) promotion of coordination and
cooperation among the drug supply reduction and
demand reduction agencies of the various
States, territories, and units of local
government; [and]
(C) such other cooperative governmental
activities which promote a comprehensive
approach to drug control at the national,
State, territory, and local levels[.]; and
(D) domestic drug law enforcement,
including law enforcement directed at drug
users.
(11) Supply reduction.--The term ``supply
reduction'' means any activity of a program conducted
by a National Drug Control Program agency that is
intended to reduce the availability or use of drugs in
the United States and abroad, including--
(A) international drug control (including
source country programs, and law enforcement
outside the United States);
(B) foreign and domestic drug intelligence;
and
(C) interdiction[; and].
[(D) domestic drug law enforcement,
including law enforcement directed at drug
users.]
SEC. 703. OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY.
(a) * * *
(b) Director and Deputy Directors.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Other deputy directors.--There shall be in the
Office--
(A) a Deputy Director for Demand Reduction,
who shall be responsible for the activities
described in subparagraphs (A) through [(G)]
(H) of section 702(1);
* * * * * * *
(C) a Deputy Director for State and Local
Affairs, who shall be responsible for the
activities described in subparagraphs (A)
through [(C)] (D) of section 702(10) [and
subparagraph (D) of section 702(11)].
* * * * * * *
SEC. 704. APPOINTMENT AND DUTIES OF DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTORS.
(a) Appointment.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Designation of other officers.--In the absence
of the Deputy Director, or if the Office of the Deputy
Director is vacant, the Director shall designate such
other [permanent employee] officer or employee of the
Office to serve as the acting Director, if the Director
is absent or unable to serve.
* * * * * * *
(b) Responsibilities.--The Director--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) shall make such recommendations to the
President as the Director determines are appropriate
regarding changes in the organization, management, and
budgets of [Federal departments and agencies engaged in
drug enforcement,] National Drug Control Program
agencies, and changes in the allocation of personnel to
and within those departments and agencies, to implement
the policies, goals, priorities, and objectives
established under paragraph (1) and the National Drug
Control Strategy;
* * * * * * *
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds
appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control
Policy shall be expended for any study or contract
relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any
other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of
section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any
attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any
form) that--
(A) * * *
(B) has not been approved for use for
medical purposes by the Food and Drug
Administration; and
[(13) shall require each National Drug Control
Program agency to submit to the Director on an annual
basis (beginning in 1999) an evaluation of progress by
the agency with respect to drug control program goals
using the performance measures for the agency developed
under section 706(c), including progress with respect
to--
[(A) success in reducing domestic and
foreign sources of illegal drugs;
[(B) success in protecting the borders of
the United States (and in particular the
Southwestern border of the United States) from
penetration by illegal narcotics;
[(C) success in reducing violent crime
associated with drug use in the United States;
[(D) success in reducing the negative
health and social consequences of drug use in
the United States; and
[(E) implementation of drug treatment and
prevention programs in the United States and
improvements in the adequacy and effectiveness
of such programs;
[(14) shall submit to the Appropriations committees
and the authorizing committees of jurisdiction of the
House of Representatives and the Senate on an annual
basis, not later than 60 days after the date of the
last day of the applicable period, a summary of--
[(A) each of the evaluations received by
the Director under paragraph (13); and
[(B) the progress of each National Drug
Control Program agency toward the drug control
program goals of the agency using the
performance measures for the agency developed
under section 706(c); and]
[(15)] (13) shall ensure that drug prevention and
drug treatment research and information is effectively
disseminated by National Drug Control Program agencies
to State and local governments and nongovernmental
entities involved in demand reduction by--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) National Drug Control Program Budget.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Review and certification of budget requests and
budget submissions of national drug control program
agencies.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Specific requests.--The Director shall
not confirm the adequacy of any budget request
that--
(i) requests funding for Federal
law enforcement activities that do not
adequately compensate for transfers of
drug enforcement resources and
personnel to law enforcement and
investigation activities not related to
drug enforcement as determined by the
Director;
(ii) requests funding for law
enforcement activities on the borders
of the United States that do not
adequately direct resources to drug
interdiction and enforcement as
determined by the Director;
(iii) requests funding for drug
treatment activities that do not
provide adequate result and
accountability measures as determined
by the Director;
(iv) requests funding for any
activities of the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Program that do not include a
clear antidrug message or purpose
intended to reduce drug use;
(v) requests funding to enforce
section 484(r)(1) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1091(r)(1)) with respect to convictions
for drug-related offenses not occurring
during a period of enrollment for which
the student was receiving any Federal
grant, loan, or work assistance;
(vi) requests funding for drug
treatment activities that do not
adequately support and enhance Federal
drug treatment programs and capacity,
as determined by the Director; or
(vii) requests funding for fiscal
year 2005 for activities of the
Department of Education, unless it is
accompanied by a report setting forth a
plan for providing expedited
consideration of student loan
applications for all individuals who
submitted an application for any
Federal grant, loan, or work assistance
that was rejected or denied pursuant to
section 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.
[(C)] (D) Agency response.--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(iii) Congressional notification.--
The head of a National Drug Control
Program agency shall submit a copy of
any impact statement under clause (ii)
to the Senate and the House of
Representatives and the authorizing
committees of Congress for the Office
at the time the budget for that agency
is submitted to Congress under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code.
[(D)] (E) Certification of budget
submissions.--
(i) * * *
(ii) Certification.--The Director--
(I) * * *
(II) based on the review
under subclause (I), if the
Director concludes that the
budget submission of a National
Drug Control Program agency
does not include the funding
levels and initiatives
described under subparagraph
(B)--
(aa) * * *
(bb) in the case of
a decertification
issued under item (aa),
shall submit to the
Senate and the House of
Representatives and the
authorizing committees
of Congress for the
Office a copy of--
(aaa) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Reprogramming and transfer requests.--
(A) In general.--No National Drug Control
Program agency shall submit to Congress a
reprogramming or transfer request with respect
to any amount of appropriated funds in an
amount exceeding [$5,000,000] $1,000,000 that
is included in the National Drug Control
Program budget unless the request has been
approved by the Director.
* * * * * * *
(d) Powers of the Director.--In carrying out subsection
(b), the Director may--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(8) transfer funds made available to a National
Drug Control Program agency for National Drug Control
Strategy programs and activities to another account
within such agency or to another National Drug Control
Program agency for National Drug Control Strategy
programs and activities, except that--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) funds transferred to an agency under
this paragraph may only be used to increase the
funding for programs or activities [have been
authorized by Congress;] authorized by law; and
* * * * * * *
(9) notwithstanding any other provision of law,
issue to the head of a National Drug Control Program
agency a fund control notice described in subsection
(f) to ensure compliance with the National Drug Control
Program [Strategy; and] Strategy and notify the
authorizing Committees of Congress for the Office of
any fund control notice issued;
(10) participate in the drug certification process
pursuant to section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 [(22 U.S.C. 2291j).] (22 U.S.C. 2291j) and
section 706 of the Department of State Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (22 U.S.C. 229j-l);
(11) not later than August 1 of each year, submit
to the President a report, and transmit copies of the
report to the Secretary of State and the authorizing
committees of Congress for the Office, that--
(A) provides the Director's assessment of
which countries are major drug transit
countries or major illicit drug producing
countries as defined in section 481(e) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
(B) provides the Director's assessment of
whether each country identified under
subparagraph (A) has cooperated fully with the
United States or has taken adequate steps on
its own to achieve full compliance with the
goals and objectives established by the United
Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and
otherwise has assisted in reducing the supply
of illicit drugs to the United States; and
(C) provides the Director's assessment of
whether application of procedures set forth in
section 490(a) through (h) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as provided in section
706 of the Department of State Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003, is warranted with
respect to countries the Director assesses have
not cooperated fully; and
(12) appoint a United States Interdiction
Coordinator under subsection (i).
* * * * * * *
(i) United States Interdiction Coordinator.--
(1) In general.--There shall be in the Office a
United States Interdiction Coordinator, who shall be
appointed by the Director and shall perform duties
determined by the Director with respect to coordination
of efforts to interdict illicit drugs from the United
States.
(2) Appointment.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law (except subparagraph (B)), the
Director may appoint any individual to serve as
the United States Interdiction Coordinator.
(B) Limitation.--The Director may not
appoint to such position any individual who
concurrently serves as the head of any other
Federal department or agency or any subdivision
thereof with responsibility for narcotics
interdiction activities, except the
counternarcotics officer of the Department of
Homeland Security appointed under section 878
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
458).
SEC. 705. COORDINATION WITH NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAM AGENCIES IN
DEMAND REDUCTION, SUPPLY REDUCTION, AND STATE AND
LOCAL AFFAIRS.
(a) Access to Information.--
(1) In general.--Upon the request of the Director,
the head of any National Drug Control Program agency
shall cooperate with and provide to the Director any
statistics, studies, reports, and other information
prepared or collected by the agency concerning the
responsibilities of the agency under the National Drug
Control Strategy that relate to--
(A) drug [abuse] control; or
* * * * * * *
[(3) Illegal drug cultivation.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall annually submit to the Director an
assessment of the acreage of illegal drug cultivation
in the United States.]
(3) Required reports.--
(A) Secretaries of the interior and
agriculture.--The Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior shall, by July 1 of each year,
jointly submit to the Director and the
authorizing Committees of Congress for the
Office an assessment of the quantity of illegal
drug cultivation and manufacturing in the
United States on lands owned or under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Government for the
preceding year.
(B) Attorney general.--The Attorney General
shall, by July 1 of each year, submit to the
Director and the authorizing committees of
Congress for the Office information for the
preceding year regarding the number and type
of--
(i) arrests for drug violations;
(ii) prosecutions for drug
violations by United States Attorneys;
and
(iii) 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 and the
authorizing committees of Congress for the
Office information for the preceding year
regarding--
(i) the number and type of seizures
of drugs by each component of the
Department 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 primarily dedicated to
drug supply reduction missions
undertaken by each component of the
Department.
(D) Secretary of defense.--The Secretary of
Defense shall, by July 1 of each year, submit
to the Director and the authorizing committees
of Congress for the Office information for the
preceding year regarding the number of air and
maritime patrol hours primarily dedicated to
drug supply reduction missions undertaken by
each component of the Department of Defense.
* * * * * * *
[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) Timing.--Not later than February 1, 1999, the
President shall submit to Congress a National Drug
Control Strategy, which shall set forth a comprehensive
plan, covering a period of not more than 5 years, for
reducing drug abuse and the consequences of drug abuse
in the United States, by limiting the availability of
and reducing the demand for illegal drugs.
[(2) Contents.--
[(A) In general.--The National Drug Control
Strategy submitted under paragraph (1) shall
include--
[(i) comprehensive, research-based,
long-range, quantifiable, goals for
reducing drug abuse and the
consequences of drug abuse in the
United States;
[(ii) annual, quantifiable, and
measurable objectives and specific
targets to accomplish long-term
quantifiable goals that the Director
determines may be achieved during each
year of the period beginning on the
date on which the National Drug Control
Strategy is submitted;
[(iii) 5-year projections for
program and budget priorities; and
[(iv) a review of international,
State, local, and private sector drug
control activities to ensure that the
United States pursues well-coordinated
and effective drug control at all
levels of government.
[(B) Classified information.--Any contents
of the National Drug Control Strategy that
involves 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.
[(3) Process for development and submission.--
[(A) Consultation.--In developing and
effectively implementing the National Drug
Control Strategy, the Director--
[(i) shall consult with--
[(I) the heads of the
National Drug Control Program
agencies;
[(II) Congress;
[(III) State and local
officials;
[(IV) private citizens and
organizations with experience
and expertise in demand
reduction;
[(V) private citizens and
organizations with experience
and expertise in supply
reduction; and
[(VI) 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; and
[(iii) with the concurrence of the
Director of Central Intelligence and
the Attorney General, may request that
the National Drug Intelligence Center
undertake specific tasks or projects to
implement the National Drug Control
Strategy.
[(B) Inclusion in strategy.--The National
Drug Control Strategy under this subsection,
and each report submitted under subsection (b),
shall include a list of each entity consulted
under subparagraph (A)(i).
[(4) Specific targets.--The targets in the National
Drug Control Strategy shall include the following:
[(A) Reduction of unlawful drug use to 3
percent of the population of the United States
or less by December 31, 2003 (as measured in
terms of overall illicit drug use during the
past 30 days by the National Household Survey),
and achievement of at least 20 percent of such
reduction during each of 1999, 2000, 2001,
2002, and 2003.
[(B) Reduction of adolescent unlawful drug
use (as measured in terms of illicit drug use
during the past 30 days by the Monitoring the
Future Survey of the University of Michigan or
the National PRIDE Survey conducted by the
National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug
Education) to 3 percent of the adolescent
population of the United States or less by
December 31, 2003, and achievement of at least
20 percent of such reduction during each of
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003st.
[(C) Reduction of the availability of
cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine
in the United States by 80 percent by December
31, 2003.
[(D) Reduction of the respective nationwide
average street purity levels for cocaine,
heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine (as
estimated by the interagency drug flows
assessment led by the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, and based on statistics
collected by the Drug Enforcement
Administration and other National Drug Control
Program agencies identified as relevant by the
Director) by 60 percent by December 31, 2003,
and achievement of at least 20 percent of each
such reduction during each of 1999, 2000, 2001,
2002, and 2003.
[(E) Reduction of drug-related crime in the
United States by 50 percent by December 31,
2003, and achievement of at least 20 percent of
such reduction during each of 1999, 2000, 2001,
2002, and 2003, including--
[(i) reduction of State and Federal
unlawful drug trafficking and
distribution;
[(ii) reduction of State and
Federal crimes committed by persons
under the influence of unlawful drugs;
[(iii) reduction of State and
Federal crimes committed for the
purpose of obtaining unlawful drugs or
obtaining property that is intended to
be used for the purchase of unlawful
drugs; and
[(iv) reduction of drug-related
emergency room incidents in the United
States (as measured by data of the Drug
Abuse Warning Network on illicit drug
abuse), including incidents involving
gunshot wounds and automobile accidents
in which illicit drugs are identified
in the bloodstream of the victim, by 50
percent by December 31, 2003.
[(5) Further reductions in drug use, availability,
and crime.--Following the submission of a National Drug
Control Strategy under this section to achieve the
specific targets described in paragraph (4), the
Director may formulate a strategy for additional
reductions in drug use and availability and drug-
related crime beyond the 5-year period covered by the
National Drug Control Strategy that has been submitted.
[(b) Annual Strategy Report.--
[(1) In general.--Not later than February 1, 1999,
and on February 1 of each year thereafter, the
President shall submit to Congress a report on the
progress in implementing the Strategy under subsection
(a), which shall include--
[(A) an assessment of the Federal
effectiveness in achieving the National Drug
Control Strategy goals and objectives using the
performance measurement system described in
subsection (c), including--
[(i) an assessment of drug use and
availability in the United States; and
[(ii) an estimate of the
effectiveness of interdiction,
treatment, prevention, law enforcement,
and international programs under the
National Drug Control Strategy in
effect during the preceding year, or in
effect as of the date on which the
report is submitted;
[(B) any modifications of the National Drug
Control Strategy or the performance measurement
system described in subsection (c);
[(C) an assessment of the manner in which
the budget proposal submitted under section
704(c) is intended to implement the National
Drug Control Strategy and whether the funding
levels contained in such proposal are
sufficient to implement such Strategy;
[(D) measurable data evaluating the success
or failure in achieving the annual measurable
objectives described in subsection
(a)(2)(A)(ii);
[(E) an assessment of current drug use
(including inhalants) and availability, impact
of 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--
[(I) casual and chronic
drug use;
[(II) high-risk
populations, including school
dropouts, the homeless and
transient, arrestees, parolees,
probationers, and juvenile
delinquents; and
[(III) drug use in the
workplace and the productivity
lost by such use;
[(ii) an assessment of the
reduction of drug availability against
an ascertained baseline, as measured
by--
[(I) the quantities of
cocaine, heroin, marijuana,
methamphetamine, and other
drugs available for consumption
in the United States;
[(II) the amount of
marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and
precursor chemicals entering
the United States;
[(III) 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;
[(V) the number of cocaine
and methamphetamine processing
laboratories destroyed
domestically and in other
countries;
[(VI) changes in the price
and purity of heroin and
cocaine, changes in the price
of methamphetamine, and changes
in tetrahydrocannabinol level
of marijuana;
[(VII) the amount and type
of controlled substances
diverted from legitimate retail
and wholesale sources; and
[(VIII) the effectiveness
of Federal technology programs
at improving drug detection
capabilities in interdiction,
and at United States ports of
entry;
[(iii) an assessment of the
reduction of the consequences of drug
use and availability, which shall
include estimation of--
[(I) the burden drug users
placed on hospital emergency
departments in the United
States, such as the quantity of
drug-related services provided;
[(II) the annual national
health care costs of drug use,
including costs associated with
people becoming infected with
the human immunodeficiency
virus and other infectious
diseases as a result of drug
use;
[(III) the extent of drug-
related crime and criminal
activity; and
[(IV) the contribution of
drugs to the underground
economy, as measured by the
retail value of drugs sold in
the United States;
[(iv) a determination of the status
of drug treatment in the United States,
by assessing--
[(I) public and private
treatment capacity within each
State, including information on
the treatment capacity
available in relation to the
capacity actually used;
[(II) the extent, within
each State, to which treatment
is available;
[(III) the number of drug
users the Director estimates
could benefit from treatment;
and
[(IV) the specific factors
that restrict the availability
of treatment services to those
seeking it and proposed
administrative or legislative
remedies to make treatment
available to those individuals;
and
[(v) a review of the research
agenda of the Counter-Drug Technology
Assessment Center to reduce the
availability and abuse of drugs; and
[(F) an assessment of private sector
initiatives and cooperative efforts between the
Federal Government and State and local
governments for drug control.
[(2) 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; and
[(B) if a new President or Director takes
office.
[(3) 1999 strategy report.--With respect to the
Strategy report required to be submitted by this
subsection on February 1, 1999, the President shall
prepare the report using such information as is
available for the period covered by the report.
