Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2829) to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Across America, individuals, families, and communities continue to be devastated by the scourge of drug abuse. It remains one of the most pressing and unforgiving problems our country faces.

Some have made comments, including on the floor earlier this morning, that we have made no progress in the war on drugs. That simply is not true. What we tend to do is go up and down as we do in any kind of battle. I do not believe we will ever get rid of the scourge of drug abuse any more than I believe we will get rid of what I believe is at its core, sin in other parts of America, whether it is spouse abuse, child abuse, rape.

But if we press and if we aggressively work together, we can reduce it. The fact is that when we backed off in the early 1990s and saw the Federal intervention dollars go down in the Andean region and the interdiction dollars go down, and the joke was even in prominent officials as ``I didn't inhale,'' we saw drug use go up so much that we have to reduce it 50 percent from 1993 until now to get back to where we were in 1992. That dramatic rise and falling, again, is somewhat typical of what has happened in American history in drug abuse.

We have had some steady progress in key indicators. There is not meth abuse if you can get at marijuana use because all meth users use marijuana. Marijuana is the gateway drug, along with tobacco and alcohol in high school, of all other narcotics abuse. Right now we are facing a meth epidemic in the United States that clearly, I believe, this administration has not responded to nearly aggressively enough. We also have prescription drug abuse. Oxycontin and other prescription drugs are actually causing the most deaths from any drug abuse in the United States. We have to be eternally vigilant.

This bill, introduced by Tom Davis, the distinguished chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and me, along with the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Elijah Cummings, and the full committee ranking member, Henry Waxman, is a forceful and bipartisan recommitment to our broad national efforts to control drug abuse and to renew our support for a strong Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Let me explain a couple of points about this. The ONDCP, Office of National Drug Control Policy, is often called the ``drug czar.'' It was created by Congress. It was not created by an administration. It was taken somewhat unwillingly by an administration years ago, and now we are up for reauthorization. We attempted to reauthorize this several years ago. It passed the House unanimously, but never got through the Senate at the end of the year. We are now coming back with a bill that is bipartisan and bicameral. I believe that this bill now can move through the Senate.

It is important to remember a couple of reasons why it is important to authorize agencies, not just to appropriate. What has happened in this interim without an authorization is that the administration has attempted to gut the HIDTA program. They have attempted to wipe out many other programs. I believe they have lacked a national meth strategy. I believe that, in addition, they have failed to give better guidance to safe and drug-free schools and then proposed to zero it out; failed to give better guidance to State and local law enforcement and then proposed to zero out those programs.

What happens when you do not have an authorization bill is that it gives complete discretion to the administration to spend whatever funds we allocate in whatever way they choose. This was a Department created by the United States Congress, by both parties, by both Houses, and it is important we give guidance. When an administration refuses to respond to an issue like meth and refuses to use the office in the way Congress intended, you move from a bill that was the original authorization, like this, to a bill like this. In other words, you do get more micromanagement.

We have actually eliminated a number of subboards and appointments and things that were irrelevant, but there is much more direct guidance to try to make sure that you do not just criticize programs but that the drug czar, the director of ONDCP, directly gives guidance, whether it be on heroin in Afghanistan, whether it be in Colombia; that this will preserve the success of, for example, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas programs. If we pass this reauthorization bill, they will not be able to wipe it out or move it to other Departments.

The administration's proposal the last 2 years has been unanimously opposed by every HIDTA director in America. Every single HIDTA in America has opposed the administration's proposed changes. This authorization would keep HIDTA where it belongs. It will refocus the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. This bill clarifies the purposes of the campaign. Some of this we have worked out with the administration in the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, where they were at odds a number of years ago and they have implemented some of these changes; but we have now put it into law, because, remember, this is a 5-year reauthorization. This administration basically has 2 years to go. This is really outlining where the next administration is going to work in anti-drug policy, not just the current administration.

It will strengthen the Southwest border counternarcotics strategy. Many of us feel that there has been a lack of a coordinated Southwest border narcotics strategy, to say the least; and this bill will prescribe that there has to be a counternarcotics strategy. We will also target the methamphetamine epidemic. This bill requires at least $15 million to be dedicated to combating meth in the HIDTAs.

We will also see a whole series of amendments. The United States Congress last year began asking for, and this year, a meth strategy. We have not had a meth strategy. We have had pathetic attempts, small attempts, at a meth strategy. But we have not had a national meth strategy. Amendment after amendment today, with the support of this subcommittee, will show the intensity of how this body feels on methamphetamines.

It will also rationalize the General Counter-Drug Intelligence Plan. We have had overlaps on intelligence that have been totally unacceptable and a waste of taxpayer dollars. It will elevate the rank and status of the ONDCP director. Because the director is tasked with coordinating drug control of numerous agencies, including Cabinet-level Departments, this bill designates that he has the same rank and status as a Cabinet officer. You cannot suggest to the State Department or the Defense Department that they are not doing enough, for example, in Afghanistan if you do not have equal status. It is absurd to think a staff person in the White House could have the same clout as a fellow Cabinet member in reviewing budgets, at least most of the time. This does not interfere with the President's authority to determine the makeup of his Cabinet, but it does ensure that the director will be able to work with the Department heads on an equal basis.

It will improve effectiveness and accountability in drug treatment. There is page after page to try to make sure that our drug treatment programs and that SAMSA work directly with the ONDCP director to do that and it does not become arbitrary. We have had some very disappointing lack of communication from the ONDCP director with SAMSA, and this will help correct that.

It also requires international drug control certification, which we believe is important. It will deal with Colombia, Afghanistan, including microherbicides.

We have many different amendments inside this bill that have been put together by Members of both parties. It is a truly bipartisan effort. When people say we cannot work together, here

is a truly bipartisan effort with the input of members from multiple committees. The reason this is in the Government Reform Committee is that 20-some subcommittees have jurisdiction over narcotics; and years ago when this office was created, it was put under Government Reform, normally an oversight committee but here with authorizing; and an increasing number of things were put under the drug czar so that we could coordinate it, and this bill will reestablish this because we have been frustrated that there has not been such clear coordination. This bill will mandate more directly that it is done.

I believe we have had some successes. We are having success in Colombia. Afghanistan, we are going backwards, but we are fighting hard. I believe that the DEA has done some good work in meth, but we need a lot more in meth. We need our national ad campaign and our HIDTAs to focus more on the meth epidemic. We have other different problems, and I believe that this bill is a comprehensive, bipartisan, bicameral way to try to address this.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a former chairman of the subcommittee. He and I both were senior staffers in the other body and have worked on this issue for a long time. I appreciate his leadership in fighting narcotics throughout the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of comments I want to make in closing general debate here. One is, just for the record, though it is not part of this legislation, we have clearly corrected the misinterpretation of the student loan bill.

The Clinton administration had falsely interpreted the House legislation. The Bush administration continued to do that. It has been corrected. You only lose a student loan if you commit a drug crime while you have the loan.

That is the least that the taxpayers should expect; and even then, if you go to drug treatment and test clean, you can get your loan back. Even then, if you get convicted, not arrested, but convicted of a drug crime, you still can get it back after 2 years, or if you go through drug treatment and get clean.

The third time after you commit a drug crime and get convicted, then you lose your student loan. This is the least that the taxpayers should expect.

We also have this constant debate whether it is a war or a disease. Former drug czar Barry McCaffrey always said he felt it was both, and I agree. Because with heart disease you do not see doctors getting assassinated on the street. You do not see heart surgeons getting shot in deals about heart surgery.

Also it is a controllable disease. You do not have the equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous or narcotics anonymous for Alzheimer's. But it is a disease. That is why treatment is very important. That is why the prevention programs are very important.

I appreciated Congressman Pascrell, and actually it was Congressman Cummings who first said that narcoterrorism is something that we live with every day.

As I said earlier, tragically, 3,500 people were killed on 9/11. But that fall, 7,500 died because of illegal narcotics; 30,000 in 2002; 30,000 in 2003; 30,000 in 2004; roughly 7,500 in the first quarter of this year 105,000 people have died.

While we get obsessed with every little thing going on in homeland security, we have terror on our streets, in our homes, and in our neighborhoods every day. We cannot forget and divert funds from the daily threat of narcoterrorism in the United States as we do this.

I want to again refer to the Government Reform Subcommittee report that was unanimously adopted today. You can find it on the Web site of the Criminal Justice Subcommittee under Government Reform, 154 pages, 607 footnotes. If you tap the footnote, you can get the actual source.

There you can get a full view of the whole narcotics policies, whether it is in HHS, Department of Justice, Defense, State Department. It is part of what we do in our committee.

The ONDCP, the direct bill in front of us, has two major functions. One is directly under the control of the so-called drug czar, the director of ONDCP. It is a national media campaign, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, and the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center.

In addition, the drug czar reviews all budgets of all agencies with narcotics and has broad authority to make sure that we have a coordinated national drug policy, and this bill strengthens that.

This bill was not easily put together. I want to thank first off the Members of both parties. We have had an extraordinary working relationship and have become very close friends, Mr. Cummings and I, but other members of our committee, too. We have had well-attended subcommittee hearings.

We have held field hearings as well as hearings in Washington. Our staff, particularly Nick Coleman, who has just recently left to go to the U.S. Attorney's Office, has visited almost every HIDTA in America.

We as Members have visited HIDTA directors here and have gone out and visited the different HIDTAs. Marc Wheat, the staff director; Dennis Kilcoyne; Jim Kaiser; Tony Haywood from the minority staff have worked hard in developing this comprehensive legislation.

Mr. Cummings and I both thank our staff, because they help make us look good. In a bill this complicated, working with every agency in the Federal Government basically, in a bipartisan way, is not easy to do.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes technical and conforming changes to account for changes in the law within the jurisdiction of those committees that waived formal business meetings on H.R. 2829, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005.

On page 145, the manager's amendment strikes the mandatory restrictions on certification of budgets related to enforcement in certain contexts of section 484(r)(1) of the Higher Education Act, more popularly known as the Drug-Free Student Loan provision.

The provision made students convicted of drug offenses temporarily not eligible to receive student loans. However, a significant problem had arisen in the Department of Education, beginning during the Clinton administration and continuing during the current administration, because they have misinterpreted the clear language of that statute to improperly deny loans to students whose drug convictions predated their enrollment in school.

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

the need to address this matter in H.R. 2829.

The manager's amendment changes made on pages 149, 187, and 217 and the related conforming amendments are based on technical recommendations made by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence through the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The technical amendments were thought desirable to make the ONDCP authorization reflect changes made by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 108-458, and related authorizations.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out again the effect of taking that language out means the bill is now silent on the drug loan provision. The other changes had to do with the Intelligence Committee and other committees that waived jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I will introduce the Baird amendment. I am a cosponsor of the Baird amendment.

Yes, I am acting as his designee.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to give my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Has anyone claimed the time in opposition?

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment and we are willing to accept this amendment. This amendment seeks to strengthen the bill by highlighting the problem of methamphetamine. I think it is very important that this House continue to go on record every day possible, every amendment possible.

Again, the gentleman from Washington has been the founder of the Meth Caucus and Congressman Larsen, Congressman Cannon, and Congressman Calvert in the Meth Caucus have been active in doing this. I think it is important to look at an international summit.

