[House Report 107-175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Rept. 107-175
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session Part 1
======================================================================
TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT
PROGRAM FOR AN ADDITIONAL 5 YEARS, TO AUTHORIZE A NATIONAL COMMUNITY
ANTIDRUG COALITION INSTITUTE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
July 30, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Burton of Indiana, from the Committee on Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2291]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2291) to extend the authorization of the Drug-Free
Communities Support Program for an additional 5 years, to
authorize a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................6
II. Need for Legislation.............................................7
III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Action........................8
IV. Oversight Findings..............................................10
V. Explanation of Bill.............................................10
VI. Section-by-Section Summary......................................21
VII. Statement of CBO Cost Estimate..................................22
VIII.Statement of Constitutional Authority...........................24
IX. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b).....24
X. Changes in Existing Law.........................................24
XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1..............28
XII. Budget Analysis.................................................28
XIII.Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4, Section 423.....28
XIV. Appendix........................................................28
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT
PROGRAM.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In the next 15 years, the youth population in the United
States will grow by 21 percent, adding 6,500,000 youth to the
population of the United States. Even if drug use rates remain
constant, there will be a huge surge in drug-related problems,
such as academic failure, drug-related violence, and HIV
incidence, simply due to this population increase.
(2) According to the 1994-1996 National Household Survey, 60
percent of students age 12 to 17 who frequently cut classes and
who reported delinquent behavior in the past 6 months used
marijuana 52 days or more in the previous year.
(3) The 2000 Washington Kids Count survey conducted by the
University of Washington reported that students whose peers
have little or no involvement with drinking and drugs have
higher math and reading scores than students whose peers had
low level drinking or drug use.
(4) Substance abuse prevention works. In 1999, only 10
percent of teens saw marijuana users as popular, compared to 17
percent in 1998 and 19 percent in 1997. The rate of past-month
use of any drug among 12- to 17-year-olds declined 26 percent
between 1997 and 1999. Marijuana use for sixth through eighth
graders is at the lowest point in 5 years, as is use of
cocaine, inhalants, and hallucinogens.
(5) Community Anti-Drug Coalitions throughout the United
States are successfully developing and implementing
comprehensive, long-term strategies to reduce substance abuse
among youth on a sustained basis. For example:
(A) The Boston Coalition brought college and
university presidents together to create the
Cooperative Agreement on Underage Drinking. This
agreement represents the first coordinated effort of
Boston's many institutions of higher education to
address issues such as binge drinking, underage
drinking, and changing the norms surrounding alcohol
abuse that exist on college and university campuses.
(B) In 2000, the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater
Cincinnati surveyed more than 47,000 local students in
grades 7 through 12. The results provided evidence that
the Coalition's initiatives are working. For the first
time in a decade, teen drug use in Greater Cincinnati
appears to be leveling off. The data collected from the
survey has served as a tool to strengthen relationships
between schools and communities, as well as facilitate
the growth of anti-drug coalitions in communities where
such coalitions had not existed.
(C) The Miami Coalition used a three-part strategy to
decrease the percentage of high school seniors who
reported using marijuana at least once during the most
recent 30-day period. The development of a media
strategy, the creation of a network of prevention
agencies, and discussions with high school students
about the dangers of marijuana all contributed to a
decrease in the percentage of seniors who reported
using marijuana from over 22 percent in 1995 to 9
percent in 1997. The Miami Coalition was able to
achieve these results while national rates of marijuana
use were increasing.
(D) The Nashville Prevention Partnership worked with
elementary and middle school children in an attempt to
influence them toward positive life goals and
discourage them from using substances. The Partnership
targeted an area in East Nashville and created after
school programs, mentoring opportunities, attendance
initiatives, and safe passages to and from school.
Attendance and test scores increased as a result of the
program.
