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:

2

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). 

3

(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 

4

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—

5

‘‘(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—

6

‘‘(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 NaVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167
7

tional 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 drugrelated 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 representaVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167
8

tion 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—

9

‘‘(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). 

10

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 

11

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; 

12

‘‘(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) 

13

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. 

14

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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X

Total ................................................................................................ 13 9

15

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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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

16

ROLLCALL NO. 3—Continued

Ayes Nays Present 

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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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

17

ROLLCALL NO. 4—Continued

Ayes Nays Present 

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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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 .....................................................................................................

18

ROLLCALL NO. 5—Continued

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ...................................................................................................... X

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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 broVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167
19

ken 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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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

20

ROLLCALL NO. 8—Continued

Ayes Nays Present 

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. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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:

21

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).

22

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 


CBO86.eps
23

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. 

24

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 

25

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 milVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167
26

lion 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 

27

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; øand¿

(G) drug testingø.¿;

(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 øimplicates¿ indicates otherwise, the term ‘‘Office’’ means the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy established under section 703(a). 

28

(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; øand¿

(C) such other cooperative governmental activities 

which promote a comprehensive approach to drug control 

at the national, State, territory, and local levelsø.¿; 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) interdictionø; and¿.

ø(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 ø(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 ø(C)¿ (D) of section 702(10) øand 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 øpermanent 

29

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 øFederal 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

ø(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—

ø(A) success in reducing domestic and foreign sources 

of illegal drugs; 

ø(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; 

ø(C) success in reducing violent crime associated with 

drug use in the United States; 

ø(D) success in reducing the negative health and social 

consequences of drug use in the United States; and 

ø(E) implementation of drug treatment and prevention 

programs in the United States and improvements in the 

adequacy and effectiveness of such programs; 

ø(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—

ø(A) each of the evaluations received by the Director 

under paragraph (13); and 

ø(B) the progress of each National Drug Control Program agency toward the drug control program goals of the 

30

agency using the performance measures for the agency developed under section 706(c); and¿

ø(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 

31

(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.

ø(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. 

ø(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 ø$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) * * *

* * * * * * *

32

(D) funds transferred to an agency under this paragraph may only be used to increase the funding for programs or activities øhave 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 øStrategy; 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 ø(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 

33

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 øabuse¿ control; or 

* * * * * * *

ø(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 AGRI- CULTURE.—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 

34

maritime patrol hours primarily dedicated to drug supply 

reduction missions undertaken by each component of the 

Department of Defense.

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 706. DEVELOPMENT, SUBMISSION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY. 

ø(a) TIMING, CONTENTS, AND PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND

SUBMISSION OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY.— ø(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. 

ø(2) CONTENTS.— ø(A) IN GENERAL.—The National Drug Control Strategy submitted under paragraph (1) shall include— ø(i) comprehensive, research-based, long-range, 

quantifiable, goals for reducing drug abuse and the 

consequences of drug abuse in the United States; 

ø(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; 

ø(iii) 5-year projections for program and budget 

priorities; and 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(3) PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SUBMISSION.— ø(A) CONSULTATION.—In developing and effectively implementing the National Drug Control Strategy, the Director—

ø(i) shall consult with—

ø(I) the heads of the National Drug Control 

Program agencies; 

ø(II) Congress; 

ø(III) State and local officials; 

ø(IV) private citizens and organizations with 

experience and expertise in demand reduction; 

ø(V) private citizens and organizations with 

experience and expertise in supply reduction; and 

ø(VI) appropriate representatives of foreign 

governments; 

ø(ii) with the concurrence of the Attorney General, 

may require the El Paso Intelligence Center to underVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167
35

take specific tasks or projects to implement the National Drug Control Strategy; and 

ø(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. 

ø(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). 

ø(4) SPECIFIC TARGETS.—The targets in the National Drug 

Control Strategy shall include the following: 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(C) Reduction of the availability of cocaine, heroin, 

marijuana, and methamphetamine in the United States by 

80 percent by December 31, 2003. 

ø(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. 

ø(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—

ø(i) reduction of State and Federal unlawful drug 

trafficking and distribution; 

ø(ii) reduction of State and Federal crimes committed by persons under the influence of unlawful 

drugs; 

ø(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 

36

ø(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. 

ø(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 drugrelated crime beyond the 5-year period covered by the National 

Drug Control Strategy that has been submitted. 

ø(b) ANNUAL STRATEGY REPORT.—

ø(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—

ø(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—

ø(i) an assessment of drug use and availability in 

the United States; and 

ø(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; 

ø(B) any modifications of the National Drug Control 

Strategy or the performance measurement system described in subsection (c); 

ø(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; 

ø(D) measurable data evaluating the success or failure 

in achieving the annual measurable objectives described in 

subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii); 

ø(E) an assessment of current drug use (including 

inhalants) and availability, impact of drug use, and treatment availability, which assessment shall include—

ø(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—

ø(I) casual and chronic drug use; 

ø(II) high-risk populations, including school 

dropouts, the homeless and transient, arrestees, 

parolees, probationers, and juvenile delinquents; 

and 

ø(III) drug use in the workplace and the productivity lost by such use; 

37

ø(ii) an assessment of the reduction of drug availability against an ascertained baseline, as measured 

by—

ø(I) the quantities of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, and other drugs available for consumption in the United States; 

ø(II) the amount of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and precursor chemicals entering the United 

States; 

ø(III) the number of hectares of marijuana, 

poppy, and coca cultivated and destroyed domestically and in other countries; 

ø(IV) the number of metric tons of marijuana, 

heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine seized; 

ø(V) the number of cocaine and methamphetamine processing laboratories destroyed domestically and in other countries; 

ø(VI) changes in the price and purity of heroin and cocaine, changes in the price of methamphetamine, and changes in 

tetrahydrocannabinol level of marijuana; 

ø(VII) the amount and type of controlled substances diverted from legitimate retail and wholesale sources; and 

ø(VIII) the effectiveness of Federal technology 

programs at improving drug detection capabilities 

in interdiction, and at United States ports of 

entry; 

ø(iii) an assessment of the reduction of the consequences of drug use and availability, which shall include estimation of—

ø(I) the burden drug users placed on hospital 

emergency departments in the United States, such 

as the quantity of drug-related services provided; 

ø(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; 

ø(III) the extent of drug-related crime and 

criminal activity; and 

ø(IV) the contribution of drugs to the underground economy, as measured by the retail value 

of drugs sold in the United States; 

ø(iv) a determination of the status of drug treatment in the United States, by assessing—

ø(I) public and private treatment capacity 

within each State, including information on the 

treatment capacity available in relation to the capacity actually used; 

ø(II) the extent, within each State, to which 

treatment is available; 

ø(III) the number of drug users the Director 

estimates could benefit from treatment; and 

38

ø(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 

ø(v) a review of the research agenda of the 

Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center to reduce the availability and abuse of drugs; and 

ø(F) an assessment of private sector initiatives and cooperative efforts between the Federal Government and 

State and local governments for drug control. 

ø(2) SUBMISSION OF REVISED STRATEGY.—The President 

may submit to Congress a revised National Drug Control 

Strategy that meets the requirements of this section—

ø(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 

ø(B) if a new President or Director takes office. 

ø(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. 

ø(c) PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM.—

ø(1) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress 

that—

ø(A) the targets described in subsection (a) are important to the reduction of overall drug use in the United 

States; 

ø(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); 

ø(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; 

ø(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 

ø(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. 

ø(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—

39

ø(A) develops performance objectives, measures, and 

targets for each National Drug Control Strategy goal and 

objective; 

ø(B) revises performance objectives, measures, and 

targets, to conform with National Drug Control Program 

Agency budgets; 

ø(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; 

ø(D) evaluates in detail the implementation by each 

National Drug Control Program agency of program activities supporting the National Drug Control Strategy; 

ø(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 

ø(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—

ø(i) the quality of current drug use measurement 

instruments and techniques to measure supply reduction and demand reduction activities; 

ø(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 

ø(iii) the actions the Director shall take to correct 

any deficiencies and limitations identified pursuant to 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(4). 

ø(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). 