Clearly, as we dealt with the major methamphetamine bill that is part of the antiterrorism bill, we realize that as we get control of pseudoephedrine behind the counter, this becomes much more of an international problem. In Oklahoma, which was the first State, really, to enact tough legislation, they have seen crystal meth come in behind and become a scourge on their State. We see it in Oregon and Washington, other States around the country. As you crack down on the so-called ``mom and pop labs'' and the ``Nazi labs'' you move to crystal meth. That is better for local law enforcement but bad for the individuals because it is even more potent.

Crystal meth is coming from an international market. It started over in Asia. There are nine basic facilities in the world, the Czech Republic has closed theirs, but Germany as well as China and India. Much of it comes across our border from Mexico, and without cooperation on an international basis, without working with the U.N. antinarcotics efforts, we cannot tackle this in the United States.

We have attempted to put up walls in the Combat Meth Act. We had things for the spot market. We had new measuring things and so on, but ultimately that is just trying to put up a wall around the United States. We have to figure out how we are going to cooperatively work with India, China, and Mexico and other countries.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I also strongly support this amendment. I appreciate the gentleman from Arkansas being one of the first Members to really push us to focus on methamphetamines. His district has been hard hit. Early on it was featured in People magazine. We did a congressional hearing in our subcommittee in his district where we heard from everyone, from drug court to people who were working directly with children and the impact on children.

At another hearing in Minnesota, at the request of a number of Members, we heard in Ramsey County, which is St. Paul, that they went from zero to 80 percent of the kids in child custody in the welfare department being addicts of meth. From nothing to 80 percent, in 6 months.

When methamphetamine hits your area, it takes over and overwhelms your juvenile systems, overwhelms the child custody system, and overwhelms the criminal system. I very much appreciate this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Ohio on the Judiciary Committee for his great work on this and so many other issues, on constitutional issues and on crime issues in this country, and I want to put this amendment a little bit in context.

First, we have a very strong Meth Caucus in this House, led by Congressman Larsen, Congresswoman Boswell, Congressman Calvert, and Congressman Cannon. Congressman Calvert was one of the early leaders because in California we saw these super labs, just like in Washington State and Oregon. Actually, they started in Hawaii. Moved from Asia into Hawaii, into the west coast, into the Plaines, then into the Great Lakes States. It has now moved through the whole country.

Part of the reason the Meth Caucus is so frustrated and you will see so many amendments today, and even in the overriding bill, is because of an exasperation that while this is tearing up the grass roots, the Congress of Counties in the United States has said it is the number one drug problem in America; we have the HIDTAs coming in and saying it is, State and local law enforcement coming in and saying it is, the emergency rooms reflecting that, yet there has been no coordinated anti-meth strategy.

The challenge we have when we do a bill like this, which is a 5-year bill, which may mean at different times that oxycontin may be the problem, crack is in other cities and heroin is in other cities, that you try not to micromanage any particular drug in a 5-year bill. But what has happened here is, because the Office of ONDCP in particular, as well as HHS for the most part, have had a tin ear and not responded, this bill is going to have a lot more micromanagement in it than you normally would in a 5-year authorization.

I believe methamphetamine will be around in 5 years. I don't believe we are going to get rid of it in 5 years. It originally was in the form of crack and was not that widespread. But as it spread, whether it is mom-and-pop labs or crystal meth, it will be here for 5 years. But this would not be necessary if they already had a clearinghouse. I can't believe we don't already have a clearinghouse. It wouldn't be necessary if we already had in the schools different programs like this amendment is prescribing.

The administration this morning said they oppose this bill because it ties their hands too much. I am sorry, when you do not respond to the crisis in America, when the American people are rising up in every county, every law enforcement organization, this is exactly what we need to do in legislation when you do not respond.

I strongly support this amendment and I hope the entire Congress will support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly support this amendment by the gentleman from Texas. Without a doubt, our number one challenge is the southwest border, whether it is meth, whether it is cocaine, whether it is heroin, or whether it is marijuana.

The biggest bust in my hometown's history in Fort Wayne, Indiana, was in Laredo, headed up to Fort Wayne, and a very organized thing. We have had multiple hearings in El Paso, but I remember at one of the hearings in El Paso, the prisons in El Paso are full of people trying to ship drugs to other parts of the country, and they do not even arrest people with under 200 pounds anymore because their prisons are full. When we challenged that, he said, what are we supposed to do in Texas? Our prisons are full of people running drugs to Indiana and Maryland and Florida and everywhere else in the United States. There is only so much we can do.

Many problems along the border are related to immigration questions, but I do not think the violence in the southwest border is related to people coming up to work in manufactured housing in Indiana. The problem with violence at the southwest border is pretty directly related to drug trafficking; the assassinations we have seen on both sides of the border and how that spills in. Sometimes it is accidental, sometimes it is shootouts, sometimes it is kidnappings, sometimes it relates to people in law enforcement and other times it is individuals; whether it is at that Tohono O'odham reservation in Arizona that has been overrun, or whether it is ranches that have been overrun, or whether literally in El Paso it is assassinations that have occurred inside the city.

The drug czar's office does have the ability to do this kind of study. They are the overarching agency. We may also need to look, just like we need to look at legislation on these tunnels, what specific legislation may need to come from this, but first we need to know what the facts are. I appreciate the gentleman bringing the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas to close.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise to support this amendment. I do not oppose this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. It is a phenomenon we have dealt with for some time, and I appreciate Mr. Filner's long, aggressive leadership with how best to deal with the southwest border in his district. We have worked together on border questions.

This has recently been in the news because there have been more tunnels discovered in the last period than we have had for some time. The gentleman is absolutely correct, it does not do any good to build fences if you dig tunnels underneath them. Some of these tunnels have gone into other businesses, some into homes, some into open areas. It has shown a gap in our legislation.

I am working with Chairman Dreier who is taking the lead on a bill similar to Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl's bill to try to come up with appropriate laws that we need regarding these tunnels.

Clearly, if you catch the ton of marijuana going through, that is clearly a violation of the law; but even the tunnel itself and digging the tunnel under an international border should have stiff penalties.

I spoke yesterday with the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Julie Myers, and she is head of ICE and has been working directly with them in trying to do more of the tunnel enforcement. They have stepped up DHS efforts, and Assistant Secretary Myers is fully aware of this. We need to develop whatever legislation is required.

What we need is our ONDCP director, and ideally he would have already submitted proposals to us. This says come up with proposals, and it gives him authority to develop implementation of a strategy and coordinate the other agencies. Some of this may be Department of Justice, EPA. That is why we have an Office of National Drug Control Policy to coordinate the different agencies that may be involved in this tunnel.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) be able to reclaim the balance of his time.

Mr. Chairman, we will include for the Record a series of letters that we have written to Secretary Leavitt. One of the panels on this conference was: We Do Not Need a War on Methamphetamine.

Another title was: You Don't Have to Be Clean and Sober or Even Want to Be.

Sexual topics were also there. Harm Reduction: Tweaking Tips For Party Boys; Barebacking: A Harm Reduction Approach Without Condoms; Harm Reduction: Unprotected Sex, Gay Men and Barebacking.

It was awful, done with our tax dollars. But what is particularly outrageous, when we look at narcotics, is how can our Department of HHS be participating in something named ``We Don't Need a War on Methamphetamine.'' That is why we are asking ONDCP to investigate this.

Mr. Chairman, I submit these letters to further illustrate the matter raised by Mr. Graves.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Government Reform,

Washington, DC, August 12, 2005.

Hon. Michael O. Leavitt,

Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services,

Washington, DC.

It has been my understanding, from several sources, that

the Department of Health and Human Services has been the

principal barrier preventing the Administration from

formulating a policy to address the methamphetamine epidemic.

And now I have learned that the Department of Health and

Human Services is a primary sponsor of a conference

controlled by the Harm Reduction Coalition and the Harm

Reduction Project in your home state of Utah, on August 19

and 20, 2005.

I find this all to be deeply offensive.

I am enormously frustrated with your Department for

dithering on the meth issue while the rest of America fights

an epidemic that is viciously tearing apart families and

communities throughout the country.

A foundational premise of the so-called ``harm reduction''

ideology promoted at the HHS-sponsored conference is that we

should not be fighting a ``war on drugs,'' but rather

limiting drugs' harmful effects. Harm reduction is, in fact,

a vehicle drug legalization proponents have hijacked to pave

the way to their ultimate objective.

Any claim that your Department is unaware of the pro-

legalization agenda and ``soft'' approach to illegal

narcotics of the

harm reduction advocates is utterly implausible. This agenda

is readily apparent from the conference topics sprinkled

throughout the program, as well as the very websites of the

assorted harm reduction organizations sponsoring and

participating in the conference.

Shockingly, Major Session IV of the HHS-sponsored Harm

Reduction Coalition and Harm Reduction Project conference

next week is entitled, ``We Don't Need a `War' on

Methamphetamine.''

Other conference topics include, ``You Don't Have to Be

Clean & Sober. Or Even Want to Be!'' and sexual topics

consistent with the harm reduction ideology that shuns an

abstinence-based approach for at-risk communities: ``Tweaking

Tips for Party Boys,'' and two sessions on engaging in sex

without condoms, ``Barebacking: A Harm Reduction Approach,''

and ``Without Condoms: Harm Reduction, Unprotected Sex, Gay

Men and Barebacking.

Among the speakers and moderators at this conference

sponsored by your Department, five are identified in the

program as representatives of the Drug Policy Alliance,

giving seven presentations at the conference. The Drug Policy

Alliance describes itself as ``the nation's leading

organization working to end the war on drugs.'' Along with

its major donor George Soros, the Drug Policy Alliance helped

produce It's Just a Plant, a pro-marijuana children's book.

Marsha Rosenbaum, who is also presenting at the HHS-sponsored

conference, wrote the epilogue for this disturbing book.

Both the Harm Reduction Coalition and the Harm Reduction

Project are partners with the Drug Policy Alliance for its

upcoming 2005 International Drug Policy Reform Conference.

According to the Alliance's conference materials regarding

who should attend this meeting: ``Anyone who believes the war

on drugs is doing more harm than good!''

The program for the HHS-sponsored conference next week also

includes a ``Special Thank You'' to a handful of people,

including HHS employee Dr. Glen Hanson, of the National

Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). As you know, NIDA's mission

is ``to lead the Nation in bringing the power of science to

bear on drug abuse and addiction.'' To what end is the

Department's goal to ``lead the nation'' with harm reduction

and drug legalization partners?

Luciano Colonna, Executive Director of the Harm Reduction

Project and host of the DHHS-sponsored conference, and one

reported as briefing your aides in advance of the conference,

is quoted as stating that, ``For a lot of people, meth use is

a rite of passage and it really does increase sexual

pleasure.''

That Administration officials from your Department are

consulting with harm reduction advocates such as Colonna, and

sponsoring conferences controlled by the harm reduction

network, completely undermines the work of the President, the

Congress, and the men and women who work in law enforcement

across the nation who are trying desperately to fight the

meth epidemic.

Please provide the following materials no later than 5:00

p.m. Tuesday, August 16, 2005:

(1) An official statement of why the Department of Health

and Human Services is sponsoring the August 19-20 Harm

Reduction conference in Salt Lake City, and how such

participation furthers the Administration's stated goal of

reducing drug use.