[(c) Performance Measurement System.--
[(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of
Congress that--
[(A) the targets described in subsection
(a) are important to the reduction of overall
drug use in the United States;
[(B) the President should seek to achieve
those targets during the 5 years covered by the
National Drug Control Strategy required to be
submitted under subsection (a);
[(C) the purpose of such targets and the
annual reports to Congress on the progress
towards achieving the targets is to allow for
the annual restructuring of appropriations by
the Appropriations Committees and authorizing
committees of jurisdiction of Congress to meet
the goals described in this Act;
[(D) the performance measurement system
developed by the Director described in this
subsection is central to the National Drug
Control Program targets, programs, and budget;
and
[(E) the Congress strongly endorses the
performance measurement system for establishing
clear outcomes for reducing drug use nationwide
during the next five years, and the linkage of
this system to all agency drug control programs
and budgets receiving funds scored as drug
control agency funding.
[(2) Submission to congress.--Not later than
February 1, 1999, the Director shall submit to Congress
a description of the national drug control performance
measurement system, designed in consultation with
affected National Drug Control Program agencies, that--
[(A) develops performance objectives,
measures, and targets for each National Drug
Control Strategy goal and objective;
[(B) revises performance objectives,
measures, and targets, to conform with National
Drug Control Program Agency budgets;
[(C) identifies major programs and
activities of the National Drug Control Program
agencies that support the goals and objectives
of the National Drug Control Strategy;
[(D) evaluates in detail the implementation
by each National Drug Control Program agency of
program activities supporting the National Drug
Control Strategy;
[(E) monitors consistency between the drug-
related goals and objectives of the National
Drug Control Program agencies and ensures that
drug control agency goals and budgets support
and are fully consistent with the National Drug
Control Strategy; and
[(F) 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--
[(i) the quality of current drug
use measurement instruments and
techniques to measure supply reduction
and demand reduction activities;
[(ii) the adequacy of the coverage
of existing national drug use
measurement instruments and techniques
to measure the casual drug user
population and groups that are at risk
for drug use; and
[(iii) the actions the Director
shall take to correct any deficiencies
and limitations identified pursuant to
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection
(b)(4).
[(3) Modifications.--A description of any
modifications made during the preceding year to the
national drug control performance measurement system
described in paragraph (2) shall be included in each
report submitted under subsection (b).
[SEC. 707. HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM.
[(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Office a
program to be known as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas Program.
[(b) Designation.--The Director, upon consultation with the
Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, 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 appropriated for the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 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;
[(4) coordinate activities under this subsection
(specifically administrative, recordkeeping, and funds
management activities) with State and local officials.
[(c) 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 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 harmful impact 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.
[(d) Use of Funds.--The Director shall ensure that no
Federal funds appropriated for the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Program are expended for the establishment or
expansion of drug treatment programs.]
SEC. 706. DEVELOPMENT, SUBMISSION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ASSESSMENT OF
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY.
(a) Timing, Contents, and Process for Development and
Submission of National Drug Control Strategy.--
(1) In general.--Not later than February 1 of each
year, the President shall submit to Congress a National
Drug Control Strategy, which shall set forth a
comprehensive plan for reducing illicit drug use and
the consequences of illicit drug use in the United
States by reducing the demand for illegal drugs,
limiting the availability of illegal drugs, and
conducting law enforcement activities with respect to
illegal drugs.
(2) Contents.--
(A) In general.--The National Drug Control
Strategy submitted under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(i) comprehensive, research-based,
long-range, and quantifiable goals for
reducing illicit drug use and the
consequences of illicit drug use in the
United States;
(ii) annual objectives and strategy
for demand reduction, supply reduction,
and law enforcement activities,
specific targets to accomplish long-
range quantifiable reduction in illicit
drug use as determined by the Director,
and specific measurements to evaluate
progress toward the targets and
strategic goals;
(iii) a strategy to reduce the
availability and purity of illegal
drugs and the level of drug-related
crime in the United States;
(iv) an assessment of Federal
effectiveness in achieving the National
Drug Control Strategy for the previous
year, including--
(I) a specific evaluation
of whether the objectives and
targets for reducing illicit
drug use for the previous year
were met and reasons for the
success or failure of the
previous year's Strategy; and
(II) an assessment of the
availability and purity of
illegal drugs and the level of
drug-related crime in the
United States;
(v) notification of any program or
budget priorities that the Director
expects to significantly change from
the current Strategy over the next five
years;
(vi) a review of international,
State, local, and private sector drug
control activities to ensure that the
United States pursues well-coordinated
and effective drug control at all
levels of government;
(vii) such statistical data and
information as the Director deems
appropriate to demonstrate and assess
trends relating to illicit drug use,
the effects and consequences thereof,
supply reduction, demand reduction,
drug-related law enforcement, and the
implementation of the National Drug
Control Strategy; and
(viii) a supplement reviewing the
activities of each individual National
Drug Control Program agency during the
previous year with respect to the
National Drug Control Strategy and the
Director's assessment of the progress
of each National Drug Control Program
agency in meeting its responsibilities
under the National Drug Control
Strategy.
(B) Classified information.--Any contents
of the National Drug Control Strategy that
involve information properly classified under
criteria established by an Executive order
shall be presented to Congress separately from
the rest of the National Drug Control Strategy.
(C) Selection of data and information.--In
selecting data and information for inclusion
under subparagraph (A), the Director shall
ensure--
(i) the inclusion of data and
information that will permit analysis
of current trends against previously
compiled data and information where the
Director believes such analysis
enhances long-term assessment of the
National Drug Control Strategy; and
(ii) the inclusion of data and
information to permit a standardized
and uniform assessment of the
effectiveness of drug treatment
programs in the United States.
(3) Process for development and submission.--
(A) Consultation.--In developing and
effectively implementing the National Drug
Control Strategy, the Director--
(i) shall consult with--
(I) the heads of the
National Drug Control Program
agencies;
(II) Congress;
(III) State and local
officials;
(IV) private citizens and
organizations with experience
and expertise in demand
reduction;
(V) private citizens and
organizations with experience
and expertise in supply
reduction;
(VI) private citizens and
organizations with experience
and expertise in law
enforcement; and
(VII) appropriate
representatives of foreign
governments;
(ii) with the concurrence of the
Attorney General, may require the El
Paso Intelligence Center to undertake
specific tasks or projects to implement
the National Drug Control Strategy;
(iii) with the concurrence of the
Director of Central Intelligence and
the Attorney General, may request that
the National Drug Intelligence Center
undertake specific tasks or projects to
implement the National Drug Control
Strategy; and
(iv) may make recommendations to
the Secretary of Health and Human
Services on research that supports or
advances the National Drug Control
Strategy.
(B) Recommendations.--Recommendations under
subparagraph (A)(iv) may include
recommendations of research to be performed at
the National Institutes of Health, including
the National Institute on Drug Abuse, or any
other appropriate agency within the Department
of Health and Human Services.
(C) Inclusion in strategy.--The National
Drug Control Strategy under this subsection
shall include a list of each entity consulted
under subparagraph (A)(i).
(4) Submission of revised strategy.--The President
may submit to Congress a revised National Drug Control
Strategy that meets the requirements of this section--
(A) at any time, upon a determination by
the President, in consultation with the
Director, that the National Drug Control
Strategy in effect is not sufficiently
effective; or
(B) if a new President or Director takes
office.
(b) Performance Measurement System.--Not later than
February 1 of each year, the Director shall submit to Congress
a description of the national drug control performance
measurement system, designed in consultation with affected
National Drug Control Program agencies, that includes
performance measures for the National Drug Control Strategy and
activities of National Drug Control Program agencies related to
the National Drug Control Strategy.
SEC. 707. HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Office a
program to be known as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas Program (in this section referred to as the ``Program'').
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Program are the
following:
(1) To reduce drug availability and facilitate
cooperative efforts between Federal, State, and local
law enforcement agencies in areas with significant drug
trafficking problems that harmfully impact other parts
of the Nation.
(2) To provide assistance to agencies to come
together to assess regional threats, design coordinated
strategies to combat those threats, share intelligence,
and develop and implement coordinated initiatives to
implement the strategies.
(c) Designation.--The Director, upon consultation with the
Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, heads of the National Drug Control
Program agencies, and the Governor of each applicable State,
may designate any specified area of the United States as a high
intensity drug trafficking area.
(d) Factors for Consideration.--
(1) In general.--In considering whether to
designate an area under this section as a high
intensity drug trafficking area, the Director shall
consider, in addition to such other criteria as the
Director considers to be appropriate, the extent to
which--
(A) the area is a major center of illegal
drug production, manufacturing, importation, or
distribution for the United States as compared
to other areas of the United States;
(B) State and local law enforcement
agencies have committed resources to respond to
the drug trafficking problem in the area,
thereby indicating a determination to respond
aggressively to the problem;
(C) drug-related production, manufacturing,
importation, or distribution in the area is
having a significant harmful impact in other
areas of the United States; and
(D) a significant increase in allocation of
Federal resources is necessary to respond
adequately to drug-related activities in the
area.
(2) Considerations.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)(A), in considering whether an area is a major
center of illegal drug production, manufacturing,
importation, or distribution as compared to other areas
of the United States, the Director shall consider--
(A) the quantity of illicit drug traffic
entering or transiting the area originating in
foreign countries;
(B) the quantity of illicit drugs produced
in the area;
(C) the number of Federal, State, and local
arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for drug
trafficking and distribution offenses in the
area;
(D) the degree to which the area is a
center for the activities of national drug
trafficking organizations; and
(E) such other criteria as the Director
considers appropriate.
(e) Southwest Border.--The Director may not designate any
county contiguous to the international land border with Mexico
as part of any high intensity drug trafficking area other than
as part of a single Southwest Border high intensity drug
trafficking area.
(f) Removal From Designation.--The Director may remove an
area or portion of an area from designation as a high intensity
drug trafficking area under this section upon determination
that the area or portion of an area no longer is a high
intensity drug trafficking area, considering the factors in
subsections (d) and (e) in addition to such other criteria as
the Director considers to be appropriate.
(g) Authority of the Director.--After making such a
designation and in order to provide Federal assistance to the
area so designated, the Director may--
(1) obligate such sums as appropriated for the
Program;
(2) direct the temporary reassignment of Federal
personnel to such area, subject to the approval of the
head of the department or agency that employs such
personnel; and
(3) take any other action authorized under section
704 to provide increased Federal assistance to those
areas.
(h) Use of Funds.--
(1) Limitation.--No funds appropriated for the
Program shall be expended for drug prevention or drug
treatment programs.
(2) Limitation on applicability.--Paragraph (1)
shall not apply with respect to the Baltimore/
Washington high intensity drug trafficking area.
(3) Specific purposes.--
(A) In general.--The Director shall ensure
that, of the amounts appropriated for a fiscal
year for the Program, at least $1,000,000 is
used in high intensity drug trafficking areas
with severe neighborhood safety and illegal
drug distribution problems.
(B) Required uses.--The funds used under
subparagraph (A) shall be used--
(i) to ensure the safety of
neighborhoods and the protection of
communities, including the prevention
of the intimidation of potential
witnesses of illegal drug distribution
and related activities; and
(ii) to combat illegal drug
trafficking through such methods as the
Director considers appropriate, such as
establishing or operating (or both) a
toll-free telephone hotline for use by
the public to provide information about
illegal drug-related activities.
(i) Terrorism Activities.--
(1) Assistance authorized.--The Director may
authorize use of resources available for the Program to
assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies in investigations and activities related to
terrorism and prevention of terrorism, especially but
not exclusively where such investigations are related
to drug trafficking.
(2) Limitation.--The Director shall ensure--
(A) that assistance provided under
paragraph (1) remains incidental to the purpose
of the Program to reduce drug availability and
carry out drug-related law enforcement
activities; and
(B) that significant resources of the
Program are not redirected to activities
exclusively related to terrorism.
(j) Board Representation.--None of the funds appropriated
under this section may be expended for any high intensity drug
trafficking area, or for a partnership under the Program, if
the executive board or equivalent governing committee with
respect to such area or partnership is not comprised of equal
voting representation between representatives of Federal law
enforcement agencies and representatives of State and local law
enforcement agencies.
(k) 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.
(l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control
Policy to carry out this section--
(1) $230,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $240,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and
2006; and
(3) $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 and
2008.
SEC. 708. COUNTER-DRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER.
(a) * * *
(b) [Director of Technology.--]Chief Scientist.-- There
shall be at the head of the Center the [Director of
Technology,] Chief Scientist, who shall be appointed by the
Director of National Drug Control Policy from among individuals
qualified and distinguished in the area of science, medicine,
engineering, or technology.
[(c) Additional Responsibilities of the Director of
National Drug Control Policy.--
[(1) In general.--The Director, acting through the
Director of Technology shall--
[(A) identify and define the short-,
medium-, and long-term scientific and
technological needs of Federal, State, and
local drug supply reduction agencies,
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 basic and
applied research needs and initiatives, in
consultation with affected National Drug
Control Program agencies, including--
[(i) improving treatment through
neuroscientific advances;
[(ii) improving the transfer of
biomedical research to the clinical
setting; and
[(iii) in consultation with the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, and
through interagency agreements or
grants, examining addiction and
rehabilitation research and the
application of technology to expanding
the effectiveness or availability of
drug treatment;
[(C) make a priority ranking of such needs
identified in subparagraphs (A) and (B)
according to fiscal and technological
feasibility, as part of a National Counter-Drug
Enforcement Research and Development Program;
[(D) oversee and coordinate counter-drug
technology initiatives with related activities
of other Federal civilian and military
departments;
[(E) provide support to the development and
implementation of the national drug control
performance measurement system; and
[(F) pursuant to the authority of the
Director of National Drug Control Policy under
section 704, submit requests to Congress for
the reprogramming or transfer of funds
appropriated for counter-drug technology
research and development.
[(2) Limitation on authority.--The authority
granted to the Director under this subsection shall not
extend to the award of contracts, management of
individual projects, or other operational activities.]
(c) Additional Responsibilities of the Director of National
Drug Control Policy.--
(1) In general.--The Director, acting through the
Chief Scientist, shall--
(A) identify and define the short-, medium-
, and long-term scientific and technological
needs of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies relating to drug
enforcement, including--
(i) advanced surveillance,
tracking, and radar imaging;
(ii) electronic support measures;
(iii) communications;
(iv) data fusion, advanced computer
systems, and artificial intelligence;
and
(v) chemical, biological,
radiological (including neutron,
electron, and graviton), and other
means of detection;
(B) identify demand reduction (including
drug prevention) basic and applied research
needs and initiatives, in consultation with
affected National Drug Control Program
agencies, including--
(i) improving treatment through
neuroscientific advances;
(ii) improving the transfer of
biomedical research to the clinical
setting; and
(iii) in consultation with the
National Institute on Drug Abuse and
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, and through
interagency agreements or grants,
examining addiction and rehabilitation
research and the application of
technology to expanding the
effectiveness or availability of drug
treatment;
(C) make a priority ranking of such needs
identified in subparagraphs (A) and (B)
according to fiscal and technological
feasibility, as part of a National Counter-Drug
Enforcement Research and Development Program;
(D) oversee and coordinate counter-drug
technology initiatives with related activities
of other Federal civilian and military
departments;
(E) oversee and coordinate a technology
transfer program for the transfer of technology
to State and local law enforcement agencies;
and
(F) pursuant to the authority of the
Director of National Drug Control Policy under
section 704, submit requests to Congress for
the reprogramming or transfer of funds
appropriated for counter-drug technology
research and development.
(2) Priorities in transferring technology.--In
transferring technology under the authority of
paragraph (1)(E), the Chief Scientist shall give
priority, in transferring technologies most likely to
assist in drug interdiction and border enforcement, to
State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in
southwest border areas and northern border areas with
significant traffic in illicit drugs.
(3) Limitation on authority.--The authority granted
to the Director under this subsection shall not extend
to the award of contracts, management of individual
projects, or other operational activities.
(d) Assistance and Support to Office of National Drug
Control Policy.--The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall, to the maximum extent practicable, render
assistance and support to the Office and to the Director in the
conduct of counter-drug technology assessment.
[SEC. 709. PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON COUNTER-NARCOTICS.
[(a) Establishment.--There is established a council to be
known as the President's Council on Counter-Narcotics (referred
to in this section as the ``Council'').
[(b) Membership.--
[(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Council shall be composed of 18 members, of whom--
[(A) 1 shall be the President, who shall
serve as Chairman of the Council;
[(B) 1 shall be the Vice President;
[(C) 1 shall be the Secretary of State;
[(D) 1 shall be the Secretary of the
Treasury;
[(E) 1 shall be the Secretary of Defense;
[(F) 1 shall be the Attorney General;
[(G) 1 shall be the Secretary of
Transportation;
[(H) 1 shall be the Secretary of Health and
Human Services;
[(I) 1 shall be the Secretary of Education;
[(J) 1 shall be the Representative of the
United States of America to the United Nations;
[(K) 1 shall be the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget;
[(L) 1 shall be the Chief of Staff to the
President;
[(M) 1 shall be the Director of the Office,
who shall serve as the Executive Director of
the Council;
[(N) 1 shall be the Director of Central
Intelligence;
[(O) 1 shall be the Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs;
[(P) 1 shall be the Counsel to the
President;
[(Q) 1 shall be the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff; and
[(R) 1 shall be the National Security
Adviser to the Vice President.
[(2) Additional members.--The President may, in the
discretion of the President, appoint additional members
to the Council.
[(c) Functions.--The Council shall advise and assist the
President in--
[(1) providing direction and oversight for the
national drug control strategy, including relating drug
control policy to other national security interests and
establishing priorities; and
[(2) ensuring coordination among departments and
agencies of the Federal Government concerning
implementation of the National Drug Control Strategy.
[(d) Administration.--
[(1) In general.--The Council may utilize
established or ad hoc committees, task forces, or
interagency groups chaired by the Director (or a
representative of the Director) in carrying out the
functions of the Council under this section.