(E) At a youth-led town meeting sponsored by the
Bering Strait Community Partnership in Nome, Alaska,
youth identified a need for a safe, substance-free
space. With help from a variety of community partners,
the Partnership staff and youth members created the
Java Hut, a substance-free coffeehouse designed for
youth. The Java Hut is helping to change norms in the
community by providing a fun, youth-friendly atmosphere
and activities that are not centered around alcohol or
marijuana.
(F) Portland's Regional Drug Initiative (RDI) has
promoted the establishment of drug-free workplaces
among the city's large and small employers. Over 3,000
employers have attended an RDI training session, and of
those, 92 percent have instituted drug-free workplace
policies. As a result, there has been a 5.5 percent
decrease in positive workplace drug tests.
(G) San Antonio Fighting Back worked to increase the
age at which youth first used illegal substances.
Research suggests that the later the age of first use,
the lower the risk that a young person will become a
regular substance abuser. As a result, the age of first
illegal drug use increased from 9.4 years in 1992 to
13.5 years in 1997.
(H) In 1990, multiple data sources confirmed a trend
of increased alcohol use by teenagers in the Troy
community. Using its ``multiple strategies over
multiple sectors'' approach, the Troy Coalition worked
with parents, physicians, students, coaches, and others
to address this problem from several angles. As a
result, the rate of twelfth grade students who had
consumed alcohol in the past month decreased from 62.1
percent to 53.3 percent between 1991 and 1998, and the
rate of eighth grade students decreased from 26.3
percent to 17.4 percent. The Troy Coalition believes
that this decline represents not only a change in
behavior on the part of students, but also a change in
the norms of the community.
(6) Despite these successes, drug use continues to be a
serious problem facing communities across the United States.
For example:
(A) According to the Pulse Check: Trends in Drug
Abuse Mid-Year 2000 report--
(i) crack and powder cocaine remains the most
serious drug problem;
(ii) marijuana remains the most widely
available illicit drug, and its potency is on
the rise;
(iii) treatment sources report an increase in
admissions with marijuana as the primary drug
of abuse--and adolescents outnumber other age
groups entering treatment for marijuana;
(iv) 80 percent of Pulse Check sources
reported increased availability of club drugs,
with ecstasy (MDMA) and ketamine the most
widely cited club drugs and seven sources
reporting that powder cocaine is being used as
a club drug by young adults;
(v) ecstasy abuse and trafficking is
expanding, no longer confined to the ``rave''
scene;
(vi) the sale and use of club drugs has grown
from nightclubs and raves to high schools, the
streets, neighborhoods, open venues, and
younger ages;
(vii) ecstasy users often are unknowingly
purchasing adulterated tablets or some other
substance sold as MDMA; and
(viii) along with reports of increased heroin
snorting as a route of administration for
initiates, there is also an increase in
injecting initiates and the negative health
consequences associated with injection (for
example, increases in HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C)
suggesting that there is a generational
forgetting of the dangers of injection of the
drug.
(B) The 2000 Parent's Resource Institute for Drug
Education study reported that 23.6 percent of children
in the sixth through twelfth grades used illicit drugs
in the past year. The same study found that monthly
usage among this group was 15.3 percent.
(C) According to the 2000 Monitoring the Future
study, the use of ecstasy among eighth graders
increased from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 3.1 percent in
2000, among tenth graders from 4.4 percent to 5.4
percent, and from 5.6 percent to 8.2 percent among
twelfth graders.
(D) A 1999 Mellman Group study found that--
(i) 56 percent of the population in the
United States believed that drug use was
increasing in 1999;
(ii) 92 percent of the population viewed
illegal drug use as a serious problem in the
United States; and
(iii) 73 percent of the population viewed
illegal drug use as a serious problem in their
communities.
(7) According to the 2001 report of the National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University entitled
``Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State
Budgets'', using the most conservative assumption, in 1998
States spent $77,900,000,000 to shovel up the wreckage of
substance abuse, only $3,000,000,000 to prevent and treat the
problem and $433,000,000 for alcohol and tobacco regulation and
compliance. This $77,900,000,000 burden was distributed as
follows:
(A) $30,700,000,000 in the justice system (77 percent
of justice spending).