øSEC. 707. HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM. 

ø(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the Office a program to be known as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 

Program. 

ø(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—

ø(1) obligate such sums as appropriated for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program; 

ø(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; 

ø(3) take any other action authorized under section 704 to 

provide increased Federal assistance to those areas; 

40

ø(4) coordinate activities under this subsection (specifically 

administrative, recordkeeping, and funds management activities) with State and local officials. 

ø(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—

ø(1) the area is a center of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution; 

ø(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; 

ø(3) drug-related activities in the area are having a harmful impact in other areas of the country; and 

ø(4) a significant increase in allocation of Federal resources is necessary to respond adequately to drug-related activities in the area. 

ø(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 

41

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; 

42

(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 

43

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; 

44

(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. 

45

(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) øDIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY.—¿CHIEF SCIENTIST.— There 

shall be at the head of the Center the øDirector 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. 

ø(c) ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF NA- TIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director, acting through the Director of Technology shall— ø(A) identify and define the short-, medium-, and longterm scientific and technological needs of Federal, State, 

and local drug supply reduction agencies, including— ø(i) advanced surveillance, tracking, and radar imaging; 

ø(ii) electronic support measures; 

ø(iii) communications; 

ø(iv) data fusion, advanced computer systems, and 

artificial intelligence; and 

ø(v) chemical, biological, radiological (including 

neutron, electron, and graviton), and other means of 

detection; 

ø(B) identify demand reduction basic and applied research needs and initiatives, in consultation with affected 

National Drug Control Program agencies, including— ø(i) improving treatment through neuroscientific 

advances; 

ø(ii) improving the transfer of biomedical research 

to the clinical setting; and 

ø(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; 

ø(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; 

ø(D) oversee and coordinate counter-drug technology 

initiatives with related activities of other Federal civilian 

and military departments; 

ø(E) provide support to the development and implementation of the national drug control performance measurement system; and 

ø(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 

46

funds appropriated for counter-drug technology research 

and development. 

ø(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 NA- TIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director, acting through the Chief 

Scientist, shall— (A) identify and define the short-, medium-, and longterm 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 

47

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. 

øSEC. 709. PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON COUNTER-NARCOTICS. 

ø(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’’). 

ø(b) MEMBERSHIP.—

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Council 

shall be composed of 18 members, of whom—

ø(A) 1 shall be the President, who shall serve as 

Chairman of the Council; 

ø(B) 1 shall be the Vice President; 

ø(C) 1 shall be the Secretary of State; 

ø(D) 1 shall be the Secretary of the Treasury; 

ø(E) 1 shall be the Secretary of Defense; 

ø(F) 1 shall be the Attorney General; 

ø(G) 1 shall be the Secretary of Transportation; 

ø(H) 1 shall be the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services; 

ø(I) 1 shall be the Secretary of Education; 

ø(J) 1 shall be the Representative of the United States 

of America to the United Nations; 

ø(K) 1 shall be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; 

ø(L) 1 shall be the Chief of Staff to the President; 

ø(M) 1 shall be the Director of the Office, who shall 

serve as the Executive Director of the Council; 

ø(N) 1 shall be the Director of Central Intelligence; 

ø(O) 1 shall be the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; 

ø(P) 1 shall be the Counsel to the President; 

ø(Q) 1 shall be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff; and 

ø(R) 1 shall be the National Security Adviser to the 

Vice President. 

ø(2) ADDITIONAL MEMBERS.—The President may, in the 

discretion of the President, appoint additional members to the 

Council. 

ø(c) FUNCTIONS.—The Council shall advise and assist the 

President in—

48

ø(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 

ø(2) ensuring coordination among departments and agencies of the Federal Government concerning implementation of 

the National Drug Control Strategy. 

ø(d) ADMINISTRATION.— ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(3) COOPERATION FROM OTHER AGENCIES.—Each department and agency of the executive branch shall— ø(A) cooperate with the Council in carrying out the 

functions of the Council under this section; and 

ø(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—

49

(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 CAM- PAIGN.—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 adVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167
50

vertising 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. 

51

(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. 

52

(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.

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 711. DRUG INTERDICTION. 

ø(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Federal drug 

control agency’’ means—

ø(1) the Office of National Drug Control Policy; 

ø(2) the Department of Defense; 

ø(3) the Drug Enforcement Administration; 

ø(4) the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 

ø(5) the Immigration and Naturalization Service; 

ø(6) the United States Coast Guard; 

ø(7) the United States Customs Service; and 

ø(8) any other department or agency of the Federal Government that the Director determines to be relevant. 

ø(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—

ø(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—

ø(A) the amount of marijuana, heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine—

ø(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 

ø(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 

53

ø(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; 

ø(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 

ø(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. 

ø(c) BUDGET PROCESS.—

ø(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). 

ø(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 ø1999 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 øSeptember 30, 2003, this title and the amendments made 

by this title are repealed¿ September 30, 2008, this title is repealed. 

* * * * * * *

54

SECTION 6073 OF THE ASSET FORFEITURE 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1988

øSEC. 6073. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL FORFEITURE FUND. 

ø(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. 

ø(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). 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(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

øSEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. 

øThis subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Drug-Free Media Campaign 

Act of 1998’’. 

øSEC. 102. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN. 

ø(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. 

55

ø(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. 

øSEC. 103. USE OF FUNDS. 

ø(a) AUTHORIZED USES.—

ø(1) IN GENERAL.—Amounts made available to carry out 

this subtitle for the support of the national media campaign 

may only be used for—

ø(A) the purchase of media time and space; 

ø(B) talent reuse payments; 

ø(C) out-of-pocket advertising production costs; 

ø(D) testing and evaluation of advertising; 

ø(E) evaluation of the effectiveness of the media campaign; 

ø(F) the negotiated fees for the winning bidder on request for proposals issued by the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy; 

ø(G) partnerships with community, civic, and professional groups, and government organizations related to the 

media campaign; and 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

ø(b) PROHIBITIONS.—None of the amounts made available 

under section 105 may be obligated or expended—

ø(1) to supplant current antidrug community based coalitions; 

ø(2) to supplant current pro bono public service time donated by national and local broadcasting networks; 

ø(3) for partisan political purposes; or 

ø(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. 

ø(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. 

øSEC. 104. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. 

øThe Director shall—

56

ø(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 

ø(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. 

øSEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

øThere 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:]

57

[COMMITTEE PRINT]

[Showing H.R. 2086 as Reported by the Committee on

Government Reform]

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2086

[Report No. 108–167, Part I]

To reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 14, 2003

Mr. SOUDER (for himself and Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform,

and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Select Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

JUNE 19, 2003

Reported from the Committee on Government Reform with an amendment

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on May 14, 2003]

A BILL

To reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


C2086.AAB
58

2

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CON2 TENTS.

3 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

4 ‘‘Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization

5 Act of 2003’’.

6 (b) AMENDMENT OF OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG

7 CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1998.—Ex8 cept as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act

9 an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an

10 amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision,

11 the reference shall be considered to be made to a section

12 or other provision of the Office of National Drug Control

13 Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–277;

14 21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

15 (c) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of

16 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.

17 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS.

18 (a) AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS.—Section 702

19 (21 U.S.C. 1701) is amended—


C2086.AAC
59

3

1 (1) in paragraph (1)—

2 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub3 paragraph (F);

4 (B) by striking the period at the end of

5 subparagraph (G) and inserting a semicolon;

6 and

7 (C) by adding at the end the following:

8 ‘‘(H) interventions for drug abuse and de9 pendence; and

10 ‘‘(I) international drug control coordina11 tion and cooperation with respect to activities

12 described in this paragraph.’’.

13 (2) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘implicates’’

14 and inserting ‘‘indicates’’;

15 (3) in paragraph (10)—

16 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub17 paragraph (B);

18 (B) by striking the period at the end of

19 subparagraph (C) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

20 (C) by adding at the end the following:

21 ‘‘(D) domestic drug law enforcement, in22 cluding law enforcement directed at drug

23 users.’’; and

24 (4) in paragraph (11)—


C2086.AAD
60

4

1 (A) by inserting before the semicolon in

2 subparagraph (A) the following: ‘‘(including

3 source country programs, and law enforcement

4 outside the United States)’’;

5 (B) by inserting ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon

6 in subparagraph (B);

7 (C) by striking ‘‘; and’’ at the end of sub8 paragraph (C) and inserting a period; and

9 (D) by striking subparagraph (D).