[(2) Staff.--The staff of the Office, in
coordination with the staffs of the Vice President and
the Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs, shall act as staff for the Council.
[(3) Cooperation from other agencies.--Each
department and agency of the executive branch shall--
[(A) cooperate with the Council in carrying
out the functions of the Council under this
section; and
[(B) provide such assistance, information,
and advice as the Council may request, to the
extent permitted by law.]
SEC. 709. NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN.
(a) In General.--The Director shall conduct a national
media campaign in accordance with this section for the purpose
of reducing and preventing illicit drug use among young people
in the United States, through mass media advertising.
(b) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Amounts made available to carry
out this section for the media campaign may only be
used for the following:
(A) The purchase of media time and space.
(B) Creative and talent costs.
(C) Advertising production costs.
(D) Testing and evaluation of advertising.
(E) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the
media campaign.
(F) The negotiated fees for the winning
bidder on requests for proposals issued either
by the Office or its designee for purposes
otherwise authorized in this section.
(G) Partnerships with community, civic, and
professional groups and government
organizations related to the media campaign.
(H) Entertainment industry outreach,
interactive outreach, media projects and
activities, public information, news media
outreach, and corporate sponsorship and
participation.
(I) Operational and management expenses.
(2) Specific requirements.--
(A) Creative services.--
(i) In using amounts for creative
and talent costs under paragraph
(1)(B), the Director shall use creative
services donated at no cost to the
Government wherever feasible and may
only procure creative services for
advertising--
(I) responding to high-
priority or emergent media
campaign needs that cannot
timely be obtained at no cost;
or
(II) intended to reach a
minority, ethnic, or other
special audience that cannot
reasonably be obtained at no
cost.
(ii) No more than $1,000,000 may be
expended under this section each fiscal
year on creative services, except that
the Director may expend up to
$2,000,000 in a fiscal year on creative
services to meet urgent needs of the
media campaign with advance approval
from the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and of
the Senate upon a showing of the
circumstances causing such urgent needs
of the media campaign.
(B) Testing and evaluation of
advertising.--In using amounts for testing and
evaluation of advertising under paragraph
(1)(D), the Director shall test all
advertisements prior to use in the media
campaign to ensure that the advertisements are
effective and meet industry-accepted standards.
The Director may waive this requirement for
advertisements using no more than 10 percent of
the purchase of advertising time purchased
under this section in 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 media campaign.
(C) Evaluation of effectiveness of media
campaign.--In using amounts for the evaluation
of the effectiveness of the media campaign
under paragraph (1)(E), the Director shall--
(i) designate an independent entity
to evaluate annually the effectiveness
of the 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 media campaign is evaluated in a
manner that enables consideration of
whether the media campaign has
contributed to reduction of illicit
drug use among youth and such other
measures of evaluation as the Director
determines are appropriate.
(3) Purchase of advertising time and space.--For
each fiscal year, not less than 77 percent of the
amounts appropriated under this section shall be used
for the purchase of advertising time and space for the
media campaign, subject to the following exceptions:
(A) In any fiscal year for which less than
$125,000,000 is appropriated for the media
campaign, not less than 82 percent of the
amounts appropriated under this section shall
be used for the purchase of advertising time
and space for the media campaign.
(B) In any fiscal year for which more than
$195,000,000 is appropriated under this
section, not less than 72 percent shall be used
for advertising production costs and the
purchase of advertising time and space for the
media campaign.
(c) Advertising.--In carrying out this section, the
Director shall devote sufficient funds to the advertising
portion of the media campaign to meet the goals of the media
campaign.
(d) Prohibitions.--None of the amounts made available under
subsection (b) may be obligated or expended for any of the
following:
(1) To supplant current antidrug community-based
coalitions.
(2) To supplant pro bono public service time
donated by national and local broadcasting networks for
other public service campaigns.
(3) For partisan political purposes, or express
advocacy in support of or to defeat any clearly
identified candidate, clearly identified ballot
initiative, or clearly identified legislative or
regulatory proposal.
(4) To fund advertising that features any elected
officials, persons seeking elected office, cabinet
level officials, or other Federal officials employed
pursuant to section 213 of Schedule C of title 5, Code
of Federal Regulations.
(5) To fund advertising that does not contain a
primary message intended to reduce or prevent illicit
drug use.
(6) To fund advertising containing a primary
message intended to promote support for the media
campaign or private sector contributions to the media
campaign.
(e) Matching Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Amounts made available under
subsection (b) shall be matched by an equal amount of
non-Federal funds for the media campaign, or be matched
with in-kind contributions of the same value.
(2) No-cost match advertising direct relationship
requirement.--The Director shall ensure that at least
70 percent of no-cost match advertising provided
directly relates to substance abuse prevention
consistent with the specific purposes of the media
campaign, except that in any fiscal year in which less
than $125,000,000 is appropriated to the media
campaign, the Director shall ensure that at least 85
percent of no-cost match advertising directly relates
to substance abuse prevention consistent with the
specific purposes of the media campaign.
(3) No-cost match advertising not directly
related.--The Director shall ensure that no-cost match
advertising that does not directly relate to substance
abuse prevention includes a clear antidrug message.
Such message is not required to be the primary message
of the match advertising.
(f) Financial and Performance Accountability.--The Director
shall cause to be performed--
(1) audits and reviews of costs of the media
campaign pursuant to section 304C of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C. 254d); and
(2) an audit of the cost of the media campaign
described in section 306 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 256).
(g) Strategic Guidance and Donations.--The Partnership for
a Drug Free America shall serve as the primary outside
strategic advisor to the media campaign and be responsible for
coordinating donations of creative and other services to the
campaign, except with respect to advertising created using
funds permitted in subsection (b). The Director shall inform
the Partnership for a Drug Free America of the strategic goals
of the campaign and consider advice from the Partnership for a
Drug Free America on media campaign strategy.
(h) Report to Congress.--The Director shall submit on an
annual basis a report to Congress that describes--
(1) the strategy of the media campaign and whether
specific objectives of the media campaign were
accomplished;
(2) steps taken to ensure that the media campaign
operates in an effective and efficient manner
consistent with the overall strategy and focus of the
media campaign;
(3) plans to purchase advertising time and space;
(4) policies and practices implemented to ensure
that Federal funds are used responsibly to purchase
advertising time and space and eliminate the potential
for waste, fraud, and abuse; and
(5) all contracts entered into with a corporation,
partnership, or individual working on behalf of the
media campaign.
(i) Local Target Requirement.--The Director shall, to the
maximum extent feasible, use amounts made available under this
section for media that focuses on, or includes specific
information on, prevention or treatment resources for consumers
within specific local areas.
(j) Prevention of Marijuana Use.--
(1) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(A) 60 percent of adolescent admissions for
drug treatment are based on marijuana use.
(B) Potency levels of contemporary
marijuana, particularly hydroponically grown
marijuana, are significantly higher than in the
past, rising from under 1 percent of THC in the
mid-1970s to as high as 30 percent today.
(C) Contemporary research has demonstrated
that youths smoking marijuana early in life may
be up to five times more likely to use hard
drugs.
(D) Contemporary research has demonstrated
clear detrimental effects in adolescent
educational achievement resulting from
marijuana use.
(E) Contemporary research has demonstrated
clear detrimental effects in adolescent brain
development resulting from marijuana use.
(F) An estimated 9,000,000 Americans per
year drive while under the influence of illegal
drugs, including marijuana.
(G) Marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70
percent more of certain cancer causing
chemicals than tobacco smoke.
(H) Teens who use marijuana are up to four
times more likely to have a teen pregnancy than
teens who have not.
(I) Federal law enforcement agencies have
identified clear links suggesting that trade in
hydroponic marijuana facilitates trade by
criminal organizations in hard drugs, including
heroin.
(J) Federal law enforcement agencies have
identified possible links between trade in
marijuana and financing for terrorist
organizations.
(2) Emphasis on prevention of youth marijuana
use.--In conducting advertising and activities
otherwise authorized under this section, the Director
may emphasize prevention of youth marijuana use.
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Office to carry out this section,
$195,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and
$210,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 711. DRUG INTERDICTION.
[(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Federal drug
control agency'' means--
[(1) the Office of National Drug Control Policy;
[(2) the Department of Defense;
[(3) the Drug Enforcement Administration;
[(4) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
[(5) the Immigration and Naturalization Service;
[(6) the United States Coast Guard;
[(7) the United States Customs Service; and
[(8) any other department or agency of the Federal
Government that the Director determines to be relevant.
[(b) Report.--In order to assist Congress in determining
the personnel, equipment, funding, and other resources that
would be required by Federal drug control agencies in order to
achieve a level of interdiction success at or above the highest
level achieved before the date of enactment of this title, not
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Director shall submit to Congress and to each Federal drug
control program agency a report, which shall include--
[(1) with respect to the southern and western
border regions of the United States (including the
Pacific coast, the border with Mexico, the Gulf of
Mexico coast, and other ports of entry) and in overall
totals, data relating to--
[(A) the amount of marijuana, heroin,
methamphetamine, and cocaine--
[(i) seized during the year of
highest recorded seizures for each drug
in each region and during the year of
highest recorded overall seizures; and
[(ii) disrupted during the year of
highest recorded disruptions for each
drug in each region and during the year
of highest recorded overall seizures;
and
[(B) the number of persons arrested for
violations of section 1010(a) of the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.
960(a)) and related offenses during the year of
the highest number of arrests on record for
each region and during the year of highest
recorded overall arrests;
[(2) the price of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine,
and marijuana during the year of highest price on
record during the preceding 10-year period, adjusted
for purity where possible; and
[(3) a description of the personnel, equipment,
funding, and other resources of the Federal drug
control agency devoted to drug interdiction and
securing the borders of the United States against drug
trafficking for each of the years identified in
paragraphs (1) and (2) for each Federal drug control
agency.
[(c) Budget Process.--
[(1) Information to director.--Based on the report
submitted under subsection (b), each Federal drug
control agency shall submit to the Director, at the
same time as each annual drug control budget request is
submitted by the Federal drug control agency to the
Director under section 704(c)(1), a description of the
specific personnel, equipment, funding, and other
resources that would be required for the Federal drug
control agency to meet or exceed the highest level of
interdiction success for that agency identified in the
report submitted under subsection (b).
[(2) Information to congress.--The Director shall
include each submission under paragraph (1) in each
annual consolidated National Drug Control Program
budget proposal submitted by the Director to Congress
under section 704(c)(2), which submission shall be
accompanied by a description of any additional
resources that would be required by the Federal drug
control agencies to meet the highest level of
interdiction success identified in the report submitted
under subsection (b).]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 714. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title, except activities for which amounts are otherwise
specifically authorized by this title, to remain available
until expended, such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years [1999 through 2003] 2004 through 2008.
SEC. 715. TERMINATION OF OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
effective on [September 30, 2003, this title and the amendments
made by this title are repealed] September 30, 2008, this title
is repealed.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 6073 OF THE ASSET FORFEITURE AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1988
[SEC. 6073. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL FORFEITURE FUND.
[(a) In General.--There is established in the Treasury of the
United States the Special Forfeiture Fund (hereafter referred
to in this section as the ``Fund'') which shall be available to
the Director of the National Drug Control Policy without fiscal
year limitation in such amounts as may be specified in
appropriations Acts.
[(b) Deposits.--There shall be deposited into the Fund the
amounts specified by section 524(c)(8) of title 28, United
States Code, and section 9703(g) of title 31, United States
Code, and any earnings on the investments authorized by
subsection (d).
[(c) Super Surplus.--(1) Any unobligated balance up to
$20,000,000 remaining in the Fund on September 30 of a fiscal
year shall be available to the Director, subject to paragraph
(2), to transfer to, and for obligation and expenditure in
connection with drug control activities of, any Federal agency
or State or local entity with responsibilities under the
National Drug Control Strategy.
[(2) A transfer may be made under paragraph (1) only with
the advance written approval of the Committees on
Appropriations of each House of Congress.
[(d) Investment of Fund.--Amounts in the Fund which are not
currently needed for the purposes of this section shall be kept
on deposit or invested in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the
United States and all earnings on such investments shall be
deposited in the Fund.
[(e) President's Budget.--The President shall, in
consultation with the Director for National Drug Control
Policy, include, as part of the budget submitted to the
Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code,
a separate and detailed request for the use of the amounts in
the Fund. This request shall reflect the priorities of the
National Drug Control Strategy.
[(f) Funds Provided Supplemental.--Funds disbursed under this
subsection shall not be used to supplant existing funds, but
shall be used to supplement the amount of funds that would be
otherwise available.
[(g) Annual Report.--No later than 4 months after the end of
each fiscal year, the President shall submit to both Houses of
Congress a detailed report on the amounts deposited in the Fund
and a description of expenditures made under this subsection.]
----------
DRUG-FREE MEDIA CAMPAIGN ACT OF 1998
[SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
[This subtitle may be cited as the ``Drug-Free Media
Campaign Act of 1998''.
[SEC. 102. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN.
[(a) In General.--The Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (in this subtitle referred to as the
``Director'') shall conduct a national media campaign in
accordance with this subtitle for the purpose of reducing and
preventing drug abuse among young people in the United States.
[(b) Local Target Requirement.--The Director shall, to the
maximum extent feasible, use amounts made available to carry
out this subtitle under section 105 for media that focuses on,
or includes specific information on, prevention or treatment
resources for consumers within specific local areas.
[SEC. 103. USE OF FUNDS.
[(a) Authorized Uses.--
[(1) In general.--Amounts made available to carry
out this subtitle for the support of the national media
campaign may only be used for--
[(A) the purchase of media time and space;
[(B) talent reuse payments;
[(C) out-of-pocket advertising production
costs;
[(D) testing and evaluation of advertising;
[(E) evaluation of the effectiveness of the
media campaign;
[(F) the negotiated fees for the winning
bidder on request for proposals issued by the
Office of National Drug Control Policy;
[(G) partnerships with community, civic,
and professional groups, and government
organizations related to the media campaign;
and
[(H) entertainment industry collaborations
to fashion antidrug messages in motion
pictures, television programing, popular music,
interactive (Internet and new) media projects
and activities, public information, news media
outreach, and corporate sponsorship and
participation.
[(2) Advertising.--In carrying out this subtitle,
the Director shall devote sufficient funds to the
advertising portion of the national media campaign to
meet the stated reach and frequency goals of the
campaign.
[(b) Prohibitions.--None of the amounts made available
under section 105 may be obligated or expended--
[(1) to supplant current antidrug community based
coalitions;
[(2) to supplant current pro bono public service
time donated by national and local broadcasting
networks;
[(3) for partisan political purposes; or
[(4) to fund media campaigns that feature 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, unless the Director
provides advance notice to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.
[(c) Matching Requirement.--Amounts made available under
section 105 should be matched by an equal amount of non-Federal
funds for the national media campaign, or be matched with in-
kind contributions to the campaign of the same value.
[SEC. 104. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
[The Director shall--
[(1) submit to Congress on an annual basis a report
on the activities for which amounts made available
under section 105 have been obligated during the
preceding year, including information for each quarter
of such year, and on the specific parameters of the
national media campaign; and
[(2) not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, submit to Congress a report on
the effectiveness of the national media campaign based
on measurable outcomes provided to Congress previously.
[SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
[There is authorized to be appropriated to the Office of
National Drug Control Policy to carry out this subtitle
$195,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2002.]
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr., [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
* * * * *
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Pursuant to notice, I now call up
the bill H.R. 2086, the ``Office of National Drug Control
Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003'' for purposes of markup and
move its favorable recommendation to the House. Without
objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for
amendment at any point.
And the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on
Government Reform, which the Members have before them, will be
considered as read, considered as the original text for
purposes of amendment and open for amendment at any point.
[The Committee Print for H.R. 2086 follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, for 5 minutes to explain the
bill.
Mr. Coble. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee, H.R. 2086, the ``Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003'' reauthorizes the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, within the
Executive Office of the President for 5 years through the end
of fiscal year 2008. The office was originally created in 1988
and is the President's principal advisor with respect to drug
control policy development and program oversight. ONDCP's
current statutory mission is to guide the Nation's efforts to
both reduce the use, manufacturing and trafficking of illegal
drugs, and to reduce the associated violent crime, violence and
health consequences of illegal drug use. Since its inception
the ONDCP has been the cornerstone of Federal drug policy in
America, improving the lives of all Americans by reducing the
impact of drugs and the consequences of their abuse in our
society and communities. Congress established the office
through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and the current
statutory authorization will expire this September.
The Director advises the President on national and
international drug control policies and strategies, formulates
the national drug control strategy, reviews and certifies the
budgets of the National Drug Control Program agencies, and
works to ensure the effective coordination of drug programs by
the National Drug Control Program agencies.
The Director reviews the annual budget request for each
Federal Department and Agency charged with implementing a
Federal drug control program, and is empowered to require
funding levels and initiatives the Director believes are
sufficient for those goals. An edition of the National Drug
Control strategy is submitted to Congress annually to
coordinate the Nation's anti-drug efforts and establish
programs, budgets and guidelines for cooperation among Federal,
State and local entities.
Finally, ONDCP also administers approximately $500 million
in programs including the high-intensity drug trafficking areas
(HIDTA) program which provides assistance for State and local
law enforcement to work with Federal agents to stop drug
traffic in critical areas of the country, impacting national
drug traffic, the National Youth Anti-Drug Video Campaign that
supports the area of anti-drug television and print ads, the
Drug Free Communities Grant program, and the Counter Drug
Technology Assessment Center.
Mr. Chairman, the Office of National Drug Control Policy is
an extremely important component of our Nation's war on drugs
and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield
back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. There are three votes pending on
the House floor, two of 15 minutes in length and one of 5
minutes. The Chair will recess the Committee promptly and ask
that Members return right after the votes, and the first order
will be the recognition of Mr. Scott of Virginia for an opening
statement.
The Committee is recessed until immediately after the third
vote.
[Recess.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order.