(2) The names of all Department of Health and Human

Services staff attending the August 19-20 Harm Reduction

conference in Salt Lake City, and their contact information

so we may conduct staff interviews.

Please provide the following materials no later than 5:00

p.m. Friday, August 26, 2005:

(1) All documents relating to the Department of Health and

Human Services' involvement, including its role as a primary

sponsor, for the August 19-20 Harm Reduction conference in

Salt Lake City. See the attachment for a full definition of

``documents'' and ``relating to.''

Mr. Secretary, I have steadily worked for enhanced

treatment and prevention funding and expanded treatment

options. I was the House sponsor of the Drug Addiction

Treatment Expansion Act just signed by President Bush.

Treatment and prevention are not the issue here.

The issue is that the Administration has not yet put forth

a strategy to address the meth epidemic, and your Department

bears much of the responsibility for that failure. To

procrastinate further while supporting the very people who

advocate relaxed drug laws is unconscionable.

Sincerely,

Mark E. Souder,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and

Human Resources, Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do not oppose this amendment. It is an excellent amendment. It requires ONDCP in 90 days to come up with a comprehensive strategy addressing the threat of methamphetamine.

In this bill we already require a coordinated strategy to combat South American and Afghan heroin, which we have not had. We already require a Southwest border narcotics strategy, which has not been effective.

But there has been nothing on meth, and this not only requires a strategy for the supply side, how it gets in internationally through the border, but the demand side as well. The National Ad Campaign has basically been absent, part of the ONDCP, on the meth issue; yet we have reduced the funding here. But this House clearly showed they would increase the funding on the National Ad Campaign if they put it in meth, and then they wonder why they cannot get more dollars for the National Ad Campaign.

We have had to do meth hot spots to try to address that at the grass- roots. That was opposed by the administration. We have now authorized that as part of the terrorism bill in the Combat Meth Act. An amazing individual in the State of Montana has put together a private sector program that is more effective in fighting meth than we have been able to come up with in the public sector.

This amendment will help direct and force the Department of ONDCP, the drug czar's office, to address in a coordinated way meth strategy.

I commend the gentlewoman from Oregon. The Portland Oregonian has been a champion nationally and internationally in identifying this. She has championed this issue in Oregon; as well Congressman Walden in the eastern side of Oregon that has been hit so hard; and we really appreciate all the efforts of those in the Northwest as this drug rips through the rest of the country, into Congressman Peterson of Pennsylvania's district. Titusville, Pennsylvania is the capital of meth in Pennsylvania, ripping into North Carolina. We are doing a hearing with Congressman McHenry in the next few weeks. As we see it march into the East, this has now become a national problem; and we appreciate the leadership from the Northwest.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I have some serious reservations with this amendment, not with the goals, but whether many of these studies are not already being conducted. We have tried to work with the gentlewoman from Texas to sort that through. I have agreed to support this amendment and accept this

amendment on the condition that we will continue to work in conference and to the degree there is not duplication, because I agree with two fundamental underlying points. One is that we have seen a rise in drug use among girls and women; in methamphetamine in particular we have seen a startling rise. Secondly, in our prisons, we need to continue to look at that.

I believe there are a number of private sector studies in addition to what ONDCP does that will reach much of that data. But I share her goals, and will continue to work in conference to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment. Mr. Lungren of California, who I like to think of as the Charlie Weis of Congress in the sense that since he has come in, he has helped organize us in homeland security and organize us in narcotics issues based on his experience as attorney general, and once again showing why the University of Notre Dame produces such great graduates who grasp the issue.

He has worked at the State level. We need clearer model State drug laws. We need to establish laws that are effective. I appreciate his leadership in this effort in multiple committees, on the Judiciary and Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to this amendment, it is an excellent amendment, and I wanted to address the subject for a few minutes.

Mr. Lynch has been a leader in this, as he has also been in the steroids battle, in the committee. I appreciate that. Chairwoman Candice Miller conducted a hearing in his district on this subject. We worked together as committees, although I could not be at the hearing.

We also conducted a hearing on OxyContin down in Orlando. OxyContin has also hit my districts hard. There was a series of bank robberies and other robberies of pharmacies in the area, I think 19 total, that when people become addicted to this or become distributors of it, it can lead to other sorts of crime and organized crime in many areas of the country.

It is a little known fact that cocaine is not the number one killer in America through drug abuse, nor is heroin, nor is methamphetamine. It is abuse of prescription drugs. It is very hard for us, and we are going to see, as we make progress on methamphetamines through our control of pseudoephedrine and trying to get better control of the border at least someday in the future on crystal methamphetamine and some of the other drugs, that legal drugs are going to be possibly our biggest challenge.

One of the struggles with this, as we found out in the hearing in Orlando, that many of the medical community, not only are we fighting the pharmaceutical community, as we did in the methamphetamine bill and pseudoephedrine, we are also fighting the medical community.

Here we got in a very testy exchange about how we define pain control, and that comes as to how we regulate this, and what constitutes one person's pain control may not be another's, and it becomes an excuse for having no regulations on OxyContin.

So we had therapists opposed to us; we had certain medical communities opposed to us, who may have legitimate uses. But the bottom line is that we have an epidemic of abuse occurring with this and other prescription drugs.

We do not need to hear how not to regulate it. What we need to work with these industries is how best to regulate it, and part of that is getting a study on accuracy of how this addiction works. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership with this. I will support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Reclaiming the balance of my time, as Mr. Cummings just said, this shows the diversity of things that we tackle in our committee, in narcotics areas across the United States. We saw new shocking revelations yesterday on Barry Bonds. Masking agents are increasingly a challenge in trying to deal with steroids and other vitamin supplements and things that people are using in excess quantities to create artificial advantages in competition.

How this thing goes down to young people whose bodies cannot handle this, as we heard in our steroids hearing, watching OxyContin, which is one of the most effective painkillers being used by people, taking people's lives, and it becomes a way that people rob banks and pharmacies and violence in society, abuse of other prescription drugs.

In addition to cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, different areas will have different things come up at different times. But we need to know the science behind it. We need to know how it affects the human brain. We need to know the best ways to fight this. We need comprehensive efforts.

That is what the Office of National Drug Control Policy is supposed to do. I commend the gentleman and support this amendment from the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. On the surface it looks fairly mild, but it is actually an attempt to eliminate the drug czar's office.

The gentleman from Texas is certainly the most principled Libertarian that we have in the Congress and probably one of the most principled Libertarians in the country. I presume he would favor sunsetting most Departments in the Federal Government. The question is, why would we single out the drug czar's office?

We have many programs that are unauthorized. That is an unfortunate thing. I believe all programs should, in fact, be authorized; and that is why we are going through this authorization. It got lost at the end of the last session in the Senate side, and we are proceeding again with Senate support.

It would be tragic if we got in the position where each Department, if Congress could not decide on the exact wording of the authorization bill, the office suddenly disappeared, and we would not have a national anti-drug media, we would not have the HIDTA programs, we would not have the technology that goes forth.

Dr. Paul and I have deep differences on the effectiveness of narcotics. We both share a skepticism in the ability of government to solve things. But I believe in the drug policy area we can at least make a difference. And I believe it is an important difference.

He and I have our deep philosophical differences on this, but I very much respect his consistent opposition, basically to most legislation that comes forth in front of Congress. But I need to oppose this amendment.

This amendment would have the effect of singling out the Office of National Drug Control Policy solely among Cabinet positions to be put under this regulation. And it could, indeed, like many other programs that we do not get reauthorization, such as juvenile justice, such as Head Start, has at times not had its authorization, we have many different programs that do not get authorized.

We would not want to fold those programs merely because the two bodies could not agree on their final wording.

I also would like to at this time, I got a copy of the administration's statement of policy of why they oppose this bill, in spite of the fact it has gone unanimously through the subcommittee, unanimously through the full committee, gone with complete support of multiple other committees in Congress.

It is, quite frankly, a relatively insulting document. It says, for example, that it infringes on the prerogatives of the executive by designating ONDCP as a Cabinet-level official. As we explained earlier, that is not what the law says it does.

It says it has to be treated like a Cabinet-level position. Which, by the way, was what Congress passed in the beginning. It was a congressional designation. The bill duplicates the drug certification process, is another one of their complaints at the State Department. That is true. But ONDCP is a narcotics agency, and they should be advising the State Department, which has multiple different concerns when they do certification. It complains about the interdiction coordinator in the Department of Homeland Security being under a national drug control strategy, which seems odd that ONDCP would be objecting to this being in their Department.

Once again, it reiterates that they want to move the HIDTAs away right now in the Justice Department from ONDCP. The reason we have them there is the State and locals were drawn into HIDTA relationship where they had a vote and could have influence in the decision-making.

The administration's proposals would gut the funding, over half of it; would take away the vote of State and local officials, all of whom said unanimously they would withdraw from the program if the administration persists with this, which was denied in both Houses last year, denied overwhelmingly again by their own people.

When the narcotics officers of America unanimously oppose this, when the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas unanimously oppose it, how can the administration keep sending up this type of document? They are supposed to be the leaders of the world on narcotics, not fighting every police officer in America, every State trooper in America, every HIDTA in America. I do not understand this.

It also says that we are reducing its flexibility in the National Anti-drug Media Campaign. We certainly are. Because we are frustrated that they have not dealt with the problem of methamphetamine. So that allegation happens to be true. We are reducing the flexibility because he has refused to respond to the counties of America that methamphetamine is their number one problem in America, to the HIDTAs; and particularly he has been after the methamphetamine HIDTAs that were created, the Rocky Mountain HIDTA, the Missouri HIDTA, the Iowa HIDTA.

It has been very frustrating to see this persistent, persistent, even after we passed the Methamphetamine Act this past week, even as we moved this bill through, continuing to resist the efforts of Congress to try to tackle the problems of methamphetamine.

Also they dislike that we have restricted their reprogramming ability. Yes we have restricted their reprogramming ability, because every time the local HIDTAs or others try to deal with the methamphetamine problem, they want to reprogram the money away from the problem. So we have given them most of the flexibility there.

But while some of their charges are true, they fail to point out why the House and Senate unanimously from both parties are so frustrated that we have had to go forth with this. It would be tragic if my friend from Texas's amendment passed and would not let us move forward with this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, this amendment is whether you support the director's office or not. The fact is that we sunset everything every year, because if we do not appropriate, they do not have any dollars. If it never gets reauthorized and then you do not appropriate, it is sunsetted. We have sunset provisions in every piece of legislation we pass. All we have to do is not fund it. Then they do not have any staff. They do not have any offices. They do not have any rent.

This is a legitimate debate about whether the Federal Government should be involved in drug law enforcement.

I disagree with my colleague from Texas, across the board. We do not even agree on prohibition. Quite frankly, prohibition reduced alcohol abuse. It reduced spouse abuse. It reduced child abuse. People wanted to drink and we had a history of drinking. And it came back in mostly for political reasons, not because of all the other side reasons you have heard. In fact, it accomplished its goals; it just had a side goal, given the history of alcohol use in the United States. And ever since then we have been trying to control it even down to the point of now regulating bartenders who serve drinks to people who have consumed too much.