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 703(b)(3)

11 (21 U.S.C. 1702(b)(3)) is amended—

12 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘(G)’’ and

13 inserting ‘‘(H)’’; and

14 (2) in subparagraph (C)—

15 (A) by striking ‘‘(C)’’ and inserting ‘‘(D)’’;

16 and

17 (B) by striking ‘‘and subparagraph (D) of

18 section 702(11)’’.

19 SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO APPOINTMENT AND

20 DUTIES OF DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIREC21 TORS.

22 (a) DESIGNATION OF OTHER OFFICERS.—Section

23 704(a)(3) (21 U.S.C. 1703(a)(3)) is amended—

24 (1) by striking ‘‘permanent employee’’ and in25 serting ‘‘officer or employee’’; and


C2086.AAE
61

5

1 (2) by striking ‘‘serve as the Director’’ and in2 serting ‘‘serve as the acting Director’’.

3 (b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTOR.—Section

4 704(b) (21 U.S.C. 1703(b)) is amended—

5 (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘Federal de6 partments and agencies engaged in drug enforce7 ment,’’ and inserting ‘‘National Drug Control Pro8 gram agencies,’’;

9 (2) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

10 (12);

11 (3) by striking paragraphs (13) and (14); and

12 (4) by redesignating paragraph (15) as para13 graph (13).

14 (c) REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION OF NATIONAL

15 DRUG CONTROL PROGRAM BUDGET.—Section 704(c)(3)

16 (21 U.S.C. 1703(c)(3)) is amended—

17 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and

18 (D) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;

19 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the fol20 lowing new subparagraph:

21 ‘‘(C) SPECIFIC REQUESTS.—The Director

22 shall not confirm the adequacy of any budget

23 request that—

24 ‘‘(i) requests funding for Federal law

25 enforcement activities that do not adeVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.AAF
62

6

1 quately compensate for transfers of drug

2 enforcement resources and personnel to

3 law enforcement and investigation activi4 ties not related to drug enforcement as de5 termined by the Director;

6 ‘‘(ii) requests funding for law enforce7 ment activities on the borders of the

8 United States that do not adequately di9 rect resources to drug interdiction and en10 forcement as determined by the Director;

11 ‘‘(iii) requests funding for drug treat12 ment activities that do not provide ade13 quate result and accountability measures

14 as determined by the Director;

15 ‘‘(iv) requests funding for any activi16 ties of the Safe and Drug Free Schools

17 Program that do not include a clear anti18 drug message or purpose intended to re19 duce drug use;

20 ‘‘(v) requests funding to enforce sec21 tion 484(r)(1) of the Higher Education

22 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(r)(1)) with

23 respect to convictions for drug-related of24 fenses not occurring during a period of en25 rollment for which the student was receivVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.AAG
63

7

1 ing any Federal grant, loan, or work as2 sistance;

3 ‘‘(vi) requests funding for drug treat4 ment activities that do not adequately sup5 port and enhance Federal drug treatment

6 programs and capacity, as determined by

7 the Director; or

8 ‘‘(vii) requests funding for fiscal year

9 2005 for activities of the Department of

10 Education, unless it is accompanied by a

11 report setting forth a plan for providing

12 expedited consideration of student loan ap13 plications for all individuals who submitted

14 an application for any Federal grant, loan,

15 or work assistance that was rejected or de16 nied pursuant to 484(r)(1) of the Higher

17 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091

18 (r)(1)) by reason of a conviction for a

19 drug-related offense not occurring during a

20 period of enrollment for which the indi21 vidual was receiving any Federal grant,

22 loan, or work assistance.’’;

23 (3) in subparagraph (D)(iii), as so redesig24 nated, by inserting ‘‘and the authorizing committees


C2086.AAH
64

8

1 of Congress for the Office’’ after ‘‘House of Rep2 resentatives’’; and

3 (4) in subparagraph (E)(ii)(bb), as so redesig4 nated, by inserting ‘‘and the authorizing committees

5 of Congress for the Office’’ after ‘‘House of Rep6 resentatives’’.

7 (d) REPROGRAMMING AND TRANSFER REQUESTS.—

8 Section 704(c)(4)(A) (21 U.S.C. 1703(c)(4)(A)) is amend9 ed by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,000,000’’.

10 (e) POWERS OF DIRECTOR.—Section 704(d) (21

11 U.S.C. 1703(d)) is amended—

12 (1) in paragraph (8)(D), by striking ‘‘have been

13 authorized by Congress;’’ and inserting ‘‘authorized

14 by law;’’;

15 (2) in paragraph (9)—

16 (A) by inserting ‘‘notwithstanding any

17 other provision of law,’’ after ‘‘(9)’’; and

18 (B) by striking ‘‘Strategy; and’’ and insert19 ing ‘‘Strategy and notify the authorizing Com20 mittees of Congress for the Office of any fund

21 control notice issued;’’;

22 (3) in paragraph (10), by striking ‘‘(22 U.S.C.

23 2291j).’’ and inserting ‘‘(22 U.S.C. 2291j) and sec24 tion 706 of the Department of State Authorization

25 Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (22 U.S.C. 229j–l);’’;


C2086.AAI
65

9

1 (4) by adding at the end the following new

2 paragraphs:

3 ‘‘(11) not later than August 1 of each year,

4 submit to the President a report, and transmit cop5 ies of the report to the Secretary of State and the

6 authorizing Committees of Congress for the Office,

7 that—

8 ‘‘(A) provides the Director’s assessment of

9 which countries are major drug transit coun10 tries or major illicit drug producing countries as

11 defined in section 481(e) of the Foreign Assist12 ance Act of 1961;

13 ‘‘(B) provides the Director’s assessment of

14 whether each country identified under subpara15 graph (A) has cooperated fully with the United

16 States or has taken adequate steps on its own

17 to achieve full compliance with the goals and

18 objectives established by the United Nations

19 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic

20 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and other21 wise has assisted in reducing the supply of il22 licit drugs to the United States; and

23 ‘‘(C) provides the Director’s assessment of

24 whether application of procedures set forth in

25 section 490(a) through (h) of the Foreign AsVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.AAJ
66

10

1 sistance Act of 1961, as provided in section 706

2 of the Department of State Authorization Act

3 for Fiscal Year 2003, is warranted with respect

4 to countries the Director assesses have not co5 operated fully; and

6 ‘‘(12) appoint a United States Interdiction Co7 ordinator under subsection (i).’’.

8 (f) UNITED STATES INTERDICTION COORDINATOR.—

9 Section 704 (21 U.S.C. 1703) is further amended by add10 ing at the end the following:

11 ‘‘(i) UNITED STATES INTERDICTION COORDI12 NATOR.—

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Office

14 a United States Interdiction Coordinator, who shall

15 be appointed by the Director and shall perform du16 ties determined by the Director with respect to co17 ordination of efforts to interdict illicit drugs from

18 the United States.

19 ‘‘(2) APPOINTMENT.—

20 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any

21 other provision of law (except subparagraph

22 (B)), the Director may appoint any individual

23 to serve as the United States Interdiction Coor24 dinator.


C2086.AAK
67

11

1 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—The Director may not

2 appoint to such position any individual who

3 concurrently serves as the head of any other

4 Federal department or agency or any subdivi5 sion thereof with responsibility for narcotics

6 interdiction activities, except the counter7 narcotics officer of the Department of Home8 land Security appointed under section 878 of

9 the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.

10 458).’’.

11 (g) REQUIREMENT FOR SOUTH AMERICAN HEROIN

12 STRATEGY.—

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after

14 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director

15 of National Drug Control Policy shall submit to the

16 Congress a comprehensive strategy that addresses

17 the increased threat from South American heroin,

18 and in particular Colombian heroin.