(B) $16,500,000,000 in education costs (10 percent of
education spending).
(C) $15,200,000,000 in health costs (25 percent of
health spending).
(D) $7,700,000,000 in child and family assistance (32
percent of child and family assistance spending).
(E) $5,900,000,000 in mental health and developmental
disabilities (31 percent of mental health spending).
(F) $1,500,000,000 in public safety (26 percent of
public safety spending) and $400,000,000 for the state
workforce.
(8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination through
national, State, and local or tribal leadership and
partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of
substance abuse among youth in communities across the United
States.
(9) Substance abuse is perceived as a much greater problem
nationally than at the community level. According to a 2001
study sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts, between 1994 and
2000--
(A) there was a 43 percent increase in the percentage
of Americans who felt progress was being made in the
war on drugs at the community level;
(B) only 9 percent of Americans say drug abuse is a
``crisis'' in their neighborhood, compared to 27
percent who say this about the nation; and
(C) the percentage of those who felt we lost ground
in the war on drugs on a community level fell by more
than a quarter, from 51 percent in 1994 to 37 percent
in 2000.
(b) Extension and Increase of Program.--Section 1024(a) of the
National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1524(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4); and
(2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new
paragraphs:
``(5) $50,600,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(6) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(7) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(8) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
``(10) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
(c) Extension of Limitation on Administrative Costs.--Section 1024(b)
of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1524(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (5)
and inserting the following new paragraph (5):
``(5) 6 percent for each of fiscal years 2002 through
2007.''.
(d) Additional Grants.--Section 1032(b) of that Act (21 U.S.C.
1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph
(3):
``(3) Additional grants.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (F), the
Administrator may award an additional grant under this
paragraph to an eligible coalition awarded a grant
under paragraph (1) or (2) for any first fiscal year
after the end of the 4-year period following the period
of the initial grant under paragraph (1) or (2), as the
case may be.
``(B) Scope of grants.--A coalition awarded a grant
under paragraph (1) or (2), including a renewal grant
under such paragraph, may not be awarded another grant
under such paragraph, and is eligible for an additional
grant under this section only under this paragraph.
``(C) No priority for applications.--The
Administrator may not afford a higher priority in the
award of an additional grant under this paragraph than
the Administrator would afford the applicant for the
grant if the applicant were submitting an application
for an initial grant under paragraph (1) or (2) rather
than an application for a grant under this paragraph.
``(D) Renewal grants.--Subject to subparagraph (F),
the Administrator may award a renewal grant to a grant
recipient under this paragraph for each of the fiscal
years of the 4-fiscal-year period following the fiscal
year for which the initial additional grant under
subparagraph (A) is awarded in an amount not to exceed
amounts as follows:
``(i) For the first and second fiscal years
of that 4-fiscal-year period, the amount equal
to 80 percent of the non-Federal funds,
including in-kind contributions, raised by the
coalition for the applicable fiscal year.
``(ii) For the third and fourth fiscal years
of that 4-fiscal-year period, the amount equal
to 67 percent of the non-Federal funds,
including in-kind contributions, raised by the
coalition for the applicable fiscal year.
``(E) Suspension.--If a grant recipient under this
paragraph fails to continue to meet the criteria
specified in subsection (a), the Administrator may
suspend the grant, after providing written notice to
the grant recipient and an opportunity to appeal.
``(F) Limitation.--The amount of a grant award under
this paragraph may not exceed $100,000 for a fiscal
year.''.
(e) Data Collection and Dissemination.--Section 1033(b) of that Act
(21 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Consultation.--The Administrator shall carry out
activities under this subsection in consultation with the
Advisory Commission and the National Community Antidrug
Coalition Institute.''.
(f) Limitation on Use of Certain Funds for Evaluation of Program.--
Section 1033(b) of that Act, as amended by subsection (e) of this
section, is further amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Limitation on use of certain funds for evaluation of
program.--Amounts for activities under paragraph (2)(B) may not
be derived from amounts under section 1024(a) except for
amounts that are available under section 1024(b) for
administrative costs.''.