When the Committee recessed we were having opening statements
on H.R. 2086, the drug control bill, and the Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling a markup
on the bill. I support your decision to assert the Committee's
jurisdiction over the matter, although I'm not sure how much
jurisdiction we have or what provisions are under our
jurisdiction. What I am sure of is that despite all the
billions of dollars that are spent on illegal drug use
abatement, illegal drug use is still rampant in this country.
I believe that the primary reason for this is that we have
not maximized the impact of the dollars that we have spent.
While we must spend a portion of money appropriated to fight
illegal drug use on enforcement of the laws against it, we
should also take cognizance of the fact that all of the
credible studies show that drug treatment is many times more
effective at reducing illegal drug use, and much less costly
than law enforcement. And while we need to spend money on both,
we spend many times more money on law enforcement, the least
effective means, than on drug treatment, the most effective
means to combat illegal drug use.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy is the office of
the so-called drug czar for our Nation. Therefore, we should be
able to look at that office for leadership in promoting the
best use of scarce dollars. Unfortunately, this bill does not
direct that kind of leadership. Even though mandatory minimum
drug sentencing laws have been shown to be a waste of money,
distort sentencing and discriminate against minorities, the
bill does not direct to drug czar to review the efficacy of
such sentences and make recommendations to Congress. And
although almost everyone recognizes that the 100 to 1 disparity
in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses
is unfair and racially discriminatory, there's nothing in the
bill directing the drug czar to come up with recommendations
for addressing that problem, nor is there anything which
directs the drug czar to examine whether the relative
effectiveness of Charitable Choice programs which allow
uncredentialed individuals to provide drug treatment, nor is
there anything in the bill which evaluates the policy of
allowing hiring discrimination based on religion rather than
merit in federally-funded programs. There's nothing in the bill
to evaluate that either. This kind of leadership is what we'd
be looking for from the drug czar, and that is not reflected in
the bill.
Perhaps we could have explored some of these issues had the
bill gone through the regular process of subcommittee hearing
and markup, but here we are seeing the bill for the first time
at full Committee markup with the expectation that we will pass
it on to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, we were given insufficient time for that, and
that is no fault of your own. We have to use the time we were
given, but I will hopefully confer with the gentleman from
North Carolina, the Subcommittee Chairman on Crime, to explore
some of these issues further.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members'
opening statements will be placed in the record. At this point
are there amendments?
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Coble.
Mr. Coble. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2086, to the Committee Print,
offered by Mr. Coble, page 25, line 7----
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
[The amendment of Mr. Coble follows:]
Mr. Coble. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman and Members,
this amendment will strike the allocation of funding language
in section 6 of the bill, relating to the High-Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas, properly referred to as HIDTA, Program. The
amendment does not strike the funding for the program, simply
the mechanism which takes away the discretion of the Director
of ONDCP.
On May 22 of this year, John Walters, the Director of
ONDCP, testified before the Committee on Government Reform
about this provision and described it as problematic. Mr.
Walters stated that by imposing specific percentages of
appropriated funds to a set number of areas, the provision
limits the Director's discretion to manage the program using
performance information along with threat intensity. Mr.
Walters further testified that in order to maximize the
program's effectiveness, that the Director needs the authority
to integrate performance and budget throughout the program and
have the flexibility to respond to the changing nature of the
domestic drug threat.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would remove the artificial
funding restrictions on the bill and restore the Director's
discretion so that funds could be distributed wherever he
determines they can best be used to deal with the threat of
drugs in this country.
I urge my colleagues to support----
Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Coble. I will.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I'm trying to understand the effect
of this amendment. Are you saying, sir, that right now there's
a limit, you said a two-tier system so that certain areas are
considered high intensity, and a certain amount of the funding
is sent there, and if your amendment passed, less of the
funding would mandatorily go to these high-intensity areas and
the Director would have more discretion to spread it further
around? Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Coble. Well, it would confer to the Director the
discretion.
Mr. Nadler. The discretion to spread the money further
around as opposed to concentrating the money or a certain
percentage of the money in high-intensity drug areas?
Mr. Coble. Just within the HIDTA areas.
Mr. Nadler. As I understand it, there are two tiers of
high-intensity areas, and this would enable him to spread it
around so that--so all high-intensity areas, so that the
highest intensity areas might very well get less than they do
now. Is that the point of the amendment?
Mr. Coble. Well, I think that would depend upon the
Director.
Mr. Nadler. But he would have the ability to send less
there than he does now?
Mr. Coble. Could get more.
Mr. Nadler. Or it could get less?
Mr. Coble. Yeah, correct.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose----
Ms. Waters. I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Coble. I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I tend to want to support the
gentleman's amendment for a lot of reasons. I tend to want to
support this amendment because I never thought the HIDTA areas
made good sense anyway. And I'm not so sure that the money
should have been controlled and directed in the way that it
was. But before coming to that conclusion, I would like to ask
the gentleman, if he would entertain a question from me,
whether or not he could support directing more of the money in
this authorization to prevention and treatment along with the
elimination of the HIDTA areas? Is this something that you
think you could support?
Mr. Coble. If the gentlelady would yield?
Ms. Waters. Yes, I yield.
Mr. Coble. I would not support the elimination of HIDTA
areas.
Ms. Waters. What is it you're advocating?
Mr. Coble. I'm advocating simply that the discretion be in
the Director's hands and he be allowed to make that decision.
Ms. Waters. That he be allowed to eliminate the HIDTA areas
or just to change the amount of funding in the various HIDTA
areas?
Mr. Coble. No. Just to decide the amount of funding that
would be forthwith.
Ms. Waters. For each of the HIDTA areas as they are defined
now?
Mr. Coble. That's correct. At his discretion. He would have
that discretion which the Government Reform proposal did not
give him that.
Ms. Waters. Well, let me just say this. I misunderstood
somewhat what you're attempting to do. I thought you were going
a little bit further than you tend to be going.
Since I have the floor, let me just say this. This war on
drugs is not worth the paper that it's written on. If we really
wanted to do something we would eliminate this authorization
all together, and direct funds toward rehabilitation and
treatment. This is a joke. And I think we've gone along with
this long enough. I haven't even gone through this bill except
to say these false HIDTA areas that really don't cover some of
the high-intensity areas as it's supposed to do, and this dumb
advertising program that we've had for so long, where we have
these ads that come on at 2:00 a.m. in the morning, and nobody
understands what they're saying anyway. It's just a waste of
money and time, and I just think that we ought to take a fresh
approach to dealing with drug eradication and get away from
this so-called war on drugs and the expenditure of all of this
money that's not really doing very much for anybody. So I'm not
going to support your amendment if you're just doing a little
bit of patchwork here, and you're simply saying a little bit
more discretion within the HIDTA areas as they are defined. But
if anybody--and I have some amendments coming down to look at
some of this in a few minutes--but if anybody on the other side
of the aisle wanted to get together and try to have a
bipartisan piece of legislation that wipes out all of this dumb
funding and just redirects money towards treatment, I would
like to be a part of that.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yield back?
Ms. Waters. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr.
Nadler.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I think some of the comments of
the gentlelady from California are well taken. There is a
provision in the bill that I just found out about that amends
the law to say none of the funds herein authorized may be used
for prevention or treatment. I don't see why we want to put
that in the law. It's not in the existing law. I'm preparing an
amendment now to delete that provision, and maybe someone will
explain why we want to change the law to say we should have no
treatment. I don't know how much treatment we have now, but
maybe we have too little, maybe we have too much, but why we
would want to say that the Administration has no authority to
use any of these funds for treatment from now on, I don't know
why we would want to do that.
But addressing the amendment pending before us, as I
understand--I must oppose the amendment, because as I
understand it right now, this money which is used mostly for
enforcement, is directed by law with some discretion to the
administrator to areas where the problem is greatest.
Presumably you want to direct the funds where the problem is
greatest. As I understand the amendment, it would remove some
of the mandate to direct funds to the highest tier of the two
tiers of high-intensity areas, and presumably the purpose of
that really is so that the Director can spread the funds
around, and we know the political imperative to send a little
money to every congressional district no matter what the
program is.
I complained on the floor once that my district of
Manhattan doesn't get any of the wheat subsidy, but I wasn't
serious about it, obviously, since we don't grow any wheat in
my district, but I wouldn't mind them. But the fact is--we have
them upstate. But the fact is, the money should go where the
need is, as with any program, and right now, there are two
tiers of high-intensity districts and a certain percentage of
the money is mandated to go to the highest intensity, and this
amendment would remove that. I don't know why we would want to
do that except to spread it around for political purposes, and
I don't think that that makes a heck of a lot of sense.
So I hope that people will join me in voting against the
amendment so that the existing law----
Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Nadler. One second. So the existing law will continue
so that the funds, as much as we make available, go to the
maximum extent practicable, with some discretion to the
administrator as is granted now, to where the need is greatest.
I'll yield.
Ms. Waters. I think it would be instructive if someone
could read to us how the high-intensive drug areas are defined
and where they are, and so you can make a determination about
this so-called going where the need is. The last time I looked
at it--and I have to admit, it has been some time--it did not
appear that those high drug intensity areas matched up with
where the needs are.
Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time. Presumably--and I'm not an
expert on this, but presumably the high-intensity drug areas
are where the need is. If they are not, then they ought to be
redefined, and maybe we should do that, and we should take a
look at that. But meanwhile, we should still direct the money
to the high-intensity areas where presumably the need is, and
if they're not properly defined, redefine them. But I don't
think a mistake in geography at this point ought to mean we
just give total discretion to spread the money around for
political or other purposes. I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, mr. Coble. Those
in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The aye appears to have it--the aye appears to----
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The aye has----
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, could I observe that you seem to
be inviting a request for a rollcall?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman knows what his
prerogatives are. The aye has it.
Mr. Nadler. I'll ask for a rollcall vote.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. rollcall vote. The question is on
the Coble amendment. Those in favor will as your names are
called answer aye; those opposed, no, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Hart?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King?
Mr. King. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Carter?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Feeney?
Mr. Feeney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mrs. Blackburn?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Conyers?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, no. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, no. Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, no. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change
their votes? The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms.
Hart.
Ms. Hart. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from California, Mr.
Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
Mr. Watt. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 9 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is agreed to.
* * * * *
Chairman Sensenbrenner. We will now resume consideration of
H.R. 2086. Are there further amendments?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr.
Nadler.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment,
No. 5, which we have just given to the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Committee Print to H.R. 2086,
offered by Mr. Nadler. Page 27, strike line 19 and all that
follows through line 2 on page 28.
[The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple
amendment. We're simply striking a paragraph from the bill. The
paragraph reads: ``No funds appropriated for the program shall
be expended for drug prevention or drug treatment programs.''
And then there's a limitation that that doesn't apply to
Washington and Baltimore for some reason. But basically what my
amendment says is why should we change the law? Under current
law the Administration is permitted to use some of these
funds--I don't know how many it does--but some of these funds
for drug prevention and drug treatment. This bill is drafted,
for some reason which I can't fathom, says, ``No funds may be
used for drug prevention or drug treatment.'' I think anybody
familiar with the whole drug problem knows that there's a role
for enforcement, and there's a role for prevention, and there's
a role for treatment. And if you want an effective drug program
to reduce drug addiction in our society, you want some
combination of all three. Now, we can all fight about what
proportion. Some people think more drug treatment, more drug
prevention, less enforcement, more enforcement, less
prevention. Whatever the appropriate mix is, is not for me to
say at this point, but to say no funds shall be expended for
prevention and treatment, that 100 percent of reliability
should be on law enforcement, I don't think you'll find any
professional in the field of drug prevention and treatment and
rehab and enforcement who would say that that makes any sense
at all.
So I don't know why this provision got in this bill. It's a
new provision. The existing law permits the Administration--and
I'm not suggesting that it should be some left-winger from some
Committee--it's the Bush administration we're talking about
that should have the discretion of what proportion of these
funds should be used for enforcement, and what for prevention
and what for treatment? So I'm simply, my amendment simply
retains for the Bush administration and subsequent
Administrations, if any, the discretion to use some of these
funds for prevention and treatment, and I would hope that no
one would object to this amendment.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Nadler. Yes, I'll yield.
Ms. Lofgren. Just in support of the amendment, I think it's
a wise one, and I would note for Californians that the voters
of California, by an overwhelming margin, approved a ballot
initiative that directed drug treatment first for nonviolent
drug addicts, and that has actually--you know, it's a grand
social experiment, but it seems to be working. And in fact, the
amount of drug crime seems to be reducing since the voters
approved that initiative. So like the gentleman, I believe
there is very definitely a role for enforcement, but to
preclude treatment and prevention is a huge mistake.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Nadler. Well, thank you. I'll simply make one other
observation. The second paragraph of the language, which I'm
eliminating, says: ``Paragraph 1 shall not apply with respect
to the Baltimore-Washington high-intensity drug trafficking
area,'' and that language is in there, I understand, because in
Baltimore and Washington they have found that prevention and
treatment funds have been very effective in cutting down on the
problem, and someone had the political influence to put the
carve out in this provision of the bill. And such programs may
be very effective in Washington and Baltimore and Boston and
Los Angeles, Chicago, who knows? So again, let the
Administration have the discretion to choose how much of these
funds shall be used for enforcement, for prevention, for
treatment, and to simply say no funds for treatment or
prevention frankly makes no sense at all. I can't imagine who
put this in there.
I will yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Coble. Well, I won't take 5 minutes. The bill already
provides for drug treatment programs. The amendment, as I read
it, would strike the provision of the bill that limits the use
of HIDTA monies for law enforcement and, Mr. Nadler, I just
don't agree with you about that, and I oppose the amendment.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California,
Ms. Waters, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Waters. Well, I started out earlier talking about the
fact that this bill should be totally for prevention and
rehabilitation. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, again,
our approaches have not been working, and we have people crying
out for money to rehabilitate themselves, money to deal with
prevention, and it does not matter whether we are talking about
poor communities, upper-middle class communities, white
communities, black communities, Latino communities. People are
crying out for prevention and care, rehabilitation all over
this country. It would be absolutely unconscionable for this
Committee to pass this so-called drug prevention legislation
with any language that would prevent resources from being spent
on prevention rehabilitation and care.
I would hope that we would expand the ability, certainly
not be prevented from spending money on prevention and care,
but I would hope that we would turn this entire bill into a
prevention and rehab resources bill. So I would not like to see
this as a partisan thing. I would like to see a bipartisan
effort to send a real strong message to the citizens of this
country that we are willing to get off the dime and do
something a little bit different. What we have been doing has
not been working.
We are going to continue to fill up our jails and our
prisons with first-time offenders, with five grams of crack
cocaine, 19- and 20-year-old college students who could be
involved with some appropriate penalties, but not the kind of
penalties that we are witnessing. We can do better than this,
and I just hope that somebody on the opposite side of the aisle
will not go along with this madness because I am sure that no
matter where you come from, you know somebody either in your
own families, in your neighborhood, in your friends' families
who are really the victims of drug addiction or who have gotten
involved at a young age with some kind of problem. We are not
taking care of this problem in America, and I will yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I certainly agree with the
gentlelady, and I think her for yielding, that we need more
money for prevention and treatment. I will not go so far as she
does and say we shouldn't have enforcement. I think you need
all of it. You need money for law enforcement, you need money
for prevention and treatment, but I do think that even though
there is money for prevention and treatment in other titles,
perhaps, there is no reason to take this program, which the
Administration can now use partly for prevention and treatment,
partly for law enforcement and tie its hands and say it can't
use a nickel of it for prevention and treatment.
Obviously, circumstances differ from place-to-place,
circumstances differ from time-to-time, and why not let the
Administration have the flexibility to deal with the problem as
it sees most effective. I don't think the DEA people and the
Bush administration are really thought to be soft on drugs.
I don't think that is the problem generally viewed in this
country, and I would let them have a little discretion, as they
do under current law, to use these funds, as well as other
funds, for treatment and prevention and for law enforcement.
Why we would want to tie their hands--I mean, has anyone done a
study that says that the propagate spenders in the Bush
administration are spending too much money on treatment and
prevention and not enough on law enforcement and that is why we
are doing this? I am not aware of any such study. I just don't
see why this amendment has to tie their hands of the DEA and
whatever the acronym people, the ONDCP or whatever it is, in
the Administration here.
And so I urge the passage of this amendment to retain the
current law and let the Administration have the flexibility to
use this pot of money, as it sees fit, for law enforcement,
prevention, treatment, whatever is most effective in the
judgment of the Bush administration.
I thank the gentlelady, and I yield back to her.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, my
distinguished colleague from North Carolina indicated this is a
law enforcement bill. My reading of the title is that it is to
reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This is
a policy bill, and a suggestion that policy would exclude
prevention I think goes in the face of all of the research that
we have seen. I would hope that we would at least allow the
possibility that we would pursue prevention as part of our
National Drug Control Policy, and therefore would hope that the
amendment would be adopted.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield back?
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I have been in and out of this
discussion, and I am a little confused, and maybe my dear
friend from North Carolina can help me a little bit. I always
presume that his motivations are good, and for the life of me I
can't figure out what the rationale of this provision is, and
if there is a rationale for it, why that same rationale would
not also be applicable to the Baltimore-Washington High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area or to, on Page 24, the
Southwest border, anything that adjoins Mexico.
What is the rationale for excluding prevention that would
not also, first of all, what is the rationale for putting this
provision in the bill? And if there is a rationale, why would
that same rationale not also apply in the other areas that I
just referenced that are exempted from the provisions here.
I yield to my good friend from North Carolina.
Mr. Coble. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Watt, the Chairman said that your assumption that my
motives are always good is a rebuttable presumption, so that
may---- [Laughter.]
Mr. Watt. Well, I am trying to give you, I am trying to
make that a conclusive presumption by giving you an opportunity
to explain this because right now you are swimming against my
presumption.
Mr. Coble. Well, and where all of this is a case of first
impression for all of us because this had, as Mr. Scott said,
this hadn't gone through the subcommittee process, but the bill
funds----
Mr. Watt. Why didn't it go through the subcommittee
process?
Mr. Coble. It is a sequential referral from Government
Reform, I think.
Mr. Watt. Go ahead. I am sorry.