19 (2) CONTENTS.—The strategy shall—

20 (A) include opium eradication efforts to

21 eliminate the problem at the source to prevent

22 it from reoccurring before the heroin enters the

23 stream of commerce;

24 (B) interdiction and precursor chemical

25 controls;


C2086.AAL
68

12

1 (C) demand reduction and treatment;

2 (D) provisions that ensure the mainte3 nance at current levels of efforts to eradicate

4 coca in Colombia; and

5 (E) assessment of the level of additional

6 funding and resources necessary to simulta7 neously address the threat from South Amer8 ican heroin and the threat from Columbian

9 coca.

10 SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COORDINATION WITH

11 OTHER AGENCIES.

12 Section 705 (21 U.S.C. 1704) is amended—

13 (1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking

14 ‘‘abuse’’;

15 (2) by amending paragraph (3) of subsection

16 (a) to read as follows:

17 ‘‘(3) REQUIRED REPORTS.—

18 ‘‘(A) SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR AND

19 AGRICULTURE.—The Secretaries of Agriculture

20 and Interior shall, by July 1 of each year, joint21 ly submit to the Director and the authorizing

22 Committees of Congress for the Office an as23 sessment of the quantity of illegal drug cultiva24 tion and manufacturing in the United States on


C2086.AAM
69

13

1 lands owned or under the jurisdiction of the

2 Federal Government for the preceding year.

3 ‘‘(B) ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The Attorney

4 General shall, by July 1 of each year, submit to

5 the Director and the authorizing Committees of

6 Congress for the Office information for the pre7 ceding year regarding the number and type

8 of—

9 ‘‘(i) arrests for drug violations;

10 ‘‘(ii) prosecutions for drug violations

11 by United States Attorneys; and

12 ‘‘(iii) the number and type of seizures

13 of drugs by each component of the Depart14 ment seizing drugs, as well as statistical

15 information on the geographic areas of

16 such seizures.

17 ‘‘(C) SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECU18 RITY.—The Secretary of Homeland Security

19 shall, by July 1 of each year, submit to the Di20 rector and the authorizing Committees of Con21 gress for the Office information for the pre22 ceding year regarding—

23 ‘‘(i) the number and type of seizures

24 of drugs by each component of the Depart25 ment seizing drugs, as well as statistical


C2086.AAN
70

14

1 information on the geographic areas of

2 such seizures; and

3 ‘‘(ii) the number of air and maritime

4 patrol hours undertaken by each compo5 nent of the Department primarily dedi6 cated to drug supply reduction missions.

7 ‘‘(D) SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—The Sec8 retary of Defense shall, by July 1 of each year,

9 submit to the Director and the authorizing

10 Committees of Congress for the Office informa11 tion for the preceding year regarding the num12 ber of air and maritime patrol hours primarily

13 dedicated to drug supply reduction missions un14 dertaken by each component of the Department

15 of Defense.’’; and

16 (3) in subsection (b)(2)(B), by striking ‘‘Pro17 gram.’’ and inserting ‘‘Strategy.’’.

18 SEC. 5. DEVELOPMENT, SUBMISSION, IMPLEMENTATION,

19 AND ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL DRUG CON20 TROL STRATEGY.

21 Section 706 (21 U.S.C. 1705) is amended to read as

22 follows:


C2086.AAO
71

15

1 ‘‘SEC. 706. DEVELOPMENT, SUBMISSION, IMPLEMENTATION,

2 AND ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL DRUG CON3 TROL STRATEGY.

4 ‘‘(a) TIMING, CONTENTS, AND PROCESS FOR DEVEL5 OPMENT AND SUBMISSION OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL

6 STRATEGY.—

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than February 1

8 of each year, the President shall submit to Congress

9 a National Drug Control Strategy, which shall set

10 forth a comprehensive plan for reducing illicit drug

11 use and the consequences of illicit drug use in the

12 United States by reducing the demand for illegal

13 drugs, limiting the availability of illegal drugs, and

14 conducting law enforcement activities with respect to

15 illegal drugs.

16 ‘‘(2) CONTENTS.—

17 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The National Drug

18 Control Strategy submitted under paragraph

19 (1) shall include—

20 ‘‘(i) comprehensive, research-based,

21 long-range, and quantifiable goals for re22 ducing illicit drug use and the con23 sequences of illicit drug use in the United

24 States;

25 ‘‘(ii) annual objectives and strategy

26 for demand reduction, supply reduction,


C2086.AAP
72

16

1 and law enforcement activities, specific tar2 gets to accomplish long-range quantifiable

3 reduction in illicit drug use as determined

4 by the Director, and specific measurements

5 to evaluate progress toward the targets

6 and strategic goals;

7 ‘‘(iii) a strategy to reduce the avail8 ability and purity of illegal drugs and the

9 level of drug-related crime in the United

10 States;

11 ‘‘(iv) an assessment of Federal effec12 tiveness in achieving the National Drug

13 Control Strategy for the previous year,

14 including—

15 ‘‘(I) a specific evaluation of

16 whether the objectives and targets for

17 reducing illicit drug use for the pre18 vious year were met and reasons for

19 the success or failure of the previous

20 year’s Strategy; and

21 ‘‘(II) an assessment of the avail22 ability and purity of illegal drugs and

23 the level of drug-related crime in the

24 United States;


C2086.AAQ
73

17

1 ‘‘(v) notification of any program or

2 budget priorities that the Director expects

3 to significantly change from the current

4 Strategy over the next five years;

5 ‘‘(vi) a review of international, State,

6 local, and private sector drug control ac7 tivities to ensure that the United States

8 pursues well-coordinated and effective drug

9 control at all levels of government;

10 ‘‘(vii) such statistical data and infor11 mation as the Director deems appropriate

12 to demonstrate and assess trends relating

13 to illicit drug use, the effects and con14 sequences thereof, supply reduction, de15 mand reduction, drug-related law enforce16 ment, and the implementation of the Na17 tional Drug Control Strategy; and

18 ‘‘(viii) a supplement reviewing the ac19 tivities of each individual National Drug

20 Control Program agency during the pre21 vious year with respect to the National

22 Drug Control Strategy and the Director’s

23 assessment of the progress of each Na24 tional Drug Control Program agency in


C2086.AAR
74

18

1 meeting its responsibilities under the Na2 tional Drug Control Strategy.

3 ‘‘(B) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—Any

4 contents of the National Drug Control Strategy

5 that involve information properly classified

6 under criteria established by an Executive order

7 shall be presented to Congress separately from

8 the rest of the National Drug Control Strategy.

9 ‘‘(C) SELECTION OF DATA AND INFORMA10 TION.—In selecting data and information for

11 inclusion under subparagraph (A), the Director

12 shall ensure—

13 ‘‘(i) the inclusion of data and informa14 tion that will permit analysis of current

15 trends against previously compiled data

16 and information where the Director be17 lieves such analysis enhances long-term as18 sessment of the National Drug Control

19 Strategy; and

20 ‘‘(ii) the inclusion of data and infor21 mation to permit a standardized and uni22 form assessment of the effectiveness of

23 drug treatment programs in the United

24 States.


C2086.AAS
75

19

1 ‘‘(3) PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SUB2 MISSION.—

3 ‘‘(A) CONSULTATION.—In developing and

4 effectively implementing the National Drug

5 Control Strategy, the Director—

6 ‘‘(i) shall consult with—

7 ‘‘(I) the heads of the National

8 Drug Control Program agencies;

9 ‘‘(II) Congress;

10 ‘‘(III) State and local officials;

11 ‘‘(IV) private citizens and organi12 zations with experience and expertise

13 in demand reduction;

14 ‘‘(V) private citizens and organi15 zations with experience and expertise

16 in supply reduction;

17 ‘‘(VI) private citizens and organi18 zations with experience and expertise

19 in law enforcement; and

20 ‘‘(VII) appropriate representa21 tives of foreign governments;

22 ‘‘(ii) with the concurrence of the At23 torney General, may require the El Paso

24 Intelligence Center to undertake specific


C2086.AAT
76

20

1 tasks or projects to implement the Na2 tional Drug Control Strategy;

3 ‘‘(iii) with the concurrence of the Di4 rector of Central Intelligence and the At5 torney General, may request that the Na6 tional Drug Intelligence Center undertake

7 specific tasks or projects to implement the

8 National Drug Control Strategy; and

9 ‘‘(iv) may make recommendations to

10 the Secretary of Health and Human Serv11 ices on research that supports or advances

12 the National Drug Control Strategy.