We still see the ravages of alcohol abuse. We see States that have passed liberal marijuana laws repealing those laws. Denmark and The Netherlands are retreating because when they legalized marijuana, it was not like the drug traffickers disappeared. They just moved to harder drugs and started to sell those. The marijuana that we see today isn't the ditch weed we used to have in Indiana or the sixties' marijuana. It is this hydroponic marijuana with 30 to 40 percent THC that sells on the streets much like crack cocaine. It has an impact on your brain much like crack cocaine.

The fact is that this is a great danger to this country, that we have made progress. The keen attitudes towards marriage have consistently declined. The cocaine in the United States has shown some movement based on what has happened in Columbia. Right now we have a problem that we cannot control the heroin out of Afghanistan. We are tackling the meth question. In fact, we have seen a broad move across the United States that has reduced drug abuse. It is important that we have a director there. We just want to see the director being more effective.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given 5 additional minutes, given the numbers of speakers that we have on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to compliment Mr. Rehberg and the group of cosponsors who have all been active in the anti-meth efforts. Montana has been truly a model of what the private sector can do.

The campaign that Mr. Rehberg was talking about is so much more dramatic than what we have seen out of the Federal Government. It is extremely disappointing that we need to look at how to use this Montana model in how to get our national ad campaign engaged.

As has been pointed out, there are some risks when you designate a percentage of the national media campaign to be devoted to one particular drug. But this says if there is a reduction and there is a proven reduction, then that requirement will not be there. Plus, if the Congress of Counties in the United States say this is the number one drug problem in America, if we are hearing about it in basically in all 50 States now, but 37 States have heard about it so aggressively that they are banning pseudoephedrine or moving to ban pseudoephedrine. And we just passed a bill in the United States Congress to in effect reduce cold medicines from 120 choices down to 20 because of the ravages of meth, if we are willing to take those drastic strategies; if the county officials across the country say meth is the number one epidemic; if local law enforcement is telling us that in big cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul or Omaha or Portland that the bulk of their people that are in jail, kids in child custody, are because of meth; if small rural towns in the Midwest and the West are hard hit by meth, California has these super labs that are there; if we are seeing it move into Pennsylvania and

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

Where have they been? I thank the gentleman who brought this amendment forward and strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for the time.

I want to add that I, too, believe it should be more than 10 percent. Of course, the ONDCP director has that flexibility.

I would also like to additionally comment a little bit more on the statement of administration policy and the bill in general that shows our frustration.

I mentioned in the State Department on the certification process that the State Department has certification, but there are many other variables. In fact, that clause has been weakened to say ``demonstrably failing.'' What this says is the drug czar has to show whether these nations, such as Mexico, whether the pseudoephedrine producers such as India and China are fully cooperating, because we need to have the drug czar say what is happening on narcotics, and the State Department can make their own rulings.

Furthermore, we have a big debate about how the budget should be counted. We believe that the administration has been misrepresenting what we are actually spending on narcotics in multiple ways. For example, in prisons, they count treatment as the only part of the prisons that is counted in the drug control budget. Well, we know many people are in jail because of narcotics. It leads to us not understanding what the actual costs of what we are doing are.

Now, I support all that. I am not trying to say it should be cut, but understating it does not give Congress an accurate impression of what we are spending on narcotics. Similarly, in the Department of Homeland Security.

So we are pushing in this legislation to address a wide range of things, and this particular amendment addresses one of the most egregious problems we have had, which anybody who has been watching this full debate sees, one amendment after another coming up on meth. That is because the people are speaking out. It is not just in the rural Midwest.

It started out in Hawaii, in Honolulu, had to fumigate certain apartments because you can endanger the children and the people moving in the next time. When we did a hearing in Congressman Turner's district in Wilmington, Ohio, that very day in Dayton, Ohio, which is a large city, they found a string of seven houses that had the drug labs internally because you can smell it. That is partly why people go to rural areas, but they found the first big bust in Dayton because they brought up a string of houses so they could not smell it, much like they do with hydroponic marijuana. This is a thing with not only the crystal meth but even the drug labs are hitting the big cities. This is something that needs to be tackled.

This is one where we can win. This is one when you show the ads, like are shown in Montana, they capture the people. They understand the danger of this drug, and what we need to do is make sure our national ad campaign includes that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and, as I said, I do not oppose this amendment. It is an excellent amendment.

We have known for a long time that drug and alcohol abuse has been particularly devastating where there is lack of job opportunities on many of the reservations of our Indian nations in America, and it has been historic in fetal alcohol syndrome and other challenges.

What is astounding to me is that the administration's Attorney General Gonzalez recently made the statement that meth is an epidemic, but the office that is supposed to control all this, the drug czar's office, continues to downplay meth and has actually said that it is not growing. Yet on the ground, none of us are hearing this.

For example, in the Indian nations, where it is relatively quiet in the sense of the national knowledge of what Mr. Just described, at a hearing in Minnesota, the U.S. Attorney was there. He is the lead for the northern tribes in Montana, Minnesota, North and South Dakota and so on, and he said that meth is tearing through the Indian nations in a way they haven't seen in other narcotics; at reservation in the southern part of Arizona, which is right on the border, and there they are right on the front lines of all kinds of narcotics as well, as the crystal meth that is going to come across.

This meth is going to move into upstate New York, where we have the reservation, the historic Mohawk reservation up on the Saint Lawrence Seaway, which once again is at a critical border point. And as we watch meth tearing through these Indian nations, we need to make sure when we put together these High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas that are under this, that those tribal nations are included as representatives.

I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona taking the lead and making sure that as we have in these urban areas, whether it be in Arizona, whether it be in Minnesota, whether it be the Rocky Mountain HIDTA, or whether it be the northern upstate New York and other areas where we have major Indian nations, that they are included as we try to tackle drug trafficking and as we particularly get at the new scourge of methamphetamines.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I want to again compliment the gentleman from Arizona. The Navajo nation is in northern Arizona and spills over into New Mexico and is a huge dominant entity, and he has worked aggressively to defend their interests and to make sure they are included in efforts like this, where sometimes they are forgotten.

Oklahoma, which has been ravaged by narcotics, and as we see it go into the mountains of North Carolina, clearly the Cherokee nation and other nations are at risk with this, too. The gentleman's amendment will help in many of these areas as we try to tackle meth and other narcotics.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time on behalf of Mr. Terry to offer his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Lee Terry brought this amendment to the Rules Committee, and I strongly support this amendment. One of the things I should point out is that this has been an unusual day. We have been asking for some time to be able to have a meth day. Clearly, this has turned into a meth day, as well as when we did the terrorism bill. We had methamphetamines as part of that. And the reason is because we are hearing from the grass roots and they want to tackle the methamphetamine issue.

Earlier today, interestingly, we had the Meth Caucus and others who were not able to come to the floor because there was a major press conference with DEA and other agencies to talk about the bill that we passed earlier this week, the largest methamphetamine act in the United States' history as part of the terrorism bill. And Mr. Terry and other Members, including Coach Osborne and others who come to the floor regularly on meth, are over at the White House for the signing ceremony on the methamphetamine bill. So I have been here on the floor today, and some Members have been able to make it over, but this has been a meth day and beyond on the House floor, and it is meth day at the White House as well as throughout Capitol Hill.

This particular amendment directs the director of ONDCP, the ``drug czar'' to consult with the head of each major national organization that represents law enforcement officers, agencies, or associations. That would include, for example, Ron Brooks of the National Narcotics Officers Associations Coalition, the Fraternal Order of Police, the national HIDTA directors. He must consult them prior to making recommendations to the President on national budget for drug control enforcement each year.

So why would we need this kind of amendment in this bill? I would think that this is what the director does for a living. But when we had a hearing and asked why the HIDTAs were being moved to the Justice Department at this hearing, we had the director of the narcotics officers who said they hadn't been consulted. We had the director of the Chicago HIDTA, the Speaker's HIDTA, and he said he hadn't been consulted. We had the directors of the Southwest border HIDTA, and they

said they had not been consulted. We had the director of the Baltimore- Washington HIDTA, and he said he had not been consulted. We had the director of the Missouri HIDTA, the sheriff of our Whip Roy Blunt's home area, and he said he had never been consulted.

The question is: Who did they consult? If they didn't consult the HIDTA directors, any of them, if they didn't consult the narcotics officers, if they didn't consult the police officers, on what grounds are they making recommendations to in effect gut these programs and move them to other departments? On what grounds are they proposing to wipe out the Byrne grants and the drug czar be silent or actually supportive? On what grounds are they proposing to wipe out the meth hot spots?

I think it would be just basic good procedure that the director would talk to these groups before he would make these recommendations. Yet all these groups say he has never had a meeting with them. He is not meeting with them before he makes these recommendations. I think, quite frankly, it is a sad day when the United States Congress has to put into a bill that the director meets with the people who are on the street fighting the drug war, which he should be doing as part of his job.

But I strongly commend Mr. Terry for this amendment, because we need the director. If we are going to have a director, a drug czar who is going to make recommendations that impact State and local law enforcement all over the country, that impact our HIDTAs all over the country, we ought to at least know, and he can still make whatever recommendations he wants, and the President can still make whatever recommendations he wants, but we would like to know before that recommendation comes over that he has at least talked to the people doing the job at the grassroots level.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given 5 additional minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think Mr. Cummings' point is a fitting conclusion as we move to the end of this debate. Our frustration is that since there has not been an authorization, the director of ONDCP has proposed a number of changes which would greatly undermine what this Congress intended.

When we set up the High Intensity Drug Trafficking programs, the HIDTA, it was meant initially to focus on the Southwest border, which has not been particularly effective. In case anybody noticed, we do not have great control there, partly because we do not have an integrated Southwest border strategy. We have starts, we have a Southwest border HIDTA, but we need a Southwest border strategy.

In these High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, we move to the biggest cities and say, this is how the drugs come in and move into Indiana from Chicago and Detroit. You need the Baltimore-Washington HIDTA and the Los Angeles HIDTA, the Phoenix and the Houston HIDTAs behind the border.

Other States then saw the effectiveness. What made HIDTA effective? The idea was if the Federal Government tried to do everything through DEA, FBI, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Customs, it would not work. Sometimes even our Federal agents were arresting each other, and we were not getting integrated with State and local law enforcement.

So the goal in HIDTA was if we put a 1 million, $2 million into an area, first off, we would require all of the Federal agents to be there and they would get half the votes, and then we would get the States and locals and they would get half the votes, and they would feel actual ownership of it. If they felt ownership, they would participate.

As the head of the Phoenix Police Department told us at a hearing, it was moved over to OCDETF. It has done wonderful work, but OCDETF talks to supposedly State and local law enforcement, but State and local law enforcement do not get a vote. So they get put on a board, and they come to a meeting once in a while. HIDTA actually gives them a vote. The head of the Phoenix Police Department said his city council asks him on a regular basis, can you justify this, can you justify that. He has kept three officers in the HIDTA because he sees how that HIDTA money gets leveraged with the State police, with the U.S. Attorney's Office, with the U.S. Marshals, with the FBI, DEA, and with everybody else.

Why, when we finally get a program that works at the State and local levels that leverages these dollars, would we gut it without even talking to the people involved? The Phoenix police chairman said he would pull his three officers out of the narcotics effort if it

was moved. So did Chicago. So did city after city. And it is so exasperating that they continue to persist on this. But it shows it has done a great job of educating the HIDTAs.