(g) Treatment of Funds for Coalitions Representing Certain
Organizations.--Section 1032 of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1532) is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Treatment of Funds for Coalitions Representing Certain
Organizations.--Funds appropriated for the substance abuse activities
of a coalition that includes a representative of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or a tribal government agency with
expertise in the field of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal
funds raised by the coalition for purposes of this section.''.
(h) Priority in Awarding Grants.--Section 1032 of that Act (21 U.S.C.
1532) is further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Priority in Awarding Grants.--In awarding grants under
subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), priority shall be given to a coalition serving
economically disadvantaged areas.''.
SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING ACTIVITIES UNDER
DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM.
Subchapter I of chapter 2 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of
1988 (21 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 1035. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING ACTIVITIES.
``(a) Authority To Make Grants.--As part of the program established
under section 1031, the Director may award an initial grant under this
subsection, and renewal grants under subsection (f), to any coalition
awarded a grant under section 1032 that meets the criteria specified in
subsection (d) in order to fund coalition mentoring activities by such
coalition in support of the program.
``(b) Treatment With Other Grants.--
``(1) Supplement.--A grant awarded to a coalition under this
section is in addition to any grant awarded to the coalition
under section 1032.
``(2) Requirement for basic grant.--A coalition may not be
awarded a grant under this section for a fiscal year unless the
coalition was awarded a grant or renewal grant under section
1032(b) for that fiscal year.
``(c) Application.--A coalition seeking a grant under this section
shall submit to the Administrator an application for the grant in such
form and manner as the Administrator may require.
``(d) Criteria.--A coalition meets the criteria specified in this
subsection if the coalition--
``(1) has been in existence for at least 5 years;
``(2) has achieved, by or through its own efforts, measurable
results in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse
among youth;
``(3) has staff or members willing to serve as mentors for
persons seeking to start or expand the activities of other
coalitions in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse;
``(4) has demonstrable support from some members of the
community in which the coalition mentoring activities to be
supported by the grant under this section are to be carried
out; and
``(5) submits to the Administrator a detailed plan for the
coalition mentoring activities to be supported by the grant
under this section.
``(e) Use of Grant Funds.--A coalition awarded a grant under this
section shall use the grant amount for mentoring activities to support
and encourage the development of new, self-supporting community
coalitions that are focused on the prevention and treatment of
substance abuse in such new coalitions' communities. The mentoring
coalition shall encourage such development in accordance with the plan
submitted by the mentoring coalition under subsection (d)(5).
``(f) Renewal Grants.--The Administrator may make a renewal grant to
any coalition awarded a grant under subsection (a), or a previous
renewal grant under this subsection, if the coalition, at the time of
application for such renewal grant--
``(1) continues to meet the criteria specified in subsection
(d); and
``(2) has made demonstrable progress in the development of
one or more new, self-supporting community coalitions that are
focused on the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.
``(g) Grant Amounts.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
total amount of grants awarded to a coalition under this
section for a fiscal year may not exceed the amount of non-
Federal funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind
contributions, for that fiscal year. Funds appropriated for the
substance abuse activities of a coalition that includes a
representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian
Health Service, or a tribal government agency with expertise in
the field of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal
funds raised by the coalition.
``(2) Initial grants.--The amount of the initial grant
awarded to a coalition under subsection (a) may not exceed
$75,000.
``(3) Renewal grants.--The total amount of renewal grants
awarded to a coalition under subsection (f) for any fiscal year
may not exceed $75,000.
``(h) Fiscal Year Limitation on Amount Available for Grants.--The
total amount available for grants under this section, including renewal
grants under subsection (f), in any fiscal year may not exceed the
amount equal to five percent of the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 1024(a) for that fiscal year.
``(i) Priority in Awarding Initial Grants.--In awarding initial
grants under this section, priority shall be given to a coalition that
expressly proposes to provide mentorship to a coalition or aspiring
coalition serving economically disadvantaged areas.''.