Mr. Coble. The bill funds three priorities: stopping drug
use before it starts; healing drug users, which of course is
the rehabilitation process; and disrupting drug markets, which
is the law enforcement.
Now, HIDTA, as I understand it, is exclusive to law
enforcement, except for Baltimore and Washington.
Mr. Watt. What about the provision, line 15 through 19 on
Page 24, which excludes everything along the Southwest border,
everything adjacent to Mexico. What is the rationale for----
Mr. Coble. Put that question to me again, if you will, Mr.
Watt.
Mr. Watt. If you look on Page 24 of the bill, lines 15
through 19, ``The Director may not designate any county
contiguous to the international land border with Mexico as part
of any High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area other than as part
of a single Southwest border High Intensity Drug Traffic,''
what is the rationale for--I assume that means that you could
use funds for prevention in that area, and you can use it in
Baltimore-Washington area. I mean----
Mr. Coble. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Watt. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. Coble. I think the rationale would be to assure that
the Southwest quadrant would be in toto and not split up is the
way I would interpret that.
Mr. Watt. For prevention or for enforcement or----
Mr. Coble. Well, for enforcement, primarily, since it is a
HIDTA area, but maybe prevention as well.
Mr. Watt. I will yield to the gentlelady from California. I
am confused.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. The gentleman has not
answered the question. The areas that you identify are areas
where you can do prevention. You can use this money for
prevention, and it is not, as you have described, that these
are areas that you can only use money for law enforcement in.
The gentleman's question is a very reasonable question. Why do
you have exclusions for some areas when there are other areas
who would like to have money spent on prevention and
rehabilitation also?
Mr. Watt. Can I reclaim my time and take this one step
further. Actually, if you look at the line just before that on
page 24, lines 13 and 14, the Director actually could designate
any place in America as a HIDTA area, in which case you
couldn't have any prevention program anywhere because it says
that the criteria for designation is such other criteria as the
Director considers appropriate. So, yes, I am----
Mr. Nadler. So, in other words, even if my----
Mr. Watt. I ask unanimous consent for two additional
minutes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Mr. Nadler. So, in other words, even if my amendment that
is pending now passes, which removes the language that says,
``No funds appropriated for the program shall be expended for
drug prevention or drug treatment programs,'' even if that
amendment passes, the language you have just read on Page 24,
is it?
Mr. Watt. Page 24.
Mr. Nadler. On Page 24, gives the Director the ability to
say that no funds can be used for drug prevention or drug
treatment programs in any specified area in the country or in
the entire country, which means that that----
Mr. Watt. That is certainly the way I would read this.
Mr. Nadler. Which means, even if my amendment passes, if
the Director for some reason thinks that this is intelligent
policy, the Bush administration has the power, even with my
amendment, to do exactly what the bill would do without the
amendment. So the amendment would seem to be, at the least,
harmless, and it basically gives them more discretion, and
again----
Mr. Watt. If I can just reclaim my time just long enough to
say that a sequential referral puts us under time pressure. It
shouldn't put us under intellectual common-sense pressure, and
this, just by virtue of common sense and intellectual
recognition that we all understand, should not be the policy. I
mean, this doesn't make any sense.
Mr. Coble. Who has the time? Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Watt. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Watt----
Mr. Watt. I ask unanimous consent for one additional
minute, and I will yield to Mr. Coble.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Mr. Watt. Let me reiterate my first answer to you, which I
still believe is correct, and I think the provision to which
you refer addresses itself exclusively to establishing one
contiguous HIDTA area in the Southwest quadrant, and I don't
think it has anything, I bet you, any other issue other than
that.
Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for a second?
Mr. Watt. Let me just reclaim my time.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Watt antihistamines the time.
Mr. Watt. This provision says that the only place you can
do prevention is in either Baltimore, Washington or a non-HIDTA
area. So you can't do prevention under this provision, as I
understand it, using this money anywhere along the Mexican
border.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has once
again expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Nadler.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it.
Mr. Coble. rollcall.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. rollcall is requested. Those in
favor of the Nadler amendment will, as your names are called,
answer aye; those opposed, no; and the clerk will call the
roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
Mr. Forbes. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
Mr. King. No.
The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney?
Mr. Feeney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn?
Mrs. Blackburn. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. How did the clerk record Mr.
Meehan?
The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in the chamber who wish to
cast or change their vote?
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania,
Ms. Hart?
Ms. Hart. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Any further Members who wish to
cast or change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. If not, the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 ayes and 17 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
Jackson Lee 102 at the desk, please.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Jackson Lee
102.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Committee print on H.R. 2086
offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Page 7, line 7, strike
or----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, here I am over
here.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is this amendment germane? The
clerk will continue to report.
The Clerk. Page 7, line 22, strike the punctuation and
insert a semicolon.
Page 7, after line 22, insert the following: VIII, request
funding for the substantive----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think there is a line of reason here that I would like to
continue to pursue.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for exerting
jurisdiction over this legislation. I think it is important for
the Judiciary Committee to have jurisdiction. All of us have
been engaged in this question of a national drug policy that
would work, and might I add my acknowledgement of the work of
Mr. Souder, and the reason is because I have traveled with him
on some of his efforts with respect to the Caribbean on drug
interdiction and as well drug intervention, as well as it
relates to our borders, and so there is good work being done.
My amendment is simple in that it again expresses the
concern and need for treatment and that this legislation should
not prohibit the idea of there being treatment as it relates to
programs in reducing drug and alcohol use, crime and risky
behaviors, in particular, that relate to the overall question
of, if you will, of consumption. Consumption plays a very large
part in the drug market.
Let me cite for you an example that the largest killer of
African Americans between 25 and 44 is HIV. Part of that is by
way of being--part of the issue deals with the utilization of
intravenous drug use, and so we have a continuing problem that
is almost like a cycle, drug use, health issues, death. All of
these folk contribute to the cycle of consumerism, which then
contributes to the advantage that drug dealers have, both in
terms of selling the product and also as money launderers. And
so I think that the idea of treatment is a very strong
component, and I am concerned and confused whether my good
friend from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, would not consider this
an element of our responsibility.
What we are trying to do is put a knife in the heart of
drug use and drug crime in this Nation, and as we know, the
supporting areas that provide drugs to this country. When we
have gone overseas or we have gone into the Caribbean to
complain about the cycle of drugs, of course what they will say
to us is you are the biggest consumer. Well, how do we put a
pin in the consumer balloon? You deal with prevention and
treatment.
So my amendment is simple. It deals with this fact, and
might I just point my colleagues to this whole question of the
Baltimore-Washington area, and that is an amazing phenomenon
from my perspective. Certainly, I want the capital to shine,
and I certainly think Baltimore has a very severe problem, but
if we are going to rely upon that as a basis or at least give
them an exception, why don't we refer to the Steps to Success
Baltimore Drug and Alcohol Treatment Outcome Study, where this
report, which I would ask unanimous consent to submit into the
record----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
[The material referred to follows:]
Ms. Jackson Lee. This report emphasizes that that is on the
right track. The report you are about to read, commissioned by
the Baltimore Substance Abuse Systems, et cetera, draws
conclusively that drug treatment is effective in Baltimore
City. Baltimore City happens to be one of the highest drug use
areas in the Nation, as I understand it, and this report goes
on to indicate that we have a first systemwide analysis
demonstrating that in Baltimore City treatment works. In 1999,
Baltimore City and the Maryland General Assembly began a
partnership to substantially increase investment in drug
treatment.
This commitment, if fulfilled, would increase by $25
million funding for Baltimore City treatment system. And this
report goes on to suggest and prove that drug usage has gone
down, that prevention and treatment have actually worked. I
don't want to read it in its entirety. But if we can make an
exception in this legislation for the Baltimore-Washington
area, then I would simply ask that this amendment, which allows
for monies to be requested to be increased in the prevention
and treatment area as part of the overall drug policy.
Then, I believe that our Committee should support such an
approach because it is a cycle, it is a circle, and you cannot
have drug crime without drug consumerism, and we have got it
all over the Nation. We particularly have it in African-
American communities and other minority communities, and I am
not understanding the sense of this legislation that has HIDTA
areas with no treatment, but has a Baltimore-Washington, D.C.,
exception. And as my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Watt
has said, there seems to be an exception on the Southwest
border or places that are not targeted.
So I would ask my colleagues to consider drug policy as a
circle.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And should include drug treatment. I ask
my colleagues to support the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Let me speak with some background in opposition
and then offer a proposal to the gentlelady from Texas.
The amendment would require the Director of ONDCP to deny
any budget request, as I read it, that does not require
increased funding every year for the substance abuse prevention
and treatment block grant program and the targeted capacity
expansion grant program.
I oppose this because I believe the current language in the
bill adequately deals with the funding levels for the Federal
drug treatment programs. The current language of the bill
prohibits certification of drug treatment activities that, ``Do
not adequately support and enhance Federal drug treatment
programs and capacity, as determined by the Director.''
In its Committee report, the Government Reform Committee
noted that this provision is a variation of language proposed
by Representative Cummings and that the language is primarily
intended to apply to the substance abuse prevention and
treatment block grant program, and the targeted capacity
expansion grant program, which are critical to drug treatment
in the United States.
The report language went on to state that in considering
the factors included in the bill incident to budget
certification for drug treatment, the Director should consider
whether adequate funding has been maintained for those programs
or if adequate compensation in other programs has been
substituted for any reduction in funding. I would be happy to
work with the gentlelady from Texas to ensure that similar
language be included in our Committee report that this
Committee files on this bill, but for the moment I will oppose
the amendment in its present form.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Coble. I will yield.
Ms. Jackson Lee. First of all, let me thank the gentleman
for attempting to work with us cooperatively on this very
important point. Report language certainly goes a long way, but
I am wondering if the gentleman can work with us to get
language that might more adequately address what I think is a
cycle of drug use and drug crime. I understand the gentleman's
interpretations that my amendment wants to deny people funding.
I do not think my ultimate interpretation of the amendment
would do that.
What we are trying to do is to ensure that in the request
for funding that there is requests with respect to treatment,
and we are suggesting that drug policy includes treatment in
order to stamp out drug crime and drug abuse. If we can work
together on language that you would be comfortable with that
would be actually in the bill, I think it would strengthen both
our positions. I do not want to deny anyone resources or
funding, but I don't believe we can be successful in the HIDTA
targeted areas or nontargeted areas on this drug question if we
do not have, in fact, some component of treatment.
Now, I understand my friends in Government Reform tried to
put a similar amendment in, and the language that is in now
just does not adequately ensure that we have focused on, Mr.
Coble, on treatment. You know yourself, I mean, none of us, no
State is pristine, if you will, and not without the devastation
of drugs. So North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, wherever
you are, you need to have treatment or otherwise we are not
going to get to the source of the problem.
Mr. Coble. Let me reclaim my time and say to the
gentlelady, I still believe that the bill adequately deals with
the proper funding levels for the Federal drug treatment
programs. I think that is adequately addressed, but I reiterate
my offer to work with you on report language.
Yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have some suggested
language that I am trying to----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, the question is on the
Jackson Lee amendment, and the gentleman from North Carolina
controls the time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand. Let me ask the gentleman to,
just for a moment, if he would yield just for a moment. Mr.
Coble?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the
balance of his time.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, could I just take a moment to--
--
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Conyers.--the subcommittee Chairman, our friend, to
recap what his problem is with regard to the Jackson Lee
discussion here. Maybe I am missing something, and I would love
to yield to him to give me a little clear view of what the
difference is between his position and Ms. Jackson Lee's.
Mr. Coble. If my friend from Michigan would yield.
Mr. Conyers. Yes.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Conyers, as I have determined, it would
provide for increased funding each year, which is a red flag in
my eyes, summarily increasing funding every year. And I think
that the bill otherwise addresses, that the variation of the
language proposed by Representative Cummings in Government
Reform, I think addresses the problem, at least to my
satisfaction, but it is the increased funding, the annual
increased funding that bothers me.
Mr. Conyers. Is the subcommittee Chairman aware that there
are more people in prisons, Federal and State today, because of
the nonviolent possession or use of drugs than any other single
offense?
Mr. Coble. I do know that, and I think that may be, Mr.
Conyers, why crime is reducing or has shown a reduced rate in
recent years.
Mr. Conyers. Okay. Then, that means that the more people we
lock up the lower the drug use rate becomes. All in favor,
raise your hands.
Mr. Coble. Well, the crime rate I was referring to.
Mr. Conyers. The crime rate goes down as the prison rate
goes up, right?
Well, let's take a couple minutes on this. Is it the
subcommittee Chairman's position that the reason that the crime
rate is going down is because the prison rate is going up?
Mr. Coble. Well, I don't know that that would be my
position. I just indicated that it does appear clear that the
crime rate has decreased, and that could be a contributing
factor. I don't know that that is solely the case.
Mr. Conyers. Well, that is a legitimate point of view. A
lot of conservatives in America feel very strongly about that.
Lock them up. Here is my dear friend, Mr. Keller, not only is
shaking his--Mr. Green--not only shaking his head, but raising
his hand, and this is a very legitimate position which I
respect.
This just in, Subcommittee Chairman, the crime rate is
going up in the last 2 years. Wait a minute. That means you
have to lock up more. You are not locking up enough.
I yield to the subcommittee chair. Let's talk about this.
Mr. Coble. Repeat your question. I have been talking over
here.
Mr. Conyers. Contrary to my misunderstanding, the crime
rate is going up the last 2 years, so that would mean----
Mr. Coble. Well, I misstated then. If the crime rate is
going up--I thought it was going down.
Mr. Conyers. I did, too, but now that it is going up----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Conyers. We are locking up----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Conyers. Of course.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Maybe that is because of all of the
downward departures that the Federal judges have been granting
when sentencing people who have been convicted by a jury of
their peers.
Mr. Conyers. That is a possibility. Hey, look, let's
consider all of the things on a realistic basis. Soft judges,
and then with the crime rate going up and incarceration rate
going up, that means we have got to lock up more, right, Mr.
Green?
I yield.
Mr. Green. I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding.
I can say this, those who are locked up are not committing
any more of the crimes.
Mr. Conyers. Well, no, that is not true either. The
primary----
Mr. Green. That is one thing we do know. You are right. The
biggest difficulty--that is one point I am confident of.
Mr. Conyers. The crime rate in the prisons are going up.
Did you know that drug use in the prisons are going up, too?
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Conyers. Did you know that, Mr. Green? The drug use in
side the prisons----
Mr. Green. If the gentleman will yield, I will wait and see
if that is true. The last time you said something about the
rates and crime, a few minutes later we had to adjust it.
Mr. Conyers. Let me let you use your own intelligence to
respond to my question. I use my staff to help me. What do you
do?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has
expired. The question is on the Jackson----
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California,
Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. I believe, maybe wrongly, that if we were to
spend a few more minutes discussing this, that we might
actually reach an accommodation on I know that Ms. Jackson Lee
is trying to come up with some language that addresses the
concern expressed by the Chairman, and I think that that would
be a good thing if we came together today on something that
would benefit the country.
I will say that I am one who believes that there very much
is a need for enforcement in the drug area. When I go home and
visit with, for example, the DEA that is going after the meth
labs, I want to make sure that they continue to go after the
meth labs. It is very dangerous and needs to happen.
But in our community, in Santa Clara County, the crime rate
is going down, and we know, we can actually trace it to the
investment we have made in prevention and treatment. And we
also have law enforcement, but who is on board on that is not
just the do-gooders. It is the chief of police, it is the
district attorney because you need to have more than just one
answer.
I think our drug courts have been put together with the
help of to district attorney, the sheriff, the Department of
Corrections, the chief of police and the judges. So we need to
use all of the tools, and I would yield to the gentlelady from
Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished gentlelady very
much, and I thank her for the support of the amendment. We are
seeking a collaboration, and I believe my good friend from
North Carolina will offer an amendment to the Jackson Lee
amendment, which I am going to ask unanimous consent to be
accepted, but in any event, to help clarify the point, and I
would simply add that I support his amendment before he begins
to speak on it, on this point. We should reach an accommodation
on this. This is a question of the national drug policy, and I
don't know, even my good friend, Mr. Green, whether anyone can
deny that our crisis in drugs, the large cartels, the crime is
based upon the consumerism of it, the taking in of the drugs.
Let me just make this personal point. I don't know how many
of you have visited your own Federal penitentiaries. Maybe I
have to visit them because I have got a large number of
constituents in the Federal penitentiary. When you go there,
the sizeable population are African Americans and Hispanics,
but more importantly, if you talk to the director of Prison
Bureaus, particular the Federal Prison Bureau, you will find
that we are falling apart at the seams. We are overloaded. We
have a huge, largest numbers of incarcerated persons in the
Western civilization. Many of those young people how are in
there are on petty drug crimes. When I say ``petty,'' they are
under mandatory sentencing, they are under Federal crime, so
they are in there. But they are in there partly because they
were users, not conspirators, not part of the cartel.
You have got to be able to do something about this, and
that is what this amendment speaks to.
Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time, I would yield to the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
Mr. Watt. I yield back and will request my own time.
Ms. Lofgren. All right. Then, I would yield back.
Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Watt. I have an amendment to the Jackson Lee amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Watt amendment to the Jackson Lee amendment to
the Committee print to H.R. 2086----
Mr. Watt. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be
considered as read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
[The amendment of Mr. Watt follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And if you will propose it as a
modification, I think it can be agreed to.
Mr. Watt. I was trying to get it in front of the Committee
so everybody could understand it.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the modification
is agreed to.
Hearing none, so ordered.
The question now is on the Jackson Lee amendment as
modified by Mr. Watt.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The noes appear to have it, the noes have it, and----
Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is requested. The
question is agreeing to the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, as modified by the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
Those in favor will, as your names are called, answer aye;
those opposed, no; and the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. King?
Mr. King. No.
The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney?
Mr. Feeney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn?
Mrs. Blackburn. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
Mr. Meehan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in the chamber who wish to
cast or change their vote?
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes?
Mr. Forbes. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart?
Ms. Hart. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 ayes and 17 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Having done Amendment No. 5, I will
ask that Amendment No. 4 be called up.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Amendment No.
4.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Committee print on H.R. 2086
offered by Mr. Nadler. Page 7, after line 22, insert the
following: And redesignate accordingly. VIII, request funding
for any----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nadler. This is perhaps controversial, but simple. The
language on Page 5, which is not included in the amendment,
says, ``The Director shall not confirm the adequacy of any
budget request that--'' and then it continues with the language
I propose to delete. ``--requests funding from any agency to
enforce any Federal law in a State or local area, contrary to
the public policy of that State or local Government in the
relation to the use of marijuana for medical purposes.''
What this amendments says is that in certain States,
certain areas--and the only one that I am familiar with is
California--they have passed, the legislatures or city
council's have passed laws permitted the use of marijuana under
certain conditions for medical purposes.
The Federal Government has sought to interfere and say
that, nonetheless, no matter the vote of the California
legislature or the decisions of local people, the Federal
Government will stop and arrest anyone who tries to use
marijuana for medical purposes.
Now, there has been plenty of evidence that marijuana is
useful in certain cases with AIDS, with other ailments in
dampening down nausea, in dampening down pain and other things,
and we should not be in the business of second-guessing doctors
and physicians and saying that they can't use something that is
medically indicated to be used.
Now, what this amendment says simply is that the funds from
this bill cannot be used to interfere with the State that
permits the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Now, some of
the people may say, and this is an argument that I have heard,
that this is a stocking horse for legalization of marijuana.
The fact is the question of legalization or decriminalization
of marijuana is a completely separate question.
We recognize the use of various controlled substances for
medical purposes. Morphine is a controlled substance. You can't
sell morphine on the private market. You are not allowed to use
it, but morphine can be used by a physician in pain control, in
surgery or other things, and there is no reason that the
Federal Government should interfere with physicians or
certainly with States that have determined, as public policy,
to permit the use of marijuana for pain control or other
medical purposes.
And that is what this amendment says; namely, that no funds
subject to this bill shall be used to enforce Federal law
against the policy of a State that permits the use of marijuana
for medical purposes under physicians who----
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Nadler. Yes, I will.
Ms. Lofgren. I just would like to note that the California
State policy on medical marijuana was not approved by the
legislature, it was the voters of California, in an initiative,
who voted overwhelmingly to allow that use.
Now, it is true that some of the proponents probably are
supportive of legalizing marijuana. I am not. And I think my
fellow Californians who voted for the use of marijuana
dispensed by a physician for a medical condition are also not
for legalizing marijuana, but I have never been able to
understand why it is okay for a doctor to give morphine to
someone in pain, but not to dispense something else that is
probably less addictive to deal with this issue.
And I just recall so well a friend of mine, who has now
passed away, who had cancer, and he couldn't eat. He couldn't
keep anything down. He had no appetite, and he actually had to
go out and hang out, and he bought marijuana on the street and
was able to, after he took the marijuana, was actually able to
eat. And he eventually did die. It was a terminal condition,
but I always felt how humiliating that was for that fine person
to have to do that when he should have been able to go to his
doctor and get the medicine that he needed.
So I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and I hope that
we might be able to do this, and I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Reclaiming my time. I just want to
make two other comments:
One, the Times-CNN poll last year said 80 percent of the
public in the country as a whole thinks adults should be able
to use marijuana for medical purposes, pursuant to medical
supervision or dispensation;
And, secondly, we use morphine and other things. I don't
see why doctors, especially where the local Government or the
State has decided, shouldn't be able to use marijuana or
anything else under proper medical supervision for medical
purposes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Nadler. Can I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional
seconds?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Mr. Nadler. One other objection has been made over the
years to this, and that is that there haven't been adequate
scientific studies that show the medical use of marijuana, and
I simply want to say that may be true, that I have seen claims
on both sides, but the DEA has made sure to make sure that
nobody will fund, until very recently--I think there are some
studies going on now, that there has been a sustained policy in
the Federal Government to make sure that no one would fund any
such studies to show the evidence.
We have plenty of anecdotal evidence, such as the
gentlelady from California just said, the voters have spoken by
initiative and referendum in California, and the Federal
Government should not interfere with the people of California
and with medical supervision. And so I hope this amendment
would be adopted.
I thank the gentleman, and I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Very briefly.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman from New York has very clearly
stated the purport of his amendment. It simply would deny
funding to enforce Federal marijuana laws, and I therefore
would oppose the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The noes appear to have it. A rollcall will be ordered.
Those in favor of the Nadler amendment will, as your names are
called, answer aye; those opposed no; and the clerk will call
the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart?
Ms. Hart. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
Mr. Forbes. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
Mr. King. No.
The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney?
Mr. Feeney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn?
Mrs. Blackburn. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
Mr. Meehan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in the chamber who wish to
cast or change their vote.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members?
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I vote no.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or
change their vote?
If not, the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 11 ayes and 17 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have Amendment No. 3 at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Committee print on H.R. 2086
offered by Ms. Waters. Strike Page 37, line 1, through Page 47,
line 17. Page 47, line 20, strike this section and insert
``treatment and prevention programs.''
[The amendment of Ms. Waters follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and Members, at the beginning of the hearing
of this bill, I attempted to articulate my very, very strong
disagreement with the approaches that are being taken to deal
with drug problems in this country. I think that we have wasted
an awful lot of money. Our efforts have not been effective.
We continue to have rising drug problems, more young people
involved with drugs. We are filling up our prisons. We don't
have enough prevention and rehabilitation, and I sincerely
think that we should be about the business of developing public
policy that will deal with prevention and treatment.
As a matter of fact, several Members sitting on this
Committee today have attempted, in more than one way, to try
and get a bipartisan effort going to deal with prevention and
treatment. As my colleague from North Carolina said, it is
absolutely unconscionable that we would talk about developing
public policy and develop public policy that would deny
treatment and prevention.
It was also pointed out that there is some contradiction in
this bill while we have these HIDTA areas that are areas by
which this policy that we have is implemented, we are prevented
from having treatment and prevention in most of the HIDTA
areas, and we have some special treatment for a couple of the
areas. So it just doesn't make good sense.
What I have done with this amendment is strike everything
that referenced advertising, production, cartoons, whatever it
is we do. It seems to me that, with all of the tax breaks that
we are giving to the big advertising firms, that we ought to be
able to get more volunteerism, more free public service time
and not spend what I think is in this bill, $195 million, on
these ineffective ads.
I noticed in this bill that there is language that talks
about evaluation and some assessment of the media programs that
we have put together, the ads, but I never see anything come
back, determining whether or not these ads are effective or
ineffective, and nobody on this Committee probably can tell you
that they have read anything that was in the last bill that
talked about doing some kind of an assessment of whether or not
these ads are effective. Nobody here knows whether those ads
are effective or not, whether or not the studies were done,
whether or not the reports were given to Congress. This is a
joke. This is $195 million that we are throwing out of the
window that could be used for treatment and prevention
programs.
And so my amendment would strike Page 37, lines 1 through
47, and the other lines that I have referenced. It just strikes
out this silly, stupid advertising program, where we are
getting ripped off by somebody probably in some proposals that
somebody has got some discretion to fund to make up these dumb
ads that do nothing to deter involvement by drugs by our youth.
This would strike all of that, and it would spend the money on
treatment and prevention. That is $195 million that I think
could be a lot better spent.
I would ask my colleagues to give this some consideration.
It seems as if we haven't done a very good job here today in
convincing our colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle
that there is a need for treatment and prevention, but this is
another effort to do it, not only to say we should do it, but
point out where we have got some money that could be used to do
it, and I would ask for support for this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady from California has
clearly stated the purport of her amendment. It would delete
the provisions funding the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign and redirect those monies to prevention and treatment
programs.
And as I said before, there are already provisions in the
bill that addresses treatment and prevention programs, and I
therefore oppose the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Coble. I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Waters
amendment.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The noes appear to have it, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Scott?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Committee print to H.R. 2086
offered by Mr. Scott. On Page 7, on line 22, following the word
``assistance,'' strike both the period and end quotation mark
and insert a semicolon. On----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment of Mr. Scott follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The rest of the amendment would add essentially that the
budget presented by the Drug Czar shall not be approved if it
fails to provide funding for adequate research on the relative
efficacy of strategies to reduce drug use.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply require the
Office of National Drug Control Policy to provide adequate
funding for research on which strategies are most successful in
reducing drug use.
According to the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services
Administration, 15.9 million Americans 12 years of age or
older, that is 7 percent of that population reported using an
illicit drug the month prior to the survey and 12 percent
reported illegal drug use during the previous year.
We are all aware of the amount of time, effort and money we
have devoted to enforcement of drug policies. Traditionally,
the U.S. has spent about two-thirds of the drug budget on
interdiction and law enforcement and one-third on treatment and
prevention, and our efforts to date have not been particularly
successful in decreasing drug usage, particularly among our
youth.
The drug problem remains, and we need to spend some effort
determining the best and most effective ways to address it.
Quite simply, we need to figure out what works and what does
not work, and this is what my amendment seeks to do.
If you review, Mr. Chairman, what we just did, we defeated
the amendment by the gentlelady from California. We don't know
if those ads do any good or not. Well, this would just ask for
an adequate amount of research to be done to figure out what we
are doing.
I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that on this amendment, my good
friend and colleague on the Crime Subcommittee, Mr. Coble,
could at least help us find out what works and what doesn't
work.
I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina?
Mr. Coble. I regret having to oppose my friend from
Virginia with that beguiling smile, but let me just say a word
or two.
I oppose the amendment, Mr. Scott, because I don't believe
it is necessary. The amendment would require the Director of
ONDCP to deny any budget request that fails to provide funding
for adequate research of the relative efficacy of strategies to
reduce drug use. I don't believe that we should be diverting
money for research that could be best used to attack the
problem of drug use by funding the drug control strategy
contained in the bill.
We have had several witnesses, as you know, Bobby and
others, who testified before the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security over the last few years that
the best strategy to reduce drug use is to attack the problem
with a well-rounded or holistic approach.
That is precisely, it seems to me, what this bill does. It
funds three priorities: stopping the drug use before it
commences; healing drug use or, that is, treatment; and
disrupting drug markets--law enforcement.
The bill supports funding for education and awareness
programs to keep kids off drugs before they begin using them
and ensure that Federal drug treatment programs are adequately
funded, and the bill also funds the HIDTA program, which is a
crucial component of the Nation's strategy to reduce the
availability of illicit drugs, and for those reasons, I oppose
the gentleman's amendment.
Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Coble. I will yield.
Ms. Waters. Could you point to where in this bill there is
money designated for drug treatment. You keep talking about
this holistic approach, the three-pronged approach for
enforcement, prevention and treatment. Could you help me out.
Will you show me where, in this bill, monies are directed for
treatment and rehabilitation.
Mr. Coble. If you will suspend for a minute, Ms. Waters,
let me get my papers in line here, if I can find them.
[Pause.]
Mr. Coble. If the gentlelady will yield.
Ms. Waters. Yes.
Mr. Coble. This was the language, Ms. Waters, that I said
earlier that was the variation of language that was introduced
by Representative Cummings before the Government Reform
Committee, and I will get the specific page number for you in
the bill.
Ms. Waters. Is the gentleman referring to the language that
gave a special exclusion for the Washington-Baltimore area?
Mr. Coble. No.
[Pause.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Where are we at, folks?
Mr. Coble. I think I have this, Ms. Waters. Starting at
Page 5 on the bill through the middle of Page 7.
Ms. Waters. Starting on Page 5?
Mr. Coble. That is correct.
Ms. Waters. I don't see anything on Page 5 that says
prevention or rehabilitation. Would you be specific about where
it is. What line are you referring to?
Mr. Coble. Starting on I think it is line 20, starting on
line 20.
Ms. Waters. Starting on line 20 of Page 5, says, allowing
new--subparagraph--and then it goes on to talk about specific
requests, ``The Director shall not confirm the adequacy of any
budget request that requests funding for Federal law
enforcement activities that do not adequately compensate for
transfers of drug enforcement
--''
I don't see it.
Mr. Coble. Subsection 6 on Page 7 I think would address it.
Ms. Waters. Page 7, what line?
Mr. Coble. Line 3.
Ms. Waters. ``Request funding for drug treatment activities
that do not adequately support and enhance Federal drug
treatment programs and capacity, as determined by the
Director.''
So you are saying that the Director has some discretion
here.
Mr. Coble. Yes.
Ms. Waters. To make some determination.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from
North Carolina has expired.
The question is on----
Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The other gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. Watt. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Watt. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from North
Carolina.
As I read what was just read, all that says is you have to
spend some money to support treatment. The fact is Mr.
Chairman, all prevention programs don't work. They don't
prevent anything. Some so-called prevention programs are a
waste of money. Some save more money than they cost. We would
like to know which ones work and which ones do not work.
The Chairman of the subcommittee mentioned the holistic
approach. We just voted against an amendment that would have
allowed, in some cases, prevention funding. All this asks is
find out what works, and I hope it doesn't hurt the feelings of
the majority if we find out what works. I mean, is that a
problem?
Yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Scott
amendment.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The noes appear to have it.
Mr. Scott. Rollcall.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A rollcall will be ordered.
Those in favor of the Scott amendment will, as your names
are called, answer aye; those opposed, no; and the clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
Mr. Bachus. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bach----
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Cannon, no.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
Mr. Bachus. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart?
Ms. Hart. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
Mr. Forbes. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
Mr. King. No.
The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney?
Mr. Feeney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn?
Mrs. Blackburn. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
Mr. Meehan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or
change their vote?
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. How am I recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Jackson Lee is not recorded.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or
change their votes?
If not, the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 18 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I now, have done 5 and 4, call up
Amendment No. 3.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Amendment No.
3.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Committee print to H.R. 2086
offered by Mr. Nadler. Page 5, after line 8, insert the
following: And redesignate accordingly. Two, in paragraph 12,
by adding at the end the following: ``except that the Director
shall not take action to oppose any attempt to legalize the use
of marijuana for medical purposes.''
[The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment, as did my last one, addresses the question
of the medical use of marijuana. This, however, does not, as
Mr. Coble objected to, say that the Director cannot use funds
to enforce the law. The last amendment didn't quite say that.
It said it couldn't use funds to enforce the law on medical
marijuana against the wishes of the local State.
What this simply says is that the Drug Czar should not
spend his time and resources, in effect, lobbying State and
local Governments on this question of medical use of marijuana.
I think we should focus our efforts to address the drug problem
in this country first on treatment and prevention of drug abuse
and on prosecution and incarceration of hard-core drug dealers.
We should not spend time going after people who use marijuana
for medicinal purposes, especially when they are suffering from
cancer or AIDS.
This amendment would free the staff of the Drug Czar to
pursue hard-core dealers and leave the States to decide on
their own whether or not they want to legalize or not the use
of marijuana for medical purposes.
I must add that this is a very unusual situation. I know of
no other area in the law where a Federal Government agent is
directed, by law, to lobby State Governments and local
Governments on any particular question, to try to prevent a
State from enacting a law that does this, that or the other
thing.
All this amendment does is simply reverse that and say that
this is none of the Director's business. ``The Director shall
not take action to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of
marijuana.''
He can enforce the law--legalize the use of marijuana for
medical purposes. He can enforce the law. Mr. Coble should not
object on the same grounds he did the other amendment. This
does not prevent him from enforcing the law. It says he should
not spend his time and resources going to the legislature of
this, that or the other State and arguing what they should or
shouldn't do on the question of medical use of marijuana.
And, again, all of the other facts are the same. Eighty-
percent of the American public supports the medical use of
marijuana under physician supervision. We just voted on the
amendment by the Republicans, a Republican amendment to give
the Director more discretion, and all we are saying here is
that he can enforce the law, but it is not his business, it is,
frankly, not the Government's business to be lobbying State
legislatures or, for that matter, city councils on any
question, and particularly not on this question.
I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Well, I would say to my good friend from New
York, you are right, it is not the same reason I objected
earlier, but I think, Mr. Nadler and colleagues, to tell the
Director of ONDCP, who is the Nation's Drug Czar and the
principal adviser to the President on drug control policy, that
he would not be able to oppose drug legalization, I just don't
think is well founded.
Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Coble. I yield.
Mr. Nadler. First of all, it says nothing about drug
legalization. It says for medical use of marijuana. So let us
keep them--they are very different questions.
Mr. Coble. Reclaiming my time. That may well be subject to
interpretation.
Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield again?
Mr. Coble. I will yield.
Mr. Nadler. I don't know what you mean by ``subject to
interpretation.'' It says ``to legalize the use of marijuana
for medical purposes.'' That is not subject, I mean, that is
very clear.
But, again, where does the Government, generally, and the
law actually says he must do this, where else do we know where
a Director of a Government agency is directed by law to lobby a
State legislature for or against anything? He can certainly
make speeches, but to lobby a State legislature, which is what
we are talking about here?
Mr. Coble. Let me reclaim my time.
We obviously have disagreement on this, Mr. Nadler, and I
yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Coble. I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Nadler
amendment.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The noes appear to have it, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York?
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I now call up Amendment No. 2. There
is no Amendment No. 1, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
The clerk will report Amendment No. 2.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Committee print on H.R. 2086
offered by Mr. Nadler. Page 5----
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
[The amendment of Mr. Nadler follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, this is a follow-on to the last
amendment and should meet Mr. Coble's objection to that
amendment.
This simply says that the Director is not required to take
action to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of marijuana
for medical purposes. He may, at his discretion, under this
amendment, lobby State legislatures, but this removes the
mandate in the law, the very unusual, and as far as I know,
unique mandate in the law that a Director of a Government
agency oppose a particular action by State legislatures.
This doesn't say he can't do it. It doesn't say he must do
it, which the current law does. This simply says that he is not
required, in effect, to lobby State and local Governments on
the question of legalization of marijuana for medical purposes.
I would think that we could leave that to the judgment of the
Director of Drug Enforcement Policy. I presume, under this
Administration, he would do it anyway, but maybe they will have
better sense in some future year, who knows.