13 ‘‘(B) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Recommenda14 tions under subparagraph (A)(iv) may include

15 recommendations of research to be performed

16 at the National Institutes of Health, including

17 the National Institute on Drug Abuse, or any

18 other appropriate agency within the Depart19 ment of Health and Human Services.

20 ‘‘(C) INCLUSION IN STRATEGY.—The Na21 tional Drug Control Strategy under this sub22 section shall include a list of each entity con23 sulted under subparagraph (A)(i).

24 ‘‘(4) SUBMISSION OF REVISED STRATEGY.—The

25 President may submit to Congress a revised NaVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.AAU
77

21

1 tional Drug Control Strategy that meets the require2 ments of this section—

3 ‘‘(A) at any time, upon a determination by

4 the President, in consultation with the Director,

5 that the National Drug Control Strategy in ef6 fect is not sufficiently effective; or

7 ‘‘(B) if a new President or Director takes

8 office.

9 ‘‘(b) PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM.—Not

10 later than February 1 of each year, the Director shall sub11 mit to Congress a description of the national drug control

12 performance measurement system, designed in consulta13 tion with affected National Drug Control Program agen14 cies, that includes performance measures for the National

15 Drug Control Strategy and activities of National Drug

16 Control Program agencies related to the National Drug

17 Control Strategy.’’.

18 SEC. 6. HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PRO19 GRAM.

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 707 (21 U.S.C. 1706) is

21 amended to read as follows:

22 ‘‘SEC. 707. HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS

23 PROGRAM.

24 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the

25 Office a program to be known as the High Intensity Drug


C2086.AAV
78

22

1 Trafficking Areas Program (in this section referred to as

2 the ‘Program’).

3 ‘‘(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the Program are

4 the following:

5 ‘‘(1) To reduce drug availability and facilitate

6 cooperative efforts between Federal, State, and local

7 law enforcement agencies in areas with significant

8 drug trafficking problems that harmfully impact

9 other parts of the Nation.

10 ‘‘(2) To provide assistance to agencies to come

11 together to assess regional threats, design coordi12 nated strategies to combat those threats, share intel13 ligence, and develop and implement coordinated ini14 tiatives to implement the strategies.

15 ‘‘(c) DESIGNATION.—The Director, upon consulta16 tion with the Attorney General, the Secretary of the

17 Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, heads of

18 the National Drug Control Program agencies, and the

19 Governor of each applicable State, may designate any

20 specified area of the United States as a high intensity

21 drug trafficking area.

22 ‘‘(d) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—

23 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In considering whether to

24 designate an area under this section as a high inten25 sity drug trafficking area, the Director shall conVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.AAW
79

23

1 sider, in addition to such other criteria as the Direc2 tor considers to be appropriate, the extent to

3 which—

4 ‘‘(A) the area is a major center of illegal

5 drug production, manufacturing, importation,

6 or distribution for the United States as com7 pared to other areas of the United States;

8 ‘‘(B) State and local law enforcement

9 agencies have committed resources to respond

10 to the drug trafficking problem in the area,

11 thereby indicating a determination to respond

12 aggressively to the problem;

13 ‘‘(C) drug-related production, manufac14 turing, importation, or distribution in the area

15 is having a significant harmful impact in other

16 areas of the United States; and

17 ‘‘(D) a significant increase in allocation of

18 Federal resources is necessary to respond ade19 quately to drug-related activities in the area.

20 ‘‘(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—For purposes of para21 graph (1)(A), in considering whether an area is a

22 major center of illegal drug production, manufac23 turing, importation, or distribution as compared to

24 other areas of the United States, the Director shall

25 consider—


C2086.AAX
80

24

1 ‘‘(A) the quantity of illicit drug traffic en2 tering or transiting the area originating in for3 eign countries;

4 ‘‘(B) the quantity of illicit drugs produced

5 in the area;

6 ‘‘(C) the number of Federal, State, and

7 local arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for

8 drug trafficking and distribution offenses in the

9 area;

10 ‘‘(D) the degree to which the area is a cen11 ter for the activities of national drug trafficking

12 organizations; and

13 ‘‘(E) such other criteria as the Director

14 considers appropriate.

15 ‘‘(e) SOUTHWEST BORDER.—The Director may not

16 designate any county contiguous to the international land

17 border with Mexico as part of any high intensity drug traf18 ficking area other than as part of a single Southwest Bor19 der high intensity drug trafficking area.

20 ‘‘(f) REMOVAL FROM DESIGNATION.—The Director

21 may remove an area or portion of an area from designa22 tion as a high intensity drug trafficking area under this

23 section upon determination that the area or portion of an

24 area no longer is a high intensity drug trafficking area,

25 considering the factors in subsections (d) and (e) in addiVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.AAY
81

25

1 tion to such other criteria as the Director considers to be

2 appropriate.

3 ‘‘(g) AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR.—After making

4 such a designation and in order to provide Federal assist5 ance to the area so designated, the Director may—

6 ‘‘(1) obligate such sums as appropriated for the

7 Program, in accordance with subsection (h);

8 ‘‘(2) direct the temporary reassignment of Fed9 eral personnel to such area, subject to the approval

10 of the head of the department or agency that em11 ploys such personnel; and

12 ‘‘(3) take any other action authorized under

13 section 704 to provide increased Federal assistance

14 to those areas.

15 ‘‘(h) ALLOCATION OF FUNDING.—In obligating sums

16 appropriated for the Program, the Director shall comply

17 with the following:

18 ‘‘(1) 30 PERCENT SET ASIDE.—The Director

19 shall expend no less than 30 percent of the amounts

20 appropriated under this section in the seven high in21 tensity drug trafficking areas (excluding the South22 west Border high intensity drug trafficking area) for

23 which the Director determines that Program activi24 ties with respect to such areas will have the greatest


C2086.AAZ
82

26

1 impact on reducing overall drug traffic in the United

2 States.

3 ‘‘(2) 25 PERCENT SET ASIDE.—The Director

4 shall expend no less than 25 percent of the amounts

5 appropriated under this section in nine other high

6 intensity drug trafficking areas (excluding the

7 Southwest Border high intensity drug trafficking

8 area) for which the Director determines that Pro9 gram activities with respect to such areas will have

10 the next greatest impact on reducing overall drug

11 traffic in the United States.

12 ‘‘(3) SOUTHWEST BORDER AREA.—

13 ‘‘(A) 20 PERCENT SET ASIDE.—The Direc14 tor shall expend no less than 20 percent of the

15 amounts appropriated under this section in the

16 Southwest Border high intensity drug traf17 ficking area.

18 ‘‘(B) REALLOCATION WITHIN AREA.—The

19 executive committee of the Southwest Border

20 high intensity drug trafficking area may reallo21 cate up to five percent of the total funds allo22 cated to that area among its components, with

23 the approval of the Director.

24 ‘‘(4) REMAINING AREAS.—The Director shall

25 expend no less than 10 percent of the amounts apVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.ABA
83

27

1 propriated under this section in the remaining high

2 intensity drug trafficking areas.

3 ‘‘(5) DISCRETIONARY EXPENDITURES.—

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the

5 amounts allocated under paragraphs (1)

6 through (4) the Director may expend 15 per7 cent of the amounts appropriated under this

8 section on a discretionary basis.

9 ‘‘(B) CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT.—In al10 locating funds under this paragraph, the Direc11 tor shall consider—

12 ‘‘(i) the impact of activities funded on

13 reducing overall drug traffic in the United

14 States;

15 ‘‘(ii) performance measures of effec16 tiveness; and

17 ‘‘(iii) such other criteria as the Direc18 tor considers appropriate.

19 ‘‘(i) USE OF FUNDS.—

20 ‘‘(1) LIMITATION.—No funds appropriated for

21 the Program shall be expended for drug prevention

22 or drug treatment programs.