SEC. 3. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DRUG-FREE
COMMUNITIES.
Section 1048 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21
U.S.C. 1548) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2007''.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR NATIONAL COMMUNITY ANTIDRUG COALITION
INSTITUTE.
(a) In General.--The Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy may, using amounts authorized to be appropriated by subsection
(d), make a grant to an eligible organization to provide for the
establishment of a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.
(b) Eligible Organizations.--An organization eligible for the grant
under subsection (a) is any national nonprofit organization that
represents, provides technical assistance and training to, and has
special expertise and broad, national-level experience in community
antidrug coalitions under section 1032 of the National Narcotics
Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1532).
(c) Use of Grant Amount.--The organization receiving the grant under
subsection (a) shall establish a National Community Antidrug Coalition
Institute to--
(1) provide education, training, and technical assistance for
coalition leaders and community teams, with emphasis on the
development of coalitions serving economically disadvantaged
areas;
(2) develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and
measures to better assess and document coalition performance
measures and outcomes; and
(3) bridge the gap between research and practice by
translating knowledge from research into practical information.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated for purposes of activities under this section, including
the grant under subsection (a), amounts as follows:
(1) For each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, $2,000,000.
(2) For each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, $1,000,000.
(3) For each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, $750,000.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATION OF EFFORT.
The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall
ensure that the same or similar activities are not carried out, through
the use of funds for administrative costs provided under subchapter II
of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et
seq.) or funds provided under section 4 of this Act, by more than one
recipient of such funds.
I. Purpose and Summary
The purpose of the ``Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997''
(21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1521 et seq.) (``DFCA'') is to establish a
program to support and encourage local communities that first
demonstrate a comprehensive, long-term commitment to reduce
substance abuse among youth. The DFCA did this primarily by
authorizing grants of up to $100,000 to local community
coalitions to assist them in their anti-drug efforts. H.R. 2291
would expand that program and reauthorize it for an additional
five years (through fiscal year 2007). The reauthorizing
legislation includes provisions that would (1) annually
increase the total funds authorized for the program from
$50,600,000 in fiscal year 2002 to $99,000,000 in fiscal year
2007; (2) increase the percentage of the total funds authorized
available for administrative costs from the 3 percent allowed
under current law to 6 percent; (3) instruct the Director of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to take
steps to ensure that there is no bureaucratic duplication of
effort among the various entities charged with administering
the program and assisting coalitions; (4) allow coalitions to
re-apply for grants even after five years, but only with an
increased matching requirement; (5) create a new class of
grants that help mature coalitions ``mentor'' newly-formed
coalitions; (6) instruct the Director to give priority for all
grants to coalitions that propose to assist economically
disadvantaged communities; (7) help coalitions serving Native
American communities to meet their private fundraising
``matching requirement'' under existing law by allowing them to
count Federal funds allocated to tribal government agencies as
non-Federal funds raised; and (8) establish a National
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.
II. Need for Legislation
Drug use among the nation's youth is a substantial and
continuing problem. After achieving significant declines in
teen drug use in the 1980's, the United States began to lose
ground in the 1990's. According to the 2000 Monitoring the
Future Study, from 1992 to 1996 past-month use of any illicit
drug rose from 14.4 percent to 24.6 percent for twelfth
graders; 11.0 percent to 23.2 percent for tenth graders; and
6.8 percent to 14.6 percent for eighth graders. The National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse, conducted by the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),
reported that between 1994 and 1996, LSD and hallucinogen use
increased by 183 percent and cocaine use increased by 166
percent.
The rise in drug use reflected a growing level of ignorance
about the risks and consequences of illegal drug use. For
example, disapproval of marijuana use and perception of the
risks associated with that drug weakened significantly during
that same period among eighth graders, corresponding (not
surprisingly) with an increase in marijuana use among eighth
graders (from approximately 3 percent to approximately 11
percent). (Source: 2000 Monitoring the Future Study.)