The New York City HIDTA is integrated completely with terrorism, and it is an amazing operation as we see those to links occur. The national ad campaign we are addressing throughout this bill because we think it has been effective and we need to make it more effective, and it needs to include meth.

The administration was also proposing dramatic changes to the technology center. It is one of the most valuable things to State and local law enforcement because not only do we give them goods, but it is a model for what we are trying to do on homeland security, that is, when a police department says I would like this kind of radio, night goggle, protective gear, they analyze it. In my district, take Albion, 1,500, Kendallville is 10,000 people, Fort Wayne is 230,000 people. They can go through their list and say we would like these goggles, but then it goes through a review process and they say this is probably not what you need in Albion. Unless you can make a defense, you don't get that. You have to submit what kind of drug challenges you have, what types of things you need, and the Technology Assessment Center then, off of your list, you match up what your departments need.

Everybody in homeland security gets this pool of money, and now they have all kinds of things that they may not ever need and mismatches. Now we are trying to have the State say, what is your homeland security plan; to have the locals say, what is your homeland security plan. Then in a technology center, we should have it work like in the drug czar's office, except the drug czar wants to get rid of his own Department.

It is baffling why there is this persistent goal in the administration to wipe out the things that most benefit State and local and keep the parts that are nationally under their control.

So I think this bill will comprehensively address a whole series of those concerns. I am pleased that we have been able to do this. The Meth Caucus has been bipartisan; this subcommittee has been bipartisan with Mr. Cummings and the full active membership of subcommittee. We have all been able to bring a bill forth and move through the full committee unanimously. Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, Education, and Intelligence committees all participated in this process, individual Members with their amendments as well as the Meth Caucus.

I hope this bill will receive unanimous support. Three of the amendments we need a ``yes'' on. There is one amendment that would get rid of ONDCP, and I urge a ``no'' vote on that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as we stand here debating this important legislation before us today, illegal drug abuse, drug addiction, and drug-related violence are exacting an enormous toll on our society, destroying lives, tearing apart families and devastating entire communities. Nationwide, drug abuse will contribute to the loss of 50,000 lives, and more than 20,000 Americans will die as a direct consequence of illegal drug use this year alone.

In addition to the human toll, illegal drug abuse results in billions of dollars in cost to our Nation in health care costs and lost economic productivity, placing an enormous burden on the American people, State and local governments, businesses and other institutions.

This set of circumstances is simply intolerable in a compassionate Nation, and it is our duty as the people's representatives to formulate laws and policies to reduce the scope and severity of this problem.

To be sure, America's drug problem is national in scope and has international dimensions. But its impact, first of all, is personal and local. In one way or another, every one of us and everyone we know is touched by this problem. Unfortunately, I see the tragedy of drug abuse and drug violence play out all too starkly in my own inner-city Baltimore neighborhood and in the communities of Baltimore and Howard counties that I represent. I have made a deliberate choice to continue to live where I do because I am determined to see our efforts here make a difference in my community for the benefit of the people I call my friends and neighbors and people like them across this great Nation.

Mr. Chairman, no single event is more emblematic of the severe problems that inner-city Baltimoreans face than the horrific arson murder of Carmell and Angela Dawson and their five children in 2002. In the wee morning hours of October 16, 2002, a young drug dealer, upset with Angela Dawson's unrelenting efforts to report drug distribution activities occurring in front of her family's home, threw a fire bomb through the Dawsons' ground-floor window. The fire set the home ablaze, took seven lives, and sent a chilling message to the community: Don't snitch, don't cooperate with the police, and don't dare fight back.

The legislation we are considering today is a vital component of our Federal commitment to fight back against illegal drugs by mounting a comprehensive, coordinated effort to combat all aspects of the drug problem through drug prevention, treatment, enforcement, interdiction and supply reduction.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy, the drug czar's office, was created in 1988 and has been reauthorized twice, in 1993 and 1998. Its basic mandate is to coordinate and support the efforts of drug control agencies located in eight different Departments.

H.R. 2829 would reauthorize the drug czar's office and three key programs administered by it: the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, HIDTA; the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, CTAC; and the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. HIDTA, CTAC, and the Media Campaign all play an important part in executing key aspects of the National Drug Control Strategy, and they deserve to be reauthorized.

H.R. 2829 was ordered reported by the Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, and Judiciary committees by voice vote with the bipartisan support of committee members. I am confident that this bill will strengthen ONDCP, its component programs, and our national comprehensive anti-drug effort by providing for increased interagency communication and cooperation, enhanced program and contractor accountability, and continuous evaluation of anti-drug programs and initiatives. This will result in more effective collaboration and let the administration, Congress, and the American people know in objective terms what approaches are working and what needs to be improved or rethought.

H.R. 2829 includes key bipartisan provisions that I strongly support, and most notably, the Dawson Family Community Protection Act. As amended by the manager's amendment adopted by the Judiciary Committee, this legislation, which I introduced with Chairman Souder in both the 108th and 109th Congresses, would annually provide at least $7 million in HIDTA funds to support neighborhood safety and community cooperation with police in areas severely affected by violent drug-trafficking activity.

The Dawson provisions underscore the importance of the HIDTA program, which provides vital Federal funding to support uniquely flexible and effective collaboration between Federal, State, and local agencies. H.R. 2829 includes provisions to preserve and strengthen the HIDTA program in its current form and in its current location within ONDCP. This is in stark contrast to the administration's proposal, set forth in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request, to reduce HIDTA funding and move HIDTA to the Department of Justice. H.R. 2829 reiterates Congress's intent that HIDTA should remain where it can be most effective.

H.R. 2829 also includes provisions to ensure that programs to expand access to drug treatment are adequately supported in the Federal drug control budget and further requires ONDCP to develop comprehensive strategies to address the severe threats posed by South American heroin, Afghan heroin, and drug smuggling across the Southwest border. In addition, H.R. 2829 calls for a comprehensive strategy for sharing and coordinating counterdrug intelligence and provides for increased coordination of interdiction assets and efforts.

With regard to the Media Campaign, the bill authorizes increased funding, recognizes pro bono advertising as the program's central component, provides for greater contractor accountability, requires testing and evaluation of ads before they appear on the air, and requires an independent evaluation of the campaign's impact on preventing and reducing illicit drug use by youth.

All in all, I believe this legislation advances the bipartisan, and I do emphasize that, bipartisan goal of supporting a strong, comprehensive, and coherent Federal anti-drug effort.

As the ranking minority member of the Government Reform's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I want to express my deep appreciation for the bipartisan support of Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis of Virginia; ranking member Henry Waxman; and Drug Policy Subcommittee Chairman Mark Souder. And I join them in strongly urging our colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been a leader in our efforts to address this problem of drug addiction in our country and certainly throughout the world.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who is a member of our committee and who has worked on this issue, and is also a former mayor and very familiar with the drug issue in our country and in our cities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 13 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the great State of Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very important piece of legislation. I think it was Mr. Pascrell who said that we must act with a sense of urgency. And he was absolutely right. As we stand here today, there are so many people who are becoming addicted to drugs; there are people who are literally robbing their own relatives and robbing their neighbors to get the funds for drugs.

There are even people who are seeking drug treatment and finding it difficult to get that treatment. But what we have tried to do here today through this bill is to address this problem as best we could. One of the things that I must express appreciation for is Mr. Souder's candor with regard to this whole issue. Consistently, even when there were instances where the President's priorities seemed to be, and ONDCP's priorities seemed to be, a little out of line with the things that we felt should be done to most effectively and efficiently address this problem, Mr. Souder, every step of the way stood up and said, look, we are going to do what is right.

We worked together very cooperatively. I really do appreciate it. It does mean a lot to me as a Member of this great body. I can say to all of our Members that this is legislation that we all should vote for. It should be a unanimous vote. I urge all Members to vote for the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

No. As as matter of fact, I support the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. I think it is a step in the right direction. There are so many young people who find themselves getting into difficulty with drugs. The fact is when it predated their getting Federal funding for schooling, that is one thing; it is another thing when it happens during the time that they are getting the Federal funding. I would like to see it all eliminated, but the fact still remains that I think this is a good amendment. It is a step in the right direction. It is one that I have heard a lot of concern. Every time I do a town hall meeting on scholarships, this issue comes up. I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I want to compliment Mr. Baird and the other cosponsors of this amendment. There is no doubt about it, Mr. Souder and I, over and over again we see, as the ranking members of our subcommittee, so many of our members coming to us and telling us about the problems with methamphetamines in their districts. We have traveled across the country and listened to the testimony of various members and police and law enforcement folks and people who are trying to address this problem. And it is, in fact, a growing problem.

While we have seen a lot of emphasis put on it, I think that this amendment goes very far to try to shine even more light on this tragic problem. And one of the things that we found so interesting about the whole methamphetamine situation, it is a little different than other drugs in that you have to have a clean-up. We spent a lot of money for clean-up. And we find many instances where children are tremendously affected because they have to be placed in foster care programs, because they have to be literally taken out of the house, the house usually has all kinds of problems, and they end up basically with no parents that are available to take care of them.

So it has been a tremendous strain on our law enforcement agencies, our foster care agencies. I see this as a step in the right direction, and I would trust that we would support this amendment. I want to thank Mr. Souder for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to use the time in opposition to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to thank the gentleman for this amendment. It is a very important amendment, and I have no doubt that it makes the bill a better bill.

One of the things we have seen in my district and all over the country is that there are these cycles of drug addiction; and I think one of the saddest things, and I saw this as a lawyer, too, when I practiced, is to represent a parent and then a few years later see a child come in. They both have been drug users. So the cycle of drug addiction keeps going around and around. So I think that is a very, very important piece to look at, how the children are affected.

As far as the nontraditional places with regard to drug courts is concerned, I think that is another good idea. I think what happens too often is that you have young people who will experiment or they get involved, but there are even a lot of times you do not think about consequences. They do not think about how they may have to very well come in contact with our judicial system. I think that this is an excellent way that we need to look at that, figure out ways by which we might do that; and I support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I fully support this amendment, and I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who is a member of the Meth Caucus and has been just a tremendous leader with regard to this issue and so many others, too.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), another leader in the Meth Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say this.

I want to congratulate Mr. Chabot and all the members of the Meth Caucus, because I think they have done, I know that they have done an outstanding job. I certainly congratulate Mr. Souder, too.

We have seen meth and the effects of meth, and I can tell you that while I am from the inner city of Baltimore, I have seen the effect that crack cocaine and heroin and various other drugs have had on populations; but I was, to be very frank with you, a bit shocked at the effects of methamphetamines. I think the thing that struck me tremendously was the fact that these drugs could be easily manufactured and that somebody could actually, literally, look at a Web site and put together these drugs and the next thing you know you have got quite a few people using them.

We had testimony that came forward during one of our field hearings in Indiana, I think it was, where they were talking about how one person would learn how to create the lab, and then the next thing you know, they teach somebody else, and they teach somebody else, and the next thing you have a whole string of them.

I give Mr. Souder and all the members of our subcommittee a lot of credit. We try to address all of these problems, whether it is meth in the rural areas of our great country, or whether it is crack cocaine in urban areas. And here, this is another effort, as I said a little earlier, for us to address the problems of drugs in our country and the fact that it is destroying so many families, so many communities, and so many people.