But there is no legitimate reason why the law should
mandate that the Federal Government lobby for or against a
particular policy, especially a policy, which you may think is
a good or bad idea, legalizing the use of marijuana for medical
purposes. Again, we allow the use of much harder drugs, like
morphine, for medical purposes, when indicated. I don't know
why we would single this out in law. We should leave it up to,
frankly, leave it up to Government, not by law, leave it up to
the executive.
And this would say that the Director can, if he wants to,
if he thinks it is a good idea, lobby local Governments and
State legislatures, but he doesn't have to, and we shouldn't
mandate him one way or the other.
So I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina?
Mr. Coble. I commend my friend from New York. At least he
is drafting, he is getting nearer to me each time, but I still
oppose this. I see nothing wrong with requiring the national
Drug Czar to oppose legalization of illegal drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on Nadler No. 2.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The noes appear to have it, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not----
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is ordered.
Those in favor of Nadler Amendment No. 2 will, as your
names are called, answer aye; those opposed, no; and the clerk
will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
Mr. Bachus. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Ms. Hart?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
Mr. Forbes. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
Mr. King. No.
The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn?
Mrs. Blackburn. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
Mr. Meehan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change
their vote?
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Utah, Mr.
Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Feeney.
Mr. Feeney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or
change their votes?
If not, the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 16 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk, Jackson Lee 103.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. That doesn't mean that you have 102
left, does it? [Laughter.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, you know how much we like to
spend our time with each other, I am considering it.
[Laughter.]
The Clerk. Amendment to the Committee print to H.R. 2086
offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Page 13, line 9, before the semicolon insert, ``broken down
according to the race, ethnicity, gender and age of individuals
arrested.''
Page 13, line 11, before the semicolon----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me note for my colleagues how much I appreciate the
Chairman's willingness a few amendments back to accept my
amendment, as modified by Congressman Watt. I am disappointed
that my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle
did not choose to take the leadership of the Chairman, as they
have done in the past.
Now, I hope I have not set a trap for myself, but I do
believe that this amendment should draw the collaborative
support of Chairman Coble and I hope the Ranking Member of the
Crime Subcommittee, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Watt. Would the gentlelady yield just so I can clarify?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Watt. I think the gentlelady may have misunderstood, as
I did, what the Chairman was saying. I thought the Chairman was
accepting my amendment, too, but he did not do that, and he and
I talked about that. But he didn't--the Committee followed his
leadership in rejecting even what I had submitted.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you for clarifying. That means I
am back in the same pit that I was before. I heard the same
thing you did. I didn't get it clarified. I heard ``we will
accept the modification.''
But in any event, let me hope that the amendment that we
are offering at this point is a simple one to be instructive.
Again, I go back to my theory that this is a national drug
policy legislative initiative that has to look at the circle:
consumerism, if you will, the crime aspect of it, and the
victims who are impacted.
Many of those that are under mandatory sentencing by way of
enforcement legislation come from certain communities. Part of
their victimization or their incarceration is based upon the
fact that they are users. In order to be instructive on how we
can provide more intervention, more interdiction, more
treatment, I think we need to know who is being targeted.
So for the colleagues' information, my amendment asks the
Attorney General to submit drug arrest prosecution violation
statistics, broken down by race, ethnicity, gender and age, to
determine where to focus drug control efforts and resources to
most affected populations, identify the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas, the HIDTA, and as well to further evidence
of any, if you will, targeting or any focus in one community
versus another.
Now, this is not a prison bill, but for my colleagues'
information, under the Bureau of Prisons, the total inmate
population at this time--and I am not sure if this is, this is
June 2003--169,676 individuals, 143 million in out facilities,
and 14,000 or 15,000 are in privately managed; male, 157,000;
female, 11,000.
There are 40-percent black, that is 68,585; and Hispanic,
54,000, that is 32 percent. So between black and Hispanic,
there are 72 percent, if I am reading this correctly--probably
not because Hispanic will cover black, white, in terms of race.
But the numbers are huge.
And so I would suggest that, with the heavy burden in the
minority community, it is clearly important for us to have this
information. I would ask my colleagues to look at this from the
instructive perspective. You certainly can't refute the fact
that the numbers are very high. There has to be a reason. Some
of these cases are based upon drug cases. Some of these cases
are there because we have no alternative in the Federal system.
We have a system where we have incarceration over treatment and
prevention.
I believe this information would be very important,
although it is asking the Attorney General, because it is on
the prosecution end, to know just what we are doing with
respect to the individuals that ultimately fall victim to drug
usage, and then drug arrest, and drug prosecution.
I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
would also refer them to the incarceration numbers in the
Bureau of Prisons, which are literally tragic, absolutely
tragic.
Let me just say two other things on this. With respect to
the type of offenses in the Federal system, drug offenses,
83,676, which are 54 percent of those incarcerated. I would
imagine that some of those could have been avoided by
intervention, prevention and treatment of individuals.
Because we have mandatory sentencing, we will find that
close to half of these individuals are in for 3 to 5, 5 to 10,
10 to 15, and 15 to 20. So we're incarcerating people for drug
usage because of the mandatory sentencing----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired
Ms. Jackson Lee.--and I believe we need the information to
make a difference.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Coble.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I'd ask for support of this amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Coble.
Mr. Coble. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would amend the provision of
the bill that requires the Attorney General to submit a report
to the Director of ONDCP regarding the number and types of
arrests for drug violation and prosecution of drug violation by
U.S. Attorneys. The amendment would require the Attorney
General to break down that report according to the race,
ethnicity, gender, and age of the individuals arrested and
prosecuted.
I oppose the amendment for the following reasons: I think
the amendment is unnecessary because the stated purpose of the
section that the gentlelady is attempting to amend is to obtain
statistics that will allow better evaluation of resource
allocation for drug control activities within individual
agencies. The reason this was included in the bill was due to
concern over the impact that the possible diversion of drug
control assets to unrelated missions might have on the war on
drug.
The author of the bill believes that the mandated reporting
will significantly assist in oversight and monitoring in that
respect. Requiring the report to be broken down by race,
ethnicity, gender, and age I don't believe will assist the
Director of ONDCP in determining whether or not the diversion
of drug control assets to unrelated missions is having a
significant impact. Because I think it is unnecessary, it would
be unduly burdensome, it seems to me, for the Attorney General
to collect these statistics when they will not serve the
intended purpose of the report.
Finally, this reporting requirement would be duplicative in
some ways since these types of statistics are already being
collected on a regular basis by the United States Sentencing
Committee--Commission for individuals who have been convicted
of drug offenses.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Coble. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If we are speaking to establishing a
national drug policy, I believe this information under this
particular legislation is important. It is not overly
burdensome if in other instances the Department of Justice has
already--has collected them as well.
Would the gentleman not--and let me just pose a question.
Would the gentleman not think it would be helpful to understand
whether certain populations are more heavily either victimized
or, if you will, susceptible to either incarceration or
prosecution or use under a national drug policy legislative
initiative?
Mr. Coble. If the gentlelady would yield, I don't agree
with that. I think the drug policy ought to be race-neutral.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, unfortunately, the sentencing and
the incarceration is not really race-neutral. I wish it was
myself. But it's heavily noted in certain communities. We have
already seen a study--if you would yield, we've already seen a
study where, in Baltimore, we have proven that where you have
an exemption for prevention and treatment, it works. You have
areas where you don't have that, and so you have high numbers
of minorities being incarcerated. Those numbers would be
helpful to us, Mr. Chairman. I think it would not hurt this
bill to have that in there.
Mr. Coble. Well, I'll reclaim my time, and I'm not in
agreement with the lady, and I yield back my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Jackson Lee
amendment. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
The noes appear to----
Ms. Jackson Lee. rollcall.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A rollcall is ordered. Those in
favor of Jackson Lee amendment number 103 will as your names
are called answer aye, those opposed no, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
Mr. Bachus. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Hart?
Ms. Hart. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
Mr. Forbes. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
Mr. King. No.
The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney?
Mr. Feeney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn?
Mrs. Blackburn. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
Mr. Meehan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or
change their vote? The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Utah, Mr.
Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California,
Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 12 ayes and 17 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments? The gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Waters.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Committee print to H.R. 2086,
offered by Ms. Waters. Strike the bill, page 1, line 1 through
page 48, line 12.
[The amendment of Ms. Waters follows:]
Ms. Waters. Well, Mr. Chairman and Members----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Waters. I take this extraordinary action because I
think it is important that we at least--those of us who are
opposed to what is happening with this so-called war on drugs,
that we take a stand and that stand be recorded in this record
today.
I consider that my amendment is the mother of all
amendments because it would do away with this bill, period. It
would strike page 1, line 1 through page 48, line 12. Remember
what I said when I first came into the Committee today? This
bill is not worth the paper that it is written on.
I believe that the drug czar's office is wasteful,
ineffective, and unworthy of using the taxpayers' money to
fund. I was opposed to the drug czar's office in the last
Administration, and I remain opposed to the way this office is
organized. We spend $521 million on the drug czar's office.
That's not to include the billions of dollars that are being
spent, being thrown away, thrown down the drain in this so-
called war on drugs. We're spending money on meaningless media
campaigns and ineffective ads. And the audacity of the Chairman
of the subcommittee to resist even a study or research to guide
the expenditures of these dollars, despite the fact that there
is no evidence of crime reduction in the HIDTA areas, where
more law enforcement money supposedly is being spent, there is
no prevention in the bill.
I ask the Chairman to guide me to the language that
mandated any kind of prevention and rehabilitation. We saw some
vague language with some discretionary authority, and we even
saw language that would prevent the use of prevention and
treatment money in these HIDTA areas.
Given all of that, I do not wish this bill to serve as a
reauthorization for the drug czar's office. Now, if we don't
reauthorize the bill, the Appropriations Committee will
probably fund it anyway. But should they not fund it, that
would be the greatest signal to us to assume some
responsibility for coming up with decent drug policy to deal
with what is probably one of the biggest criminal problems in
America today.
Mr. Chairman and Members, I and some other progressives in
this Congress are oftentimes referred to as ``the tax-and-spend
liberals.'' Well, here is one liberal today who do not wish to
spend another dime on the drug czar's office and would
eliminate this expenditure entirely, unless it was converted
into prevention and treatment. I can recall hearing my friends
on the opposite side of the aisle say to us time and time again
that money was spent, they say, on the war on poverty by these
tax-and-spend liberals and that the programs were not
effective, we didn't prove anything, and, therefore, these
programs should not be funded anymore.
Well, you have the greatest example of an ineffective
program. It may be a public relations effort so that
politicians can go back and say that they're doing something
about drugs. But we are doing nothing. We are not preventing.
We are not curing. We're not treating. And to tell you the
truth, we're not even doing a good job with crime enforcement.
As a matter of fact, at the local level you have your
police officers on the front line. You have your DAs. They're
arresting. They're indicting. You have your so-called DEA. You
have the FBI. This is all beside the money that we're talking
about spending in the drug czar's office.
If we really want to do something, we would strike this
bill and rewrite a bill--rewrite a bill to deal with some real
prevention and treatment. And I don't mind putting some more
money into law enforcement as indicated. But who's got the
proof of what's been happening with this additional money that
we have been spending in these HIDTAs? How many more arrests
have been made? What are we doing?
I submit to you that we're doing nothing, and it is
shameful that we sit here and throw away additional money year
after year in something called a drug czar's office that's
doing nothing to keep drugs off our street and stop our young--
--
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Waters.--people from being involved in drugs.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina--
--
Ms. Waters. I have no more time, so you can have whatever
it is I don't have left.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentlelady's striking
amendment.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Conyers. I want to thank the Chair of this Committee
for leading us in a more candid discussion about drugs and
crime and how they are treated in the Federal level than we've
had in a long time. And I must say that I think it has been
important. It has been candid, and if it hasn't been noticed,
it's been done with a minimum of rancor or any personal attacks
on each other. And for that I think this is a very important
circumstance that ought to be acknowledged.
The gentlelady from California observed that we could move
forward without an authorization, and she happens to be quite
right. It just so happened that the authorization for the
Department of Justice didn't occur for many, many years. As a
matter of fact, until recently, up until 1979--or from 1979,
there had never been an authorization. There was just a
friendly old Chairman in their Appropriations Committee that
did it all for us. We didn't even have to do anything. So
supporting the notion of ending this bill is not unheard of or
is not without precedence.
There is something else that should be added to the close
of this discussion. This measure about drugs and the criminal
justice system, which sends more citizens charged with non-
violent crimes to the Federal and State prisons than any other
item in the Federal criminal code and the State criminal codes,
has been brought forward without a single hearing at the
subcommittee level or the full Committee level. There have been
no markups by the subcommittee. And it would seem to me that
the gentlelady's amendment ought to be supported if for no
other reason that we would get a chance to further discuss
these issues that have been brought to this level in a rather
hasty manner.
There are more African American men in prisons about non-
violent drug offenses than there are in the colleges and
universities of the United States.
Now, it seems to me that this has to--we have to begin to
examine more carefully the judicial criminal justice procedure
by which they end up occupying these prisons in greater and
greater numbers. This is not a subject in which things are
getting better. They're getting worse. So merely going through
the same motions is not adequate. And I would urge that all of
us, regardless of what our positions are on this subject, give
the amendment the consideration to which it is due.
And I return any time.
Mr. Chabot. [Presiding] The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to support this amendment, and if
it doesn't pass, I'm going to vote against the bill, not
because I think that there's no function for drug enforcement
in the United States. Obviously I don't agree with that. I
think there is a major function for drug enforcement. But
there's also a function for drug treatment and prevention.
The drug czar's office, which this reauthorizes, by the
terms of this bill and since several amendments were defeated,
for the first time this bill in reauthorizing the drug czar's
office would say that no funds may be spent for treatment and
prevention. In other words, what this bill says is the only
legitimate--the only thing we ought to do to fight the problem
of drugs is law enforcement and incarceration. Anybody who
knows anything about the subject--and there may be funds
elsewhere in Government for drug treatment. Fine. But to say--
but the clear message of this bill with a new provision for
which no one has given any justification whatsoever, a new
provision that says no funds herein appropriated or herein
authorized may be spent for prevention or treatment, is
saying--is a clear message that the only way to solve the
drug--forget about treatment, forget about prevention, 100
percent of our efforts ought to be on incarceration and law
enforcement.
Anybody who knows anything about the problem knows that
that's, in fact, insanity. It's straight insanity. You can
debate the proportion of treatment, how much money should be
spent on treatment, how much on enforcement, how much on
prevention. Nobody can say that treatment and prevention--
nobody intelligently and honestly can say that enforcement--I'm
sorry, that treatment and prevention have no role in solving
this problem. That's what this bill now says. It's a great step
backwards. Other than the force majeure of 18 votes of
automatons on that side of the aisle who don't listen to the
merits of any proposal and just vote no on everything, I've
heard no justification for why we would suddenly want to say no
provision--no funds may be spent on prevention and treatment.
It's insane to be saying that, so I hope this amendment which
simply eliminates the bill is passed, and failing that, I hope
the bill is not voted for. And I frankly would think that
anybody in the country--I mean, it's a heck of a statement that
this Committee and maybe eventually the House will be making,
that we don't believe in drug prevention, we don't believe in
drug treatment, all we want the drug czar to do is spend 100
percent of his time and effort and money not only on making
sure that people who are terminally ill and deathly can't get
medical marijuana, if that's what the doctors say they need,
but making sure that the maximum number of people are thrown in
jail and to heck with treatment and prevention.
That's not what we ought to be saying. That's frankly
insanity, and I'm going to, therefore, vote for this amendment
and against the bill as a whole.
I thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question----
Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Watt.
Mr. Watt. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have not offered any amendments today except to try to
reconcile differences between people who have been offering
amendments and the Chairman of the subcommittee that I thought
made sense. And part of the reason is that I just had trouble
getting connected to this bill.
There is absolutely no issue about which I get asked more
in my congressional district and about which I am more
embarrassed when I have to answer than about the Federal drug
policy. As Mr. Conyers has indicated, there are more African
American men in jail on drug charges than there are in college.
And that is an embarrassment. The studies suggest that drug use
in the African American community is no higher than it is in
other communities, yet drug arrests are higher. That gets you
up to--if I remember the statistics, you start with about 25
percent of the drug users being African American, and then
about 50 percent of the people being charged with drug offenses
are African American, and then about 60-some percent of the
people being convicted of drug offenses are African American,
and the discrimination and embarrassment runs throughout the
system. And our drug policy, our Federal drug policy, has been
a dismal failure. We tried to call it a war. If we operated a
war in the traditional military sense like we operate the drug
war, we would have dismantled the Department of Defense.
And yet when this bill comes to us, somehow it is offensive
to our Committee Members that we should sit here and debate a
matter of this magnitude. There's an impatience about it. We
got a sequential referral; therefore, we didn't have time to go
through the subcommittee process.
When a reasonable, logical amendment is offered, which a
number have been today, such as the amendment to document that
some of the stuff that we are doing and spending money actually
works, my colleagues on the other side prefer to get along and
go along with their leadership rather than to confront the
issue that is before us, stick their heads in the sand, and we
should be happy about this. I am embarrassed. I'm embarrassed
about the process by which this bill got here. I'm embarrassed
about our drug policy in this country. I'm embarrassed that we
would call this a war and do nothing to even research the
effectiveness of it. And I'm embarrassed about the impact that
it's having in my community.
We should be ashamed. This is the only amendment that I can
really get excited about. You've probably noticed that I
haven't even been involved in the debate.
Mr. Chabot. [Presiding] The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Watt. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection.
Mr. Watt. Maybe I can make up some of the time that I've
given you for not being involved in the debate earlier.
We should be ashamed to consider a bill of this magnitude
in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives with
as little regard as we have given to this bill, to put
ourselves on autopilot and go along with whatever some other
Committee sent over here and defer to them when it's impacting
every single one of our communities.
And so I really don't have any alternative but to support
the gentlelady's amendment. It's the only one--it's the only
part--the bill doesn't make any sense. To say that we're going
to stop doing prevention and just start doing more enforcement,
that's what the problem is now. We've got all these people in
jail. If you look at who's in jail on drug charges, 68 percent
of our Federal prison population is there on drug offenses.