Perception of the risks of LSD, powder cocaine and crack
cocaine had similarly declined. These two trends (growing
ignorance of the dangers of drug abuse, and growing drug abuse
among youth) suggested a looming national crisis.
Congress responded to this threat by passing, among other
legislation, the Drug Free Communities Act of 1997 (``DFCA''),
an amendment to the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988.
DFCA sought to strengthen what has proven to be one of the most
effective demand-side weapons in the fight against teen drug
use: local community anti-drug coalitions. These coalitions
bring individuals and institutions together to pool their
knowledge, experience and resources in the struggle against
illegal drug use in their local communities. As locally-based
organizations, these coalitions are uniquely well-situated to
deal with the special problems of their communities.
DFCA established a program of direct grants to community
organizations demonstrating a comprehensive, long-term
commitment to reduce substance abuse among youth. The DFCA
program was intended, among other things, to strengthen
collaboration among communities, the federal government, and
state, local and tribal governments, to serve as a catalyst for
increased citizen participation in community anti-drug efforts,
and to rechannel federal anti-drug resources and information to
local communities.
At the heart of the DFCA are grants to ``coalitions,''
which are broad-based groups consisting of representatives of
youth, parents, businesses, the media, law
enforcement,religious or other civic groups, health care professionals,
and others that seek to reduce drug addiction in their communities,
especially among the young. The coalitions are required to submit
detailed applications for grants, describing their commitment to anti-
drug efforts, their long-term strategy for combating drug addiction,
and their ability to sustain and account for their efforts. The grants
are limited to $100,000 per year, and are subject to a matching
requirement (under which the coalition must match each Federal grant
dollar with a dollar raised from non-Federal sources). Coalitions from
rural areas may be excused from meeting all of the DECA's program
requirements. Under existing law, a coalition receiving a grant is
entitled to apply for renewal grants for four years after its initial
award.
The program has been a resounding success, and is one of
the cornerstones of our nation's narcotics demand-reduction
efforts. The ``Findings'' section of H.R. 2291 (Section 1(a))
gives only a few examples of the successes of the local
coalitions assisted by DFCA. According to ONDCP, there are now
307 coalitions receiving grants under DFCA, with an additional
144 new awards projected for fiscal year 2001. Though it is
difficult precisely to quantify the effect these local
coalitions have had on the nation's drug problem, there is no
doubt but that the steep increases in drug abuse among the
young have leveled off since 1997. (Source: 2000 Monitoring the
Future Study.)
Nevertheless, significant work remains to be done. The
National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE)
survey of high school seniors for the 2000-2001 school year
shows that 2 out of every 5 seniors used an illegal drug in the
past year. The PRIDE shows that parental involvement (one key
strategy promoted by DFCA) has a tremendous impact on the rate
of youth drug abuse. Students are nearly twice as likely to use
drugs if their parents do not talk to them about drugs, and
students whose parents set clear rules about family standards
are more than 50 percent less likely to use drugs than those
who do not. The reauthorization of DFCA is critical to the
nation's continuing efforts to reduce drug abuse.
III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Action
A. Hearings
The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources held a hearing on June 28, 2001, at which Congressman
Rob Portman and Congressman Sander Levin testified as sponsors
of the bill. Dr. Donald M. Vereen, Jr., Deputy Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, Mr. John J. Wilson,
Acting Director of the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention at the U.S. Department of Justice,
General Arthur T. Dean (retired), Chairman and CEO of Community
Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Judge Michael Kramer of the
Noble County, Indiana, Superior Court and Chair of Drug-Free
Noble County, and Mr. Lawrence Couch, Program Manager of the
Montgomery County Partnership, Maryland, also testified in
support of the bill.
Subcommittee Chairman Mark E. Souder began the hearing with
a statement in strong support of the bill, and taking note of
the many successes made possible by the original Drug-Free
Communities Act. Chairman Souder also expressed his concerns,
however, with the bill's increase in the administrative
expenses cap and the risk of duplication of effