```

[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.


```