A lot of people don't realize it, but when somebody becomes addicted to a drug, it not only affects them but it affects their families and it affects support agencies and it affects their entire neighborhood. And we have seen those effects.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and I congratulate the sponsors.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I wanted to just state that I wholeheartedly support the amendment. I think it makes a great bill an even better bill, and I thank the gentleman for sponsoring it.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a wonderful and very appropriate amendment. I think many Americans were shocked when they learned of this tunnel. As Mr. Filner said, heaven knows what may have gone through it.

But I see another benefit, not only dealing with the drug issue, but certainly we are concerned about making sure that our homeland is properly secure. As he said, 300,000 to 400,000 people go across the borders legitimately every day. The fact with someone or any persons coming up with this scheme by which to go around the system that we have created, it cries out for ONDCP to look at it and I am sure other agencies are looking at it, too.

I support the amendment and thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Graves amendment requires ONDCP to produce a study on why the Department of Health and Human Services provided sponsorship support and sent HHS employees to a 2005 conference on methamphetamine and harm reduction.

In my opinion this amendment is totally unnecessary. The information sought could be obtained through regular oversight channels, and the request does not belong in an authorization statute. In addition, the amendment is an implicit ideological attack on harm-reduction efforts, such as needle exchange programs.

The purpose of needle exchange programs is to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV among injection drugs users. The amendment presupposes that needle exchange and prevention are incompatible, and that HHS participation in a harm-reduction conference cannot be constructive. That assumption is simply false.

HHS, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, and other health organizations have conducted comprehensive reviews of the research on needle exchange. Their research establishes the following conclusions: Needle exchange programs reduce the risk of transmission of HIV among injection drug users; they do not increase or encourage drug use; and they can be an important bridge to treatment aimed at achieving abstinence from drug use. Needle exchange can be an effective component of a strong, comprehensive drug reduction program. HHS and its drug prevention agencies have valuable expertise. HHS can and should provide information on treatment and prevention in settings where those subjects are discussed. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I reiterate. I think there are other ways to get this information. What is said during these conferences is not the responsibility of HHS, and I just think when we are in a situation where we are trying to make sure that we use our tax dollars efficiently and effectively, to go at trying to acquire this kind information through this method, an amendment on a very significant bill, I think is just inappropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I too stand in support of Ms. Hooley's amendment. We have spent a tremendous amount of time in our subcommittee on methamphetamine. We see it as a problem that is spreading in many instances like wildfire. And I want to thank Ms. Hooley for her leadership and for the amendment.

We have expressed on numerous occasions to the drug czar the fact that we see methamphetamine and addressing the methamphetamine problem should be a major, major priority. And I think that this just helps us along the way with regard to addressing this very significant problem, and again I congratulate the gentlewoman and support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly, by the way, support this amendment. Ms. Jackson-Lee talked about a recent Washington Post article from February 10 describing how girls are trying alcohol and drugs at a higher rate than boys, and then she went on to talk about the national survey on drug use and how it found that some 730,000 girls between the ages of 12-17 started smoking cigarettes in 2004, and it got compared with 565,000 boys, and then the 675,000 girls starting to use marijuana compared to 577,000 boys. It seems that there is something going on here that we definitely need to look at.

I know the chairman will work in conference to try to make sure that we address all of these problems. I would definitely support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly join in support of the amendment. We think it is a good amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, support this amendment. I want to thank Mr. Lynch for his leadership. OxyContin is something that we have taken a look at, and we realize that it has had, as Mr. Lynch has described, just all kinds of damaging effects. I think that the good thing is that this gives us an opportunity to get more information about it, because I think it is almost impossible to truly make good policy unless you have an adequate amount of information. So I think this will be helpful to our subcommittee as we move forward in trying to address this issue. The interesting thing that we note is it seems as if from time to time, and depending on the area in the country, certain drugs seem to become the drug of the time.

And so what we are constantly trying to do is make sure that we have every bit of detail that we possibly can so that we can create the kind of policies to effectively counter the abuse of certain drugs.

So, again, I applaud Mr. Lynch. Thank you for bringing this to us. I thank you for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I think we have a situation where I have been a big proponent of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, but I think we have to be very careful in how we spend our money.

There are parts of our country that are suffering tremendously with regard to methamphetamine. And I do not think it is unreasonable to take that 10 percent and make sure it is directed towards that problem. The fact still remains, and one of the things that I do like about this amendment is that if there is a decrease in the methamphetamine labs, then that money is then put back to be used for other purposes. I think that makes sense. Perhaps we ought to do that more in other legislation that we pass out of this House.

I support the gentleman. Our subcommittee has been very, very concerned about methamphetamines. This is just another way that perhaps we can prevent some of our young people from going that route.

During much of the testimony by the way that we received, there was a lot of testimony with regard to young people now looking more and more at ads, by the way, on the Internet. And I think that just as we have to adjust when we find that certain drugs become the drug of the day or the drug of the year, we have to adjust our methodology, too, and the amount of money that we are spending with regard to, like I say, a program like this for addressing methamphetamines.

I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say this: I think that Mr. Souder makes a very good point. One of the things that I think we probably need to see, and particularly our young folk, is the devastation of meth and to see what it causes people to do to themselves and the effect that it has had on communities. I am convinced that if our young people just had any idea of what happens to people when they use meth, I think some of them would turn around.

During one of our hearings, we were shown numerous pictures of young people. One picture was taken before they used meth and then another taken even sometimes two or three months later, and the difference was incredible. Many of them looked like they had aged about 10 years in about three or four, five months. Many of them looked very drawn and, I mean, just had all kinds of blisters and marks on their faces and their bodies. If there is one thing that we have learned about certain actions of young people, many of them want to continue to look good. We discovered that when we dealt with the whole issue of steroids.

So I think it is important. We have not seen the kind of reduction that we would like to see in methamphetamine use. As a matter of fact, it is pretty stable, but we would like to see it go down, and I think that this is the appropriate approach.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I take this moment to support the amendment. I think it is a very good amendment.

Our dealings in the subcommittee with HIDTA is that HIDTA allows for all of our law enforcement agencies to come together to address the issue of drugs. And certainly where there is a problem, we want to make sure that law enforcement is there.

I have often said that we cannot deal with drugs just from a law enforcement standpoint, but we have to couple that with effective treatment and try to prevent folks from even going on drugs. But the fact is I think it is a good amendment and it makes our bill a better one.

I think that what the gentleman has done through the amendment has brought something to the attention of the committee and certainly sort of shined a little light on so that perhaps we can more effectively deal with those problems in those tribal areas.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do support this amendment.

Let me go back for a minute, though. I agree with Mr. Souder in that I think it is unfortunate that we have to come to the floor of the House to ask ONDCP to consult with law enforcement. There is a thin blue line. We have our officers come in and ask us for all kinds of things in our subcommittee. And I always say that these are the people who are on the front lines. They are the ones who so often have to burst into houses when they do not know what is behind that door. They are the ones who leave home so often in the morning not knowing whether they are going to return to their families. They are the ones, for example in HIDTA, who sit down with the locals and the State folk and the Federal folk and come up with all kinds of strategies. They know what they need to do the job.

I have often heard the President say that when it comes to the war in Iraq, he wants to make sure he gets advice from the people that are on the ground. These are the folk that are on the ground.

But if I had my say about this amendment, I would expand it not only to our law enforcement folk but also to those people who day after day work, for example, in the drug-free communities effort, citizens who are working hard every day sacrificing their time and their resources to make their communities better. Hopefully, this will send a message, a very strong message to the drug czar.

What has happened is we have found ourselves, and I can understand our committee's frustration, because we get policies coming down from the White House which seem contrary to the very things that the people who are on the ground say that they need and the way they would like to see us proceed. Then we have to then change the White House policy so as to fit what is the reality on the ground. There just has to be a better way.

Again, one of the things we are concerned about, and I have said it many times, I think Republicans and Democrats can agree on one major thing, and that is that we want the people's tax dollars to be spent effectively and efficiently. And when the HIDTA folks came in and said to us, person after person, HIDTA after HIDTA, that they could not understand why it was that they were being shifted to the Justice Department and part of their budget was being taken away, I never got the impression for one second that it was just about a turf war or it was about just being petty in any way.

But I got the impression because they deal with this every day, they wanted to make sure that they had the tools and had the atmosphere and what they do, they could most effectively and efficiently do their job.

So like I said, it is unfortunate that we have to come to this point to basically mandate that consultation take place. But so often in our society we have a tendency to talk about each other and not talk to each other. I think perhaps, just perhaps by forcing folks to come together and at least talk, we will be able to address these problems more effectively so we do not have to go through this process over and over and over again.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to this amendment for just a second. When I think about the entire process here and our subcommittee, we realized that there are experts in the area of narcotics, and we bring them before us all the time to seek their advice. In seeking their advice, we learn a lot. One of the things that we also realize is that this world of drugs is ever-changing from day to day, from hour to hour.

We also realized, as we moved throughout the country, that there are various law enforcement methods that may be effective against one drug versus another.

I think we have a situation here when we talk about the drug czar consulting with, and that is ONDCP consulting with law enforcement, there is a certain level of respect that many of these officers have said that they simply desire, respect for what they do every day.

I think a lot of times when they come to us and they come shaking their heads, one of the things that I know our subcommittee worries about is their morale when they are out there putting their lives on the line. And I have talked to these officers. I know Mr. Souder has. They will say to us, we are doing the best we can with what we have got. They say in most instances, we do not have enough; but if you are going to take away some of the tools that we do have, it is going to become even more difficult for us to do our job.

Basically, what they are asking for is simply to be consulted, somebody to sit down and say, How is it going in Idaho or Baltimore, or, How is it going in California? And we have learned so much from these HIDTAs because they have an opportunity to work on all levels of government. So they can bring things I would think to the drug czar's office that the drug czar may not be aware of.

That is why I am so supportive of this amendment; but I have to say, I do feel it is very unfortunate that we have to go through this process. I would hope that perhaps by doing this it will open those doors of communication so that these great men and women who courageously put their lives on the line and who have taken a phenomenal amount of time and energy to learn law enforcement, to understand it, to understand how the drug trade works, to understand the methods of combating folks who want to violate our drug laws, that we would have the benefit, that the drug czar would have the benefit of their knowledge and expertise so when we have legislation, we can have it from the very, very best.

I must tell you that I do believe that we have some of the best law enforcement in the entire country. But again as I have said to Mr. Souder, I wish that it went beyond just law enforcement, because I think if we are going to address the whole issue of drugs in consultation with the drug czar, it must also be with all of those people who are out there dealing in the area of prevention, dealing in the area of interdiction, addressing our children, dealing with methamphetamines and so on.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership, along with Mr. Waxman and Mr. Souder, who I have had the pleasure of working with on these issues, both from the perspective of interdiction, along the ``third border,'' but also from the perspective of homeland security as it relates to the northern and southern borders.

I rise to acknowledge and appreciate the great amount of work that has gone into this legislative initiative, and particularly as it relates to the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

I recall that one of my first introductions to the severity of drug usage and the willingness to work full time on this issue was the opportunity to visit with Mr. Cummings in his area, the city of Baltimore, which he was not reticent to let us know that there was a problem, and a problem, of course, that was connected to HIV/AIDS, and he has been working without ceasing to make great strides in the city of Baltimore. Mr. Cummings, I want to congratulate you both for introducing Members of Congress to the crisis early on, as well your leadership in this area.

So I don't take away from this legislative initiative the importance of stemming the rising tide of drug usage. In fact, we had thought, I think, in some years past that there was a curving down. But for those who are listening to this debate and the many drug treatment centers around America and the addicted persons, I know that they are willing to admit that we still have a concern and a crisis, and the reauthorization of this particular agency is important for the work that it does.

In particular, as cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I see a frightening rise in the utilization of addictive substances by our children, particularly ages 12 to 17. We have seen a rising increase in the number of girls that are participating in drug usage, whether or not it is alcohol, starting in middle school; and we know that if you start taking substances like alcohol in middle school, by the time you reach the high school level you are addicted and we have a problem.

We know also that the scourge of cigarettes, though we find that the usage overall may be going down, is still attractive to children. You say no and they want to say yes.

And then, of course, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, we have consistently fought against the rising tide, the violent tide of methamphetamine use that started in our rural America, creeps into our cities; and the stories of blown up methamphetamine labs is a rage across America.

In fact, I remember one of the first legislative initiatives that I passed was to stand against or to stop the use of a date-rape drug which was being made in bathtubs across America.

So this is an important response to that, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to accept my amendment on the floor that hopes to provide an assessment of where we are as it relates to intervention; to Federal and State programs that deal with assessing the use of drugs by children ages 12 to 17, a very simple premise; and as well wants to give greater guidance to Federal, State and local authorities as to how they intervene, what is the value, the success story.

I hope my colleagues will join me with that support. It is clearly a road map to help us be more effective. I also want to make mention of the fact that this is a homeland security issue, because I believe Mr. Souder participated in hearings dealing with utilization of drugs as money that can be laundered for terrorist activity.

We are particularly focused on those areas in our borders around America. So we need to stop the violent tide of drugs. In fact, as a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, we know that there are the combination of the smugglers of drugs with the huge cartels and the smugglers of human beings. They are intermixed and intertwined. They are there to do nothing but ill and evil. So these are important overlapping areas. I thank this committee for its leadership.

Let me mention an area, however, that I want to focus on, and I want to associate myself with Mr. Kucinich and his concerns about the early incarceration, or trying juveniles as adults. That is why I want to have this assessment, because I believe it is important to be guided in the right procedures or right processes for our children, whether or not jail time, whether trying them as an adult is more effective than the intervention and good programs that are necessary.

Frankly, I think the good programs weigh more in stopping the tide of the utilization of drugs by our children. There should be some consideration to that.

And then let me, in conclusion, bring up Tulia, Texas, where, a, if you will, rogue cop was able to charge many, many of our constituents in Tulia, Texas, with false charges of drug use. In fact, most of the city found themselves charged with drug offenses down in the court house. This was a horrible episode of the utilization of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program.

This was an abuse that is beyond our appreciation. I am grateful to the Congressional Black Caucus and various leaders of that caucus who saw the injustices. No, we are not here to promote the proliferation of drug use, but we are here to cite some of the failings of the rogue activities that come out of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, where there were innocent individuals who were, if you will,

networked in, fish-netted in, conspiratorially grabbed into this whole drug conspiracy, mothers and uncles, brothers. Sometimes whole families were wrapped up in, indicted, tried and convicted, many of whom were serving jail time until we were able to get our hands on the investigation, lawyers were able to intervene, and the rogue cop was exposed and all of his testimony was discovered to be false.

So there needs to be an oversight and a concern about whether or not these are effective uses of our dollars and whether or not we can effectively have oversight, so that, yes, the drug dealers who are poisoning our community, real drug dealers, the cartels, the smugglers of drugs, the producers of methamphetamine labs, the sellers of prescription drugs for children to use and others, the abuse of cough medicine, all of that is important to be able to highlight, to indict, try and convict, but not to go in and use a fishnet, rely only on the testimony of a rogue cop and have no other evidence to be utilized and to break the backs, the hearts of families, and to destroy a community.

And so I hope that as we move this legislation forward, we will be able to be focused on the good items that are here, the direction that we can go with our children with an amendment that I have on the assessment of our programs; and, of course, Mr. Cummings, thank you for the concern that when people are under this particular legislation, there is a basis for fairness and accuracy in any charges being made and that people are not singled out because of the color of their skin because they are associated with drug use.

With that, let me thank my colleagues for this legislation. I hope my words will be considered as we continue to debate this legislation and fight the war on drugs in a united and positive and successful manner.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to acknowledge again Mr. Souder and Mr. Cummings and certainly the members of the full committee, ranking member Waxman and Chairman Davis. We can all have our approaches to dealing with this fast-moving drug crisis in America, and it would seem that in 2006 we might be using other language other than ``drug crisis,'' because I recall the Select Committee on Narcotics. I was not a Member of this body, but it had a very high profile. That committee, of course, chaired by Congressman Rangel, was at a time when drug use in urban centers of America was at a fast-moving pace.

My amendment is one that seeks to be a tool for intervention, a guidepost for the right kinds of programs that can affect our youth. This is an amendment that in its simplicity says that we know that drug use among the ages of 12 to 17, and in many instances girls, is going up. The data is clear. We also know that there are many programs, a lot funded by this agency, of course, but we also need to have a complete understanding of the assessment of these programs, how they can be effective in local, State, and Federal governments.

Mr. Chairman, a recent Washington Post article from this past February describes how girls are trying alcohol and drugs at higher rates than boys. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 730,000 girls between the ages of 12 and 17 started smoking cigarettes in 2004, compared with 565,000 boys; and 675,000 girls started using marijuana, compared with 577,000 boys; 14.4 percent of girls and 12.5 percent of boys in this study reported misusing prescription drugs; 1.5 million girls started drinking alcohol in 2004, compared to 1.28 million boys.

We also know that our particular communities have seen that at least, if it has not increased, it is still the same. There were 20,692 drug- related arrests in Houston, Texas, in 2003. In their lifetime, 32.9 percent of female and 48.9 percent of male Houston-area high school students will have a lifetime use of marijuana. In 2000 there were 115,589 Federal arrests made, 28 percent for drug offenses; 10.8 percent of youth 12 to 17 years old have used drugs in the past month alone. Among State prisoners, 83.9 percent were involved in alcohol or drugs at the time of their offenses; 53 percent of high school seniors reported using an illicit drug at least once in their lives.

These numbers are good for the record, but they impact people's lives. And frankly I believe that we have an opportunity to assess and report back to Congress on the programs that have been effective in preventing or responding to drug and alcohol use, the extent to which chronic use occurs in children, the extent to which schools and public institutions play a role in these programs, and the role of the Federal Government in these programs and the role of the criminal justice system.

Let me say that I am very grateful that this bill is silent on the issue dealing with scholarships because, unfortunately, we know that children and young people have used drugs but have straightened their lives up because of these intervention programs, and we want to make sure that they are not then thwarted and stopped from being able to finish their education. This, however, is a program that assesses the right kind of intervention. Certainly we know that we have drug courts. We want to know how effective they are. We know there is an amendment that has focused on that.

This focuses on, really, the kinds of programs that may be offered by nonprofits, the faith community, local governments so that funding can be both direct, correct, and effective.

Our children are our greatest resource. We are finding that they are victims, but also they are ripe for the target. They are ripe for amphetamines. They are ripe for over-the-counter drugs such as cough medicine. They are ripe for raiding their parents' prescription drugs in their medicine cabinet at home. So I am hoping that we can join together and understand the usage of these drugs, the alcohol in particular.

Now, let me make note of the fact that we know that smoking cigarettes or cigarettes and alcohol are legal aspects of potential addiction, but we believe that still the programs that deal with those elements, cigarette smoking, alcohol, are likewise equally involved in the idea of intervention and assessment of what programs work.

Let me conclude by simply saying a life saved, a life off the beaten path put on the straight path, is an investment in America's future. I believe this amendment helps us understand how to invest in America's future.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, and I want to thank the chairman very much.

I look forward to making sure as we work our way to conference and through conference that we, too, have an effective amendment that addresses the concerns that we are all mutually concerned about: this ascending rate of usage by girls and boys, but by girls, and, of course, making sure we have an assessment of the effective programs. I look forward to working with the chairman, and I thank the chairman very much.

Mr. Chairman, and fellow members of the committee, I would like to draw your attention to an amendment that I think is crucial in ensuring the effectiveness of our Office of National Drug Control Policy domestically. A recent Washington Post article from February 10 described how girls are trying alcohol and drugs at higher rates than boys. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 730,000 girls between the ages of 12 and 17 started smoking cigarettes in 2004, compared with 565,000 boys, and 675,000 girls started using marijuana, compared with 577,000 boys. In this study, 14.4 percent of girls and 12.5 percent of boys reported misusing prescription drugs. In 2004, 1.5 million girls started drinking alcohol compared with 1.28 million boys.

This is appalling, and saddening, and my amendment would directly address this by asking the Director of the ONDCP to assess the drug usage by children, as well as the existing preventive and treatment programs.

We can't let our children poison themselves--but in order to take decisive and effective action, we must know more about what the current situation is, and inform our decisionmaking. I hope you will agree that this is an urgent issue, and that this amendment begins the search for a solution.

Thank you for your consideration and your support, and thank you Mr. Chairman.

Rebuttal to the argument that the National Youth Media Campaign addresses this issue and the amendment would be redundant:

This amendment first and foremost requires the ONDCP to document and produce solid research on the occurrence of this problem nationwide. At this point in time, we have a single survey and anecdotal evidence. I think it is crucial to get the ONDCP to take responsibility for this issue and begin to inform decisionmakers.

The amendment specifies items to assess that were not considered by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health such as the role of Federal, State, and local criminal justice systems in providing interventions.

I would like to believe that the ONDCP can be considered an authority on matters having to do with drug use and abuse by children, and this amendment simply asks for an assessment and a report to Congress on the matter.

There were 20,692 drug related arrests in Houston in 2003 (ONDCP).

In their lifetime, 32.9 percent of females and 48.9 percent of male Houston area high school students will have a lifetime use of marijuana (ONDCP).

In 2000, there were 115,589 federal arrests made--28 percent for drug offenses.

In the past month alone, 10.8 percent of youth 12-17 years old have used drugs.

Among State prisoners, 83.9 percent were involved with alcohol and drugs at the time of their offense.

Fifty-three percent of high school seniors reported using an illicit drug at least once in their lives.

White House office of National Drug Control Policy--130 member group led by John Walters.

Some estimates say that the U.S. consumes 60 percent of the illicit drugs in the world.

Fiscal year 2007 budget request--35 percent for reducing demand of drugs, 65 percent for crackdown of supplies.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 713 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this structured rule under consideration provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution.

This rule provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. They shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and its underlying important legislation reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which was created in 1998 to be the primary shaper, coordinator and proponent of Federal efforts to end drug abuse in our communities across America.

By supporting this legislation to reauthorize the ONDCP's activities for the next 5 years, Congress will reaffirm its support for national programs to combat the consequences of drug abuse in the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program known as HIDTA. It also makes the development and implementation of Federal drug policy more streamlined, efficient and accountable.

H.R. 2829 accomplishes this goal by implementing a number of meaningful reforms to ONDCP and to our national drug control strategy. It provides the director of the ONDCP with a rank equal to Cabinet secretaries. While not affecting the President's ability to undermine the makeup of his Cabinet, it will ensure that the director will be able to interact with other department heads as an equal peer as this person coordinates our national drug policies.

This legislation also reaffirms the role of the ONDCP director as the principal coordinator of national drug policy and enhances effectiveness and accountability in drug treatment by requiring a uniform system of drug treatment evaluation based on results. It also enhances the national antidrug abuse media campaign, preserves and strengthens the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program and places a greater emphasis on providing resources to critical emerging drug threats that face our country.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the war on drugs is an ongoing struggle, but one that is also where we are seeing improvement, real improvements with positive real-world effects for American families. As President Bush outlined in his State of the Union address, there has been a 19 percent decline in overall drug teen use over the last 5 years, which translates into about 700,000 fewer young people using drugs. I think that is significant. This did not happen by accident.

But despite the fact that illegal drug use for 8th, 10th and 12th graders has been trending down since 2001, American teens still engage in risky drug-related behavior far too frequently. Nationwide, each day approximately 7,500 children between the ages of 12 and 17 try alcohol for the first time and over 30 percent of high school students report having ridden in a car with a friend who has been drinking.

Even more alarmingly, each day about 3,500 teens try marijuana for the first time, 3,500 teens try marijuana for the first time every day, and one in four children have been offered drugs at school.

Most disturbing of all, 12 million Americans age 12 and older have tried what is called methamphetamines, known as meth, a drug known principally for its equally addictive and destructive qualities.

We all know that the battle to keep our kids drug-free starts at home. Over two-thirds of teens say that the greatest risk for them in using marijuana is upsetting their parents, and we know that children who are not regularly monitored by their parents are four times more likely to use illicit drugs.

Congress has an important role to play in the process of protecting our Nation's families and communities from the devastating effects of drug use and drug addiction. This legislation will allow the ONDCP to continue fighting on the domestic front in the war on drugs through comprehensive efforts like what we call the Major Cities Initiative, which targets drug abuse in large metropolitan areas that have the highest rates of current illicit drug use by developing inventories of Federal, State and local resources for prevention, treatment and law enforcement.

By passing this legislation, the ONDCP will also be empowered to continue its involvement in a number of education programs and outreach activities whose results are backed by sound scientific data which have dramatically helped to reduce drug addiction across America.

This legislation will also allow ONDCP to continue its fight on the international front of the war on drugs. America has gotten a little bit better in choking off the supply for drugs through fostering a closer working relationship with countries, including our neighbors to the south, including Mexico, where marijuana cultivation fell almost 25 percent between 2003 and 2004 and opium poppy cultivation dropped about 27 percent during that same time.

In Colombia, the coca crop has declined by more than one-third from its high point of expansion in 2001, a pattern that holds true for the other large Andean coca-growing countries of Peru and Bolivia.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, America can by no means declare victory in the war on drugs. Many challenges lie ahead in teaching our children to simply say no and abstain from using drugs, in protecting our communities from crime and domestic upheavals caused by drug use and in disrupting international markets that bring to and provide this country with illegal drugs.

But progress is being made in no small part due to the actions taken by this Congress, my colleagues who care very immensely and deeply about the children and families of our home districts, and due to this administration to continue the fight for our communities, our children, and our future.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1997 when I was elected to Congress, I was aware of the drug issue as it related to not only my district but, in general, to Texas and the country. And I became engaged in working with a group of Members who were intensely interested in understanding, developing a process, a policy, and a regular format for discussing drug use in America, those people who would bring drugs into the country, understanding how we stopped it, how we rehabilitated people, how we worked with law enforcement, how we dealt with the entire issue of policy from top to bottom.

One of those leaders at that time who continues to be one today will be our next speaker. He is a gentleman who intensely cares about the issue. He has traveled internationally, South America, around the world, to become an expert on not only drugs but also those things that surround drugs.

As we know, terrorism and terrorists make money off the money that comes from users in the United States of America. And so I am pleased to have at this time the gentleman who is the vice-chairman of the Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Subcommittee for Government Reform and the main author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to hear from the vice chairman of the Committee on Government Reform about this important issue today, about ONDCP, is important. Today we have an opportunity to hear from the youngest member of the Republican leadership, newly elected chairman of our policy committee; a young man who is from Florida; a young man who has been in the thick of the battle of seeing not only the devastation of drugs but also what communities and what effective law enforcement can do in combating drugs. He is a young man who has an opinion. He is bringing that opinion to the Republican policy committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman

from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my colleague from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to be on the floor today to talk about the ONDCP, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the reauthorization of that important act is why we are here today, and I do understand that the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Wisconsin have some very strong feelings about some other issues that are not germane to the discussion of ONDCP.

I would also note that I am sure there will be a discussion today as we adjourn between the leadership parties, as they always meet on the floor to talk about thoughts, issues and ideas; and I am sure part of that discussion is going to be about the process that has been discussed through the Appropriations Committee, where there appears to be bipartisan agreement on moving forward on that important legislation.

However, today, I encourage all my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to maintain their focus on what the attempt is today, and that is to support the rule that reauthorizes ONDCP on behalf of America's families and for our future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question is an exercise in futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment that would otherwise be

ruled out of order as nongermane. So their vote or the request is really one without substance.

The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close debate on this rule that we are speaking about and proceed to vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive policy implications whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, at this point I will insert in the Record an explanation of the previous question.

The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part

that:

There shall be a motion for the previous question, which,

being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all

debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the

immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.

In the case of a special rule or order of business

resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing

for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the

previous question is moved following the one hour of debate

allowed for under House Rules.

The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting

the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and

amendment on the legislation it would make in order.

Therefore, the previous question has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 713--Rule Providing for Consideration of

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the restrictive rule and the underlying legislation reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

As our colleague from Texas has already noted, the rule makes in order 15 amendments to be offered by Members from both sides of the aisle. But what he did not mention is that the rule blocks 10 other amendments which were considered yesterday in the Rules Committee. It blocks them from being offered on the floor today.

Included in the 10 blocked amendments is a proposal offered by my good friend, Representative Bean, that would have required the Government Accounting Office to examine the unintended effects of hyperactive disorder drugs.

At a time when more and more children and adults are being diagnosed with some form of attention deficit disorder, this study could go a long way towards helping all of us better understand the problem. Yet my friends in the majority on the Rules Committee blocked this amendment from being considered. Perhaps it is because they do not want to address the issue, or perhaps it is because they are trying to defeat Representative Bean in November. Whatever the reason, the House will not have the opportunity to consider this important amendment today because the rule prohibits it.

The rule also does not permit Representative Waters from offering her amendment, which would have required the ONDCP to develop objectives for reducing drug overdoses and the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. Her commonsense amendment, too, is blocked from consideration under the rule. So while this rule is certainly more generous than most of those in the past, it is not by any stretch of the imagination open.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to dwell on the specifics of this legislation, which we all agree is important and necessary. I do, however, wish to speak briefly about the issues facing our communities, mine specifically, due to drug abuse and our failed efforts to rehabilitate abusers.

A little history, first. In 1971, President Nixon declared the so- called modern-day ``war on drugs.''

He characterized drug abuse as ``America's Public Enemy No. 1.'' He argued that drug addiction is a public problem. Since then, since 1971, Congress has attempted to pass laws, or passed laws, that cracked down on drug usage and harshly punished those who used these addictive poisons.

Though our intentions have largely been sincere, we have yet to institute policies that reflect a comprehensive understanding of this continuing problem. In America's black communities, minimum sentencing guidelines instituted by Congress and State legislatures for drug offenders and for other nonviolent crimes have had a lasting effect that will linger for generations to come.

Consider this: under current Federal law, the mandatory minimum sentence for being caught with 1 ounce of crack cocaine, a drug that the statistics show is more likely to be used by blacks than anyone else in our country, that mandatory minimum is longer than the mandatory minimum sentence for being caught with the exact same amount of powder cocaine, a drug that the statistics have shown is more likely to be used by whites than anyone else.

Even more, mandatory sentencing guidelines prohibit judges from using reasonable discretion to rehabilitate and not incarcerate the persons that are abusers. As a direct result of these draconian and discriminatory laws, black men in America are nearly 10 times more likely to be incarcerated for drug use than white males, notwithstanding the fact that they had the same amount; it was just nuanced as crack or powder cocaine.

Tens of thousands of black children are growing up in America in single-parent households, often plagued by poverty. Sure, drug usage is certainly a component of that problem. But the senseless mandatory locking up of first-time nonviolent drug offenders has done more to tear black and white families apart in America than almost anything else.

Drug prevention programs, such as those authorized in the underlying legislation, are important, as is the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The 1990 designation of south Florida as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area has been very useful in directing Federal resources into our region to stop or attempt to stop the flow of drugs into the State and country.

I supported efforts under different programs, different administrations, Republican and Democratic, when I was a Federal judge two decades ago. I continue to support them today.

Nevertheless, I refuse to accept that our drug policies have had the positive effect that so many in this body claim. Drugs are still easily accessible on our streets and in our schools, and our drug laws are senseless, outdated, and in dire need of revision.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a day when the Members of this body will be willing to have a meaningful debate about the successes and the failures of Federal drug policies and mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. Only then will we fully recognize how big a failure our policies have been and take the necessary, indeed the appropriate, steps, to rehabilitate, not write off drug abusers.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend this rule to allow a vote today to block the President's plan to turn over our Nation's ports to a government-run company in Dubai.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

My amendment provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up legislation that does two things, undergirding what my good friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, mentioned in his remarks earlier.

First, it stops the President from moving forward with his deal to transfer operations at a number of our Nation's busiest ports, including the Port of Miami immediately south of my district, to the Government of Dubai state-owned Dubai Ports World. This is the identical language that was offered in the Appropriations Committee yesterday by Chairman Lewis and later adopted by the committee on yesterday.

Secondly, the legislation would strengthen the process by which our government reviews future foreign takeovers. Specifically, it would require that all foreign transactions that could result in foreign control of any entity engaged in interstate commerce to undergo a thorough review that mandates the direct involvement of the President and the Congress. Whatever Members believe about the Dubai agreement, the House should be guaranteed an up-or-down vote on whether or not we want to turn control of a significant number of our Nation's ports over to a company that is owned by a foreign government.

This administration, without consulting the Congress, negotiated a secret backroom deal to turn the management of our vital ports over to a foreign entity. The House must be involved in this process that directly affects our national security now and in the future. We are sent to Washington to protect this Nation and its citizens. We owe it to them to make sure this type of deal is never allowed to slip through the system again.

I want to emphasize that this vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the agenda of the Republican majority. A ``no'' vote will allow those of us concerned about the safety and security of America's ports to offer an alternative plan right here and right now.

It is a vote to consider homeland security priorities for the American people which the majority today has refused to consider.

I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up legislation that gives Congress the right to cast a vote and be heard on this matter of significant national security. I wish to repeat that: I urge all Members, both sides, to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up legislation so that we can do our job that gives Congress the right, just the right, to cast a vote and to be heard on this matter of significant national security.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.