It's draining humongous amounts of resources.
And I just got something handed to me saying, well, we got
this bill referred to us the same day it was referred to the
Government Reform Committee.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has once again expired.
Mr. Watt. I ask for 2 more minutes, unanimous consent.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, the gentleman is granted an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. Watt. So if we think we are doing something that's
valuable other than just drawing a paycheck, we ought to send
this bill back to the subcommittee and have some hearings about
what's causing this demand for drugs, disparity in arrests,
disparity in charges, disparity in convictions. Is there some
kind of--as my friend Kongufu from New York said, is there
really a conspiracy to destroy black boys in this country, to
put them in jail? Because if you look at the statistics, you'll
get there.
Mr. Chairman, I hate to vent on you all, but this is
serious business in my community. And I haven't seen any
indication that this Committee is inclined to take it
seriously. I think we should delay this bill, send it back to
the subcommittee, have some hearings, and get serious about the
Federal drug policy if we are going to do our job in this
Committee. And I----
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has again expired.
Mr. Watt. In the absence of that, I will support the
gentlelady's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired.
Does any other Member seek----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chabot. The gentlelady from Texas is----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chabot.--recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. What I'm disappointed most in, Mr.
Chairman--and thank you for convening or being in the chair--is
the absence of my good friends and the lateness of the hour
when we're discussing such a monumental decision.
I quarrel with my decision on this amendment because I do
believe there is some value to the partnership between
treatment, prevention, and enforcement. But I think we have
heard this debate over and over again now--I want to say 20
years, but maybe it's shorter than 20 years because we've had a
war on drugs now--I'm not sure how many Presidents have claimed
a war on drugs. And as it relates to the Federal prison system,
we certainly are not making a dent.
And for some reason or other, when I read these numbers
from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, nobody seemed to flinch,
and these are stark numbers. And the reason why I read them is
because it wasn't too long ago, as I said, that I was visiting
one of my Federal prisons in the Beaumont area. And so the
numbers became more than statistical. They were reality. The
sea of faces that I saw was overwhelming, emotionally charging,
if you will. And I'm disappointed this is not the social work/
psychology Committee, somebody is probably saying. This is the
Judiciary Committee.
And I think my colleague makes the point when he says that
we are just getting this without hearings. And we have an
opportunity in 2003 maybe to correct the mistakes that we've
made over the last decade on this war on drugs. We have focused
on imposing sentencing so that neighbors of mine have young
people that were incarcerated 10, 20 years ago or 15 years ago
at 17 for standing on the street corner with crack, and they're
still incarcerated. These are sons of ministers, doctors,
lawyers, Indian chiefs. These are sons of the poor, the middle
class, the rich.
But in many instances, these are sons of a particular race
of people. I've had this Committee reject the fact that there
seems to be some racial profiling of sorts in the arrest and
prosecution. The Federal judges have begged for discretion on
mandatory sentencing as it relates to drugs. We have fought
over and over again between the distinction between cocaine and
crack sentencing. We have not prevailed.
One of the first bills that I voted on coming to this
Congress was to try and undo the mandatory sentencing under the
U.S. Sentencing Commission, whose Commission has begged for
relief. And I remember that vote, some skinny number of 80-
something, both sides of the aisle running for the hills,
frightened that they would be accused of befriending drug
dealers and users.
Well, that's almost 8 years or so ago, and I don't think we
have made any advancement, and here we go again. And I want to
again, because I have traveled with him on these issues,
respect the work of Congressman Souder because I know his
intensity and sincerity about drug intrusion into this country.
But how can we as a Judiciary Committee that has the oversight
over the Department of Justice that has juvenile prevention,
Office of Juvenile Programs, and a number of other issues, how
can we ignore these numbers?
And then I would just say to my colleagues, it's
interesting that we would sit here with a bill like this and we
have the Federal Bureau of Prisons literally doors almost being
closed because people are standing in line overloaded in this
system. And when we look at 54 percent of these folk who are in
there on drug offenses--and I don't know how many barons and
cartel heads that we have in there. It looks like we've just
got grandmothers' sons and mamas' babies that are lined up
there that could hopefully have done something better with
their life, but because we had no intervention, we couldn't get
them to do anything better with their lives.
So on someone who believes that there should be a
partnership in enforcement where we could have had a
collaborative response from this Committee, my friends on the
other side of the aisle have not just gone in a rote fashion,
not listened to some of our arguments or even help us modify
some of the amendments. There's no pride of authorship. We have
listened to the gentlelady from California who'd raised her
concerns about whether or not we could work through some of
these issues. I just think that we are collapsing on our own
sword. And these numbers are appalling. The mandatory
sentencing numbers are appalling.
So you've left us no place to go. And the only place to
go----
Mr. Chabot. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee.--is to--I'd ask for an additional 1
minute.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, the gentlelady is given an
additional minute.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Our only place to go, Mr. Chairman, is to
look at this amendment seriously and not to look at those of us
who feel that there is no out in a serious manner. I don't know
if any of this will get out to the Government Reform Committee.
I'm sure they're moving this forward. But it's shame on us that
we couldn't find ourselves in a bipartisan manner. And I have
the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Crime
Subcommittee. I'm on that Committee, but I'm disappointed
that--I don't know, maybe he's listening to us in the back
room--that we couldn't have found a more collaborative way to
deal with these numbers.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put a
document by the name of ``Federal Bureau of Prisons Quick
Facts'' that indicates the Federal Bureau of Prisons
population, the ethnic breakdown, the percentage of drug
offenses, and the fact that more than half of those
incarcerated in our system are black and Hispanic and as well
that the largest percentage of those incarcerated are
incarcerated because of drug usage. I think that clearly points
out, Mr. Chairman, as I conclude----
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, and that will be included in
the record.
[The material referred to follows:]
Mr. Chabot. The gentlelady's time has----
Ms. Jackson Lee. That our policy----
Mr. Chabot. I'll grant an additional 15 seconds.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That's all, that our policy has failed,
Mr. Chairman, and I'd ask for this amendment to be considered
seriously and voted on by my colleagues.
Mr. Chabot. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Does any other Member seek time? If not, the
question occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye? All
those opposed, say nay?
Mr. Conyers. A record vote.
Mr. Chabot. A record vote is ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
Mr. Bachus. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, no. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Keller?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Hart?
Ms. Hart. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no. Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
Mr. Forbes. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King?
Mr. King. No.
The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Feeney?
Mr. Feeney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mrs. Blackburn?
Mrs. Blackburn. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn, no. Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
Mr. Meehan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye. Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Pass.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, pass. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change
their votes? The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Utah, Mr.
Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Keller?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 ayes, 18 noes, and 1
present.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments? If not, the Chair notes the
presence of a reporting quorum. The question is reporting the
bill H.R. 2086 favorably as amended. All in favor will say aye?
Opposed, no?
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
motion to report--the motion to report favorably is agreed to.
Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to
the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a
substitute incorporating the amendments adopted here today.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to
conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes,
and all Members will be given 2 days as provided by House rules
in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or
minority views.
Minority Views
While we strongly support efforts to rid this nation of its
growing problem involving the use of illicit drugs, we are
submitting these minority views to express our deep concerns
with the approach the majority has taken to deal with this
nation's mounting drug epidemic.
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) 2001 National Household Survey on Drug
Abuse, 41.7% of Americans ages 12 and older reported some use
of an illicit drug at least once during their lifetimes.\1\
Even more troubling are the National Institute on Drug Abuse's
2002 Monitoring the Future Study findings which reported that
53% of high school seniors admitted to having used an illicit
drug at least once in their lives.\2\ HR 2086, the ``Office of
National Drug Control Policy and Reauthorization Act of 2003''
presents the ideal occasion to address these disturbing
phenomena. It also presents us with the unique opportunity to
undertake a comprehensive evaluation of our nation's drug
control policy and overall drug strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office of National Drug Control Policy Fact Sheet, Drug Data
Summary, March 2003 (p.1). http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/
drug--datasum.pdf
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR 2086 is a complex piece of legislation that reauthorizes
the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) within the
Executive Office of the President for the next 5 years, through
the end of FY 2008. It also renews congressional authorization
for national programs administered by ONDCP, including the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and the High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. And, while we support
the reauthorization of these programs and ONDCP, in general, we
are concerned that the legislation, as drafted, will lead to
the de-emphasis of drug prevention and treatment methods which
have been proven to reduce unwanted drug consumption. We are
further concerned that the current legislation fails to
establish adequate priorities for the Director of ONDCP to
ensure that his efforts in combating the war on drugs will be
used in the most appropriate manner possible. Finally, we are
concerned by the majority's decision to avert the traditional
committee process with regard to the consideration of this
bill. The following section highlights these concerns, in
addition to a few others, in greater detail.
I. THE LEGISLATION HAS RECEIVED INADEQUATE ATTENTION AND IMPROPER
CONSIDERATION.
First, we firmly believe that the majority has failed to
give this legislation the proper attention and consideration it
rightfully deserves. HR 2086, the ``Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003'' was introduced by
Representative Mark Souder on May 14, 2003. On the same day of
its introduction, the bill was referred to the Committee on
Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the
Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Intelligence (Permanent
Select) for their consideration. Approximately 1 month later,
on June 19, 2003, the Committee on Government Reform reported
and amended version of the bill out of committee.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ It's worth noting that the Committee on Government Reform,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources held
a markup of the bill in between the date of its introduction and the
time it was reported by the Committee; in addition to holding a series
of prior hearings generally related to the reauthorization of ONDCP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the same day, June 19, 2003, the House Judiciary
Committee was granted an extension for further consideration of
the measure to end no later than July 14, 2003. Notwithstanding
the prompt referral of the bill and the subsequent extension,
the majority failed to schedule any Subcommittee or full
Committee hearing on the bill until the July 9 full Committee
markup. Therefore, the July 9th markup provided Members with
their first and only opportunity to consider the legislation
prior to it being reported out of Committee.
II. THE LEGISLATION DE-EMPHASIZES METHODS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO
REDUCE THE UNLAWFUL CONSUMPTION OF DRUGS SUCH AS DRUG PREVENTION AND
TREATMENT.
Second, we are deeply disappointed by the fact that the
majority's approach to dealing with this nation's burgeoning
drug problem continues to foster a trend that emphasizes drug
prosecution and incarceration over prevention and treatment.
For example, the ONDCP budget request for Federal drug control
spending on drug prevention declined by approximately $62
million dollars from FY 2003 to FY 2004; while during the exact
same period the budget request for spending on domestic law
enforcement increased by over $100 million.\4\ In our opinion,
this is an issue of grave importance and merits further
consideration by this Committee. We also believe the
restrictions HR 2086 places on High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area (HIDTA) program participants with regard to their ability
(or lack thereof) to spend program funds on drug prevention or
treatment programs deserves further examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Office of National Drug Control Policy Fact Sheet, Drug Data
Summary, March 2003 (p.6) (citing the National Drug Control Strategy,
2003: FY 2004 Budget Summary). http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/
drug--datasum.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6 of HR 2086 expressly prohibits HIDTA program
participants from spending any of the funds they receive
through the program on drug prevention or treatment.\5\ This
``across the board'' prohibition is extremely misguided
considering an integral component of the overarching mission of
the HIDTA program is to reduce the chronic use of illegal
drugs; and treatment has been proven successful in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Section 6 of the bill amends section 707 of the ``Office of
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998'' to create a
new section 707(i) which reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Use of Funds--
G(1) Limitation--No funds appropriated for the Program shall be
expended for drug prevention or drug treatment programs.
G(2) Limitation on Applicability--Paragraph (1) shall not apply
with respect to the Baltimore/Washington high intensity drug
trafficking area.
As pointed out by the Baltimore Drug and Alcohol Treatment
Outcomes Study, included as part of this conference report,
treatment has the ability to substantially reduce drug use
among participants as early as days 30 dirty after their
initial receipt and the ability to sustain such reductions for
a minimum of 12 months post-treatment.\6\ The study went on to
make three additional key findings that are worth highlighting.
For example, the study determined that heroin use declined at
statistically significant rates for all treatment participants.
Over the first 30 days of treatment, for instance, heroin use
declined by 72 percent.\7\ Similarly, the study reported a
statistically significant decrease in participants' cocaine use
over the 12 months following entry into treatment. For
instance, cocaine use declined by 64% at 30 days from intake,
43% percent at 6 months and 48% at 12 months.\8\ Finally,
highlighting the positive effects that treatment can have on
crime, the study determined that participants engaged in
illegal activities 64% less often, 12 months after entry into
the treatment program.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Steps to Success: The Baltimore Drug and Alcohol Treatment
Outcomes Study. January, 24, 2002. (p.6).
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id. at 7.
\9\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To eliminate the prohibition placed on HIDTA participants
with regard to expenditures on prevention and treatment, we
offered an amendment during Committee markup that would have
stricken section 707(i) from the bill, in its entirety.
Unfortunately, however, the majority aggressively opposed this
effort. Considering the well documented merits of treatment in
reducing the chronic use of illegal drugs and the impact that
it has proven to have had on reducing crime, we fail to
comprehend the majority's actions in this regard.
III. THE LEGISLATION WASTES VALUABLE ONDCP RESOURCES BY TARGETING
STATES THAT PERMIT THE LAWFUL USE OF MARIJUANA FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES.
Third, we are disheartened by the majority's failure to
support our efforts to amend current requirements in existing
law which obligate the Director of ONDCP to oppose efforts to
legalize medical marijuana.\10\ Regardless of what your
position is on the issue of legalization, we would think that
members of the majority, particularly considering their
longstanding efforts to champion ``states rights,'' would join
us in placing limits on the ability of Members of Congress to
dictate to states what their official policies should be on
such matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Section 1703(b)(12) of title 21 of the United States Code
expressly instructs the Director to ``. . . take such actions as
necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in
any form) that is listed in schedule I. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana has been found to relieve symptoms of many
serious diseases, including asthma, glaucoma, muscle spasms,
and loss of appetite and nausea due to AIDS wasting syndrome
and chemotherapy treatment. Moreover, many professional medical
associations, including the American Medical Association, the
American Public Health Association, and the New England Journal
of Medicine have publically supported prescriptive access to
marijuana.
Even though, the government has long opposed marijuana
legalization in the name of public health and safety, every
independent commission appointed to evaluate the dangers of
marijuana use has found this claim to be unsubstantiated. For
example, President Nixon's National Commission on Marijuana and
Drug Abuse concluded in 1972, after years of research, that,
``[t]here is little proven danger of physical or psychological
harm from the experimental or intermittent use of natural
preparations of cannabis.'' \11\ In addition, a report released
in March 1999 by the National Academy of Science's Institute of
Medicine, determined that the use of marijuana has beneficial
effects for cancer patients, and ultimately recommended
changing the status of the drug from schedule I to schedule
II.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ACLU website: http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/
DrugPolicy.cfm?ID=11038&c=81 (citing a report of the National
Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, ``Marijuana: A Signal of
Misunderstanding.'')
\12\ ACLU website: http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/
DrugPolicy.cfm?ID=11038&c=81 (citing the National Academy of Science's
Institute of Medicine 1999 report: ``Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing
the Science Base'' and the Marijuana Policy Project.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this misguided requirement in existing law,
Democrats offered a series of amendments during the Committee's
markup of HR 2086. One of the amendments, in particular, would
have provided the Director with the discretion to oppose local
and state medical marijuana ballot initiatives whenever he
thought such efforts were most appropriate. Considering the
fact that the Director is best positioned to determine the
overarching priorities of ONDCP, we thought it only appropriate
to vest the Director with sole discretion on such matters. When
necessary he or she could choose to oppose such efforts, in
other instances, he or she could choose to abstain. It is
simply absurd that current law should require him to take time
away from coordinating our nation's fight against violent drug
cartels and truly havoc wreaking drugs, including heroin,
cocaine, crack and ecstasy to oppose every medical marijuana
bill in every city council and state house across the country.
CONCLUSION
We find it truly unfortunate that the majority has decided
against using this opportunity to address additional lingering
issues such as the ongoing disparity between crack and powder
cocaine sentencing, the ineffective use of mandatory minimums
and the need for greater emphasis on drug reentry programs. The
results of these past policy decisions mandated in the wake of
the war on drugs are having major impacts on communities around
the nation as over 600,000 former prisoners per year are
beginning to re-enter society with barriers blocking their
every path. Many of these men and women are victims of the long
mandatory sentences meted out during the eighties and nineties,
who served their time, paid their debt to society, and are now
seeking to re-integrate into society and rebuild their lives.
However, they are confronted with the ``prison after
imprisonment''--a plethora of seemingly endless obstacles and
impediments which stymie successful re-integration into
society.
Additionally, social and criminal justice policy decisions
generated by the war on drugs have resulted in massive
collateral damage negatively limiting critically important
access to housing, employment, public benefits, education, and
political participation. A vast infrastructure of barriers,
often legislatively mandated, have combined to erect seemingly
insurmountable roadblocks at every turn, creating a host of
proscriptions blanketed under a ``one shoe fits all'' regime.
Legislators used to be able to say they were ``tough on
crime'' and supportive of long and punitive non-rehabilitative
sentences, because that is what their constituents demanded.
Many cannot legitimately make those same arguments today. A
recent study by Peter D. Hart Research Associates reveals that
Americans strongly favor rehabilitation and re-entry programs
over incarceration as the best method of insuring public
safety.
With this changing paradigm in public opinion, the
opportunity is ripe to sensibly reassess the role and impact of
our nation's drug policies, and translate this emerging public
perception into an investment in balanced, multi-faceted
policies and procedures which dismantle the structural
impediments to successful re-integration into society.
We sincerely hope, as HR 2086, the ``Office of National
Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act 0f 2003'' makes its way
to the House floor for a vote, the numerous concerns we have
outlined will be adopted by the majority and incorporated
within the many provisions of this bill.
John Conyers, Jr.
Jerrold Nadler.
Robert C. Scott.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
William D. Delahunt.
Tammy Baldwin.
Linda T. Sanchez.