23 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY.—Para24 graph (1) shall not apply with respect to the BaltiVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.ABB
84

28

1 more/Washington high intensity drug trafficking

2 area.

3 ‘‘(j) TERRORISM ACTIVITIES.—

4 ‘‘(1) ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Director

5 may authorize use of resources available for the Pro6 gram to assist Federal, State, and local law enforce7 ment agencies in investigations and activities related

8 to terrorism and prevention of terrorism, especially

9 but not exclusively where such investigations are re10 lated to drug trafficking.

11 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—The Director shall ensure—

12 ‘‘(A) that assistance provided under para13 graph (1) remains incidental to the purpose of

14 the Program to reduce drug availability and

15 carry out drug-related law enforcement activi16 ties; and

17 ‘‘(B) that significant resources of the Pro18 gram are not redirected to activities exclusively

19 related to terrorism.

20 ‘‘(k) BOARD REPRESENTATION.—None of the funds

21 appropriated under this section may be expended for any

22 high intensity drug trafficking area, or for a partnership

23 under the Program, if the executive board or equivalent

24 governing committee with respect to such area or partner25 ship is not comprised of equal voting representation beVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.ABC
85

29

1 tween representatives of Federal law enforcement agencies

2 and representatives of State and local law enforcement

3 agencies.

4 ‘‘(l) ROLE OF DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRA5 TION.—The Director, in consultation with the Attorney

6 General, shall ensure that a representative of the Drug

7 Enforcement Administration is included in the Intelligence

8 Support Center for each high intensity drug trafficking

9 area.

10 ‘‘(m) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

11 is authorized to be appropriated to the Office of National

12 Drug Control Policy to carry out this section—

13 ‘‘(1) $230,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

14 ‘‘(2) $240,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005

15 and 2006; and

16 ‘‘(3) $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007

17 and 2008.’’.

18 (b) REVIEW OF CURRENT AREAS.—Within one year

19 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of

20 National Drug Control Policy shall—

21 (1) review each of the areas currently des22 ignated as a high intensity drug trafficking area to

23 determine whether it continues to warrant designa24 tion as a high intensity drug trafficking area, con25 sidering the factors in section 707(d) of the Office


C2086.ABD
86

30

1 of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act

2 of 1998, as amended by this section, in addition to

3 such other criteria as the Director considers to be

4 appropriate; and

5 (2) terminate such description for an area or

6 portion of an area determined to no longer warrant

7 designation.

8 SEC. 7. FUNDING FOR CERTAIN HIGH INTENSITY DRUG

9 TRAFFICKING AREAS.

10 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the

11 ‘‘Dawson Family Community Protection Act’’.

12 (b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:

13 (1) In the early morning hours of October 16,

14 2002, the home of Carnell and Angela Dawson was

15 firebombed in apparent retaliation for Mrs.

16 Dawson’s notification of police about persistent drug

17 distribution activity in their East Baltimore City

18 neighborhood.

19 (2) The arson claimed the lives of Mr. and Mrs.

20 Dawson and their 5 young children, aged 9 to 14.

21 (3) The horrific murder of the Dawson family

22 is a stark example of domestic narco-terrorism.

23 (4) In all phases of counter-narcotics law en24 forcement—from prevention to investigation to prosVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.ABE
87

31

1 ecution to reentry—the voluntary cooperation of or2 dinary citizens is a critical component.

3 (5) Voluntary cooperation is difficult for law en4 forcement officials to obtain when citizens feel that

5 cooperation carries the risk of violent retaliation by

6 illegal drug trafficking organizations and their affili7 ates.

8 (6) Public confidence that law enforcement is

9 doing all it can to make communities safe is a pre10 requisite for voluntary cooperation among people

11 who may be subject to intimidation or reprisal (or

12 both).

13 (7) Witness protection programs are insufficient

14 on their own to provide security because many indi15 viduals and families who strive every day to make

16 distressed neighborhoods livable for their children,

17 other relatives, and neighbors will resist or refuse of18 fers of relocation by local, State, and Federal pros19 ecutorial agencies and because, moreover, the contin20 ued presence of strong individuals and families is

21 critical to preserving and strengthening the social

22 fabric in such communities.

23 (8) Where (as in certain sections of Baltimore

24 City) interstate trafficking of illegal drugs has severe

25 ancillary local consequences within areas designated


C2086.ABF
88

32

1 as high intensity drug trafficking areas, it is impor2 tant that supplementary High Intensity Drug Traf3 ficking Areas Program funds be committed to sup4 port initiatives aimed at making the affected com5 munities safe for the residents of those communities

6 and encouraging their cooperation with local, State,

7 and Federal law enforcement efforts to combat ille8 gal drug trafficking.

9 (c) FUNDING FOR CERTAIN HIGH INTENSITY DRUG

10 TRAFFICKING AREAS.—Section 707 (21 U.S.C. 1706) is

11 further amended in subsection (h) by adding at the end

12 the following new paragraph:

13 ‘‘(6) SPECIFIC PURPOSES.—

14 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall en15 sure that, of the amounts appropriated for a

16 fiscal year for the Program, at least $1,000,000

17 is used in high intensity drug trafficking areas

18 with severe neighborhood safety and illegal drug

19 distribution problems.

20 ‘‘(B) REQUIRED USES.—The funds used

21 under subparagraph (A) shall be used—

22 ‘‘(i) to ensure the safety of neighbor23 hoods and the protection of communities,

24 including the prevention of the intimidaVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.ABG
89

33

1 tion of potential witnesses of illegal drug

2 distribution and related activities; and

3 ‘‘(ii) to combat illegal drug trafficking

4 through such methods as the Director con5 siders appropriate, such as establishing or

6 operating (or both) a toll-free telephone

7 hotline for use by the public to provide in8 formation about illegal drug-related activi9 ties.’’.

10 SEC. 8. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COUNTER-DRUG TECH11 NOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER.

12 (a) CHIEF SCIENTIST.—Section 708(b) (21 U.S.C.

13 1707(b)) is amended—

14 (1) in the heading by striking ‘‘DIRECTOR OF

15 TECHNOLOGY.—’’ and inserting ‘‘CHIEF SCI16 ENTIST.—’’; and

17 (2) by striking ‘‘Director of Technology,’’ and

18 inserting ‘‘Chief Scientist,’’.

19 (b) ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTOR.—

20 Section 708(c) (21 U.S.C. 1707(c)) is amended to read

21 as follows:

22 ‘‘(c) ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIREC23 TOR OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY.—

24 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Director, acting

25 through the Chief Scientist shall—


C2086.ABH
90

34

1 ‘‘(A) identify and define the short-, me2 dium-, and long-term scientific and techno3 logical needs of Federal, State, and local law

4 enforcement agencies relating to drug enforce5 ment, including—

6 ‘‘(i) advanced surveillance, tracking,

7 and radar imaging;

8 ‘‘(ii) electronic support measures;

9 ‘‘(iii) communications;

10 ‘‘(iv) data fusion, advanced computer

11 systems, and artificial intelligence; and

12 ‘‘(v) chemical, biological, radiological

13 (including neutron, electron, and graviton),

14 and other means of detection;

15 ‘‘(B) identify demand reduction (including

16 drug prevention) basic and applied research

17 needs and initiatives, in consultation with af18 fected National Drug Control Program agen19 cies, including—

20 ‘‘(i) improving treatment through

21 neuroscientific advances;

22 ‘‘(ii) improving the transfer of bio23 medical research to the clinical setting; and

24 ‘‘(iii) in consultation with the Na25 tional Institute on Drug Abuse and the


C2086.ABI
91

35

1 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Serv2 ices Administration, and through inter3 agency agreements or grants, examining

4 addiction and rehabilitation research and

5 the application of technology to expanding

6 the effectiveness or availability of drug

7 treatment;

8 ‘‘(C) make a priority ranking of such needs

9 identified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) accord10 ing to fiscal and technological feasibility, as

11 part of a National Counter-Drug Enforcement

12 Research and Development Program;

13 ‘‘(D) oversee and coordinate counter-drug

14 technology initiatives with related activities of

15 other Federal civilian and military departments;

16 ‘‘(E) oversee and coordinate a technology

17 transfer program for the transfer of technology

18 to State and local law enforcement agencies;

19 and

20 ‘‘(F) pursuant to the authority of the Di21 rector of National Drug Control Policy under

22 section 704, submit requests to Congress for

23 the reprogramming or transfer of funds appro24 priated for counter-drug technology research

25 and development.


C2086.ABJ
92

36

1 ‘‘(2) PRIORITIES IN TRANSFERRING TECH2 NOLOGY.—In transferring technology under the au3 thority of paragraph (1)(E), the Chief Scientist shall

4 give priority, in transferring technologies most likely

5 to assist in drug interdiction and border enforce6 ment, to State, local, and tribal law enforcement

7 agencies in southwest border areas and northern

8 border areas with significant traffic in illicit drugs.

9 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY.—The author10 ity granted to the Director under this subsection

11 shall not extend to the award of contracts, manage12 ment of individual projects, or other operational ac13 tivities.’’.

14 (c) ASSISTANCE FROM SECRETARY OF HOMELAND

15 SECURITY.—Section 708(d) (21 U.S.C. 1707(d)) is

16 amended by inserting ‘‘, the Secretary of Homeland Secu17 rity,’’ after ‘‘The Secretary of Defense’’.

18 SEC. 9. REPEALS.

19 The following provisions are repealed:

20 (1) Sections 709 and 711 (21 U.S.C. 1708 and

21 1710).

22 (2) Section 6073 of the Asset Forfeiture

23 Amendments Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1509).


C2086.ABK
93

37

1 SEC. 10. NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Act is further amended by

3 inserting after section 708 the following:

4 ‘‘SEC. 709. NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN.

5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director shall conduct a na6 tional media campaign in accordance with this section for

7 the purpose of reducing and preventing illicit drug use

8 among young people in the United States, through mass

9 media advertising.

10 ‘‘(b) USE OF FUNDS.—

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Amounts made available to

12 carry out this section for the media campaign may

13 only be used for the following:

14 ‘‘(A) The purchase of media time and

15 space.

16 ‘‘(B) Creative and talent costs.

17 ‘‘(C) Advertising production costs.

18 ‘‘(D) Testing and evaluation of advertising.

19 ‘‘(E) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the

20 media campaign.

21 ‘‘(F) The negotiated fees for the winning

22 bidder on requests for proposals issued either

23 by the Office or its designee for purposes other24 wise authorized in this section.


C2086.ABL
94

38

1 ‘‘(G) Partnerships with community, civic,

2 and professional groups and government organi3 zations related to the media campaign.

4 ‘‘(H) Entertainment industry outreach,

5 interactive outreach, media projects and activi6 ties, public information, news media outreach,

7 and corporate sponsorship and participation.

8 ‘‘(I) Operational and management ex9 penses.

10 ‘‘(2) SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.—

11 ‘‘(A) CREATIVE SERVICES.—

12 ‘‘(i) In using amounts for creative and

13 talent costs under paragraph (1)(B), the

14 Director shall use creative services donated

15 at no cost to the Government wherever fea16 sible and may only procure creative serv17 ices for advertising—

18 ‘‘(I) responding to high-priority

19 or emergent campaign needs that can20 not timely be obtained at no cost; or

21 ‘‘(II) intended to reach a minor22 ity, ethnic, or other special audience

23 that cannot reasonably be obtained at

24 no cost.


C2086.ABM
95

39

1 ‘‘(ii) No more than $1,000,000 may

2 be expended under this section each fiscal

3 year on creative services, except that the

4 Director may expend up to $2,000,000 in

5 a fiscal year on creative services to meet

6 urgent needs of the media campaign with

7 advance approval from the Committee on

8 Appropriations of the House of Represent9 atives and of the Senate upon a showing of

10 the circumstances causing such urgent

11 needs of the media campaign.

12 ‘‘(B) TESTING AND EVALUATION OF AD13 VERTISING.—In using amounts for testing and

14 evaluation of advertising under paragraph

15 (1)(D), the Director shall test all advertise16 ments prior to use in the media campaign to

17 ensure that the advertisements are effective and

18 meet industry-accepted standards. The Director

19 may waive this requirement for advertisements

20 using no more than 10 percent of the purchase

21 of advertising time purchased under this section

22 in an fiscal year and no more than 10 percent

23 of the advertising space purchased under this

24 section in a fiscal year, if the advertisements re25 spond to emergent and time-sensitive campaign


C2086.ABN
96

40

1 needs or the advertisements will not be widely

2 utilized in the media campaign.

3 ‘‘(C) EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS OF

4 MEDIA CAMPAIGN.—In using amounts for the

5 evaluation of the effectiveness of the media

6 campaign under paragraph (1)(E), the Director

7 shall—

8 ‘‘(i) designate an independent entity

9 to evaluate annually the effectiveness of

10 the national media campaign based on

11 data from—

12 ‘‘(I) the ‘Monitoring the Future

13 Study’ published by the Department

14 of Health and Human Services;

15 ‘‘(II) the Attitude Tracking

16 Study published by the Partnership

17 for a Drug Free America;

18 ‘‘(III) the National Household

19 Survey on Drug Abuse; and

20 ‘‘(IV) other relevant studies or

21 publications, as determined by the Di22 rector, including tracking and evalua23 tion data collected according to mar24 keting and advertising industry stand25 ards; and


C2086.ABO
97

41

1 ‘‘(ii) ensure that the effectiveness of

2 the media campaign is evaluated in a man3 ner that enables consideration of whether

4 the media campaign has contributed to re5 duction of illicit drug use among youth and

6 such other measures of evaluation as the

7 Director determines are appropriate.

8 ‘‘(3) PURCHASE OF ADVERTISING TIME AND

9 SPACE.—For each fiscal year, not less than 77 per10 cent of the amounts appropriated under this section

11 shall be used for the purchase of advertising time

12 and space for the media campaign, subject to the

13 following exceptions:

14 ‘‘(A) In any fiscal year for which less than

15 $125,000,000 is appropriated for the media

16 campaign, not less than 82 percent of the

17 amounts appropriated under this section shall

18 be used for the purchase of advertising time

19 and space for the media campaign.

20 ‘‘(B) In any fiscal year for which more

21 than $195,000,000 is appropriated under this

22 section, not less than 72 percent shall be used

23 for advertising production costs and the pur24 chase of advertising time and space for the

25 media campaign.


C2086.ABP
98

42

1 ‘‘(c) ADVERTISING.—In carrying out this section, the

2 Director shall devote sufficient funds to the advertising

3 portion of the national media campaign to meet the goals

4 of the campaign.

5 ‘‘(d) PROHIBITIONS.—None of the amounts made

6 available under subsection (b) may be obligated or ex7 pended for any of the following:

8 ‘‘(1) To supplant current antidrug community9 based coalitions.

10 ‘‘(2) To supplant pro bono public service time

11 donated by national and local broadcasting networks

12 for other public service campaigns.

13 ‘‘(3) For partisan political purposes, or express

14 advocacy in support of or to defeat any clearly iden15 tified candidate, clearly identified ballot initiative, or

16 clearly identified legislative or regulatory proposal.

17 ‘‘(4) To fund advertising that features any

18 elected officials, persons seeking elected office, cabi19 net level officials, or other Federal officials employed

20 pursuant to section 213 of Schedule C of title 5,

21 Code of Federal Regulations.

22 ‘‘(5) To fund advertising that does not contain

23 a primary message intended to reduce or prevent il24 licit drug use.


C2086.ABQ
99

43

1 ‘‘(6) To fund advertising containing a primary

2 message intended to promote support for the media

3 campaign or private sector contributions to the

4 media campaign.

5 ‘‘(e) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.—

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Amounts made available

7 under subsection (b) shall be matched by an equal

8 amount of non-Federal funds for the media cam9 paign, or be matched with in-kind contributions of

10 the same value.

11 ‘‘(2) NO-COST MATCH ADVERTISING DIRECT RE12 LATIONSHIPREQUIREMENT.—The Director shall en13 sure that at least 70 percent of no-cost match adver14 tising provided directly relates to substance abuse

15 prevention consistent with the specific purposes of

16 the media campaign, except that in any fiscal year

17 in which less than $125,000,000 is appropriated to

18 the media campaign, the Director shall ensure that

19 at least 85 percent of no-cost match advertising di20 rectly relates to substance abuse prevention con21 sistent with the specific purposes of the media cam22 paign.

23 ‘‘(3) NO-COST MATCH ADVERTISING NOT DI24 RECTLY RELATED.—The Director shall ensure that

25 no-cost match advertising that does not directly reVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

C2086.ABR
100

44

1 late to substance abuse prevention includes a clear

2 antidrug message. Such message is not required to

3 be the primary message of the match advertising.

4 ‘‘(f) FINANCIAL AND PERFORMANCE ACCOUNT5 ABILITY.—The Director shall cause to be performed—

6 ‘‘(1) audits and reviews of costs of the media

7 campaign pursuant to section 304C of the Federal

8 Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949

9 (41 U.S.C. 254d); and

10 ‘‘(2) an audit of the cost of the media campaign

11 described in section 306 of such Act (41 U.S.C.

12 256).

13 ‘‘(g) STRATEGIC GUIDANCE AND DONATIONS.—The

14 Partnership for a Drug Free America shall serve as the

15 primary outside strategic advisor to the media campaign

16 and be responsible for coordinating donations of creative

17 and other services to the campaign, except with respect

18 to advertising created using funds permitted in subsection

19 (b). The Director shall inform the Partnership for a Drug

20 Free America of the strategic goals of the campaign and

21 consider advice from the Partnership for a Drug Free

22 America on media campaign strategy.

23 ‘‘(h) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Director shall

24 submit on an annual basis a report to Congress that

25 describes—


C2086.ABS
101

45

1 ‘‘(1) the strategy of the media campaign and

2 whether specific objectives of the media campaign

3 were accomplished;

4 ‘‘(2) steps taken to ensure that the media cam5 paign operates in an effective and efficient manner

6 consistent with the overall strategy and focus of the

7 media campaign;

8 ‘‘(3) plans to purchase advertising time and

9 space;

10 ‘‘(4) policies and practices implemented to en11 sure that Federal funds are used responsibly to pur12 chase advertising time and space and eliminate the

13 potential for waste, fraud, and abuse; and

14 ‘‘(5) all contracts entered into with a corpora15 tion, partnership, or individual working on behalf of

16 the media campaign.

17 ‘‘(i) LOCAL TARGET REQUIREMENT.—The Director

18 shall, to the maximum extent feasible, use amounts made

19 available under this section for media that focuses on, or

20 includes specific information on, prevention or treatment

21 resources for consumers within specific local areas.

22 ‘‘(j) PREVENTION OF MARIJUANA USE.—

23 ‘‘(1) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the fol24 lowing:


C2086.ABT
102

46

1 ‘‘(A) 60 percent of adolescent admissions

2 for drug treatment are based on marijuana use.

3 ‘‘(B) Potency levels of contemporary mari4 juana, particularly hydroponically grown mari5 juana, are significantly higher than in the past,

6 rising from under 1 percent of THC in the mid7 1970s to as high as 30 percent today.

8 ‘‘(C) Contemporary research has dem9 onstrated that youths smoking marijuana early

10 in life may be up to five times more likely to

11 use hard drugs.

12 ‘‘(D) Contemporary research has dem13 onstrated clear detrimental effects in adolescent

14 educational achievement resulting from mari15 juana use.

16 ‘‘(E) Contemporary research has dem17 onstrated clear detrimental effects in adolescent

18 brain development resulting from marijuana

19 use.

20 ‘‘(F) An estimated 9,000,000 Americans a

21 year drive while under the influence of illegal

22 drugs, including marijuana.

23 ‘‘(G) Marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70

24 percent more of certain cancer causing chemi25 cals than tobacco smoke.


C2086.ABU
103

47

1 ‘‘(H) Teens who use marijuana are up to

2 four times more likely to have a teen pregnancy

3 than teens who have not.

4 ‘‘(I) Federal law enforcement agencies

5 have identified clear links suggesting that trade

6 in hydroponic marijuana facilitates trade by

7 criminal organizations in hard drugs, including

8 heroin.

9 ‘‘(J) Federal law enforcement agencies

10 have identified possible links between trade in

11 marijuana and financing for terrorist organiza12 tions.

13 ‘‘(2) EMPHASIS ON PREVENTION OF YOUTH

14 MARIJUANA USE.—In conducting advertising and ac15 tivities otherwise authorized under this section, the

16 Director may emphasize prevention of youth mari17 juana use.

18 ‘‘(k) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

19 is authorized to be appropriated to the Office to carry out

20 this section, $195,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004

21 and 2005 and $210,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006

22 through 2008.’’.

23 (b) REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED PROVISIONS.—The

24 Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1801

25 et seq.) is repealed.


C2086.ABV
104

48

1 SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

2 Section 714 (21 U.S.C. 1711) is amended—

3 (1) by striking ‘‘title,’’ and inserting ‘‘title, ex4 cept activities for which amounts are otherwise spe5 cifically authorized by this title,’’; and

6 (2) by striking ‘‘1999 through 2003’’ and in7 serting ‘‘2004 through 2008’’.

8 SEC. 12. EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATE.

9 Section 715(a) is amended by striking ‘‘September

10 30, 2003, this title and the amendments made by this title

11 are repealed’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2008, this

12 title is repealed’’.


C2086.ABW
105

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 

106

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 socalled 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? 

107

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:]

108 H.L.C.

H.R. 2086

AMENDMENT TO THE COMMITTEE PRINT

OFFERED BY MR. COBLE

Page 25, line 7, strike ‘‘, in accordance with subsection (h)’’.

Page 25, strike line 15 and all that follows through

page 27, line 18 (and redesignate the subsequent quoted

subsections (i) through (m) accordingly).

Page 32, line 13, strike ‘‘(6)’’ and insert ‘‘(3)’’.


A2086A.AAB
109

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. 

110

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. 

111

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 

112

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.] 

113

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. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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. 

114

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 


A2086B.eps
115

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. 

116

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 AdminisVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167
117

tration 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.] 

118

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——

119

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. 

120

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? 

121

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. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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. 

122

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:]

123


A2086C.eps
124

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 BaltimoreWashington 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:]

125


Steps1.eps
126


Steps2.eps
127


Steps3.eps
128


Steps4.eps
129


Steps5.eps
130


Steps6.eps
131


Steps7.eps
132


Steps8.eps
133


Steps9.eps
134


Steps10.eps
135


Steps11.eps
136


Steps12.eps
137


Steps13.eps
138


Steps14.eps
139


Steps15.eps
140

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. 

141

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? 

142

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. 

143

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 

144

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:]

145

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. 


A2086D.eps
146

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? 

147

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. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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:]

148

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 


A2086E.eps
149

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. 

150

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? 

151

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. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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? 

152

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. 


A2086F.eps
153

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? 

154

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 


A2086G.eps
155

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? 

156

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. 

157

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. 

158

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. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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.’’

159

[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 diVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:33 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR167.XXX HR167

A2086H.eps
160

rected, 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. 

161

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 


A2086I.eps
162

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.] 

163

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? 

164

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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:]

165

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.’’


A2086J.eps
166

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 

167

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 

168

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. 

169

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. Sa ́nchez? 

[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. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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. 

170

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 op- posed 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 


A2086K.eps
171

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. 

172

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 

173

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 

174

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 

175

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 

176

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 

177

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:]

178


Facts1.eps
179


Facts2.eps
180


Facts3.eps
181


Facts4.eps
182


Facts5.eps
183


Facts6.eps
184

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? 

185

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. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, 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. 

186

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. 

(187)

1Office of National Drug Control Policy Fact Sheet, Drug Data Summary, March 2003 (p.1). 

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/drug—datasum.pdf 2 Id. 

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. 

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 

188

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. 4Office 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 5Section 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—

(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.

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

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. 

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.

189

6Steps 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. 

10Section 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....’’

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

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. 

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. 

190

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.) 

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

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. 

191

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. SA ́ NCHEZ.

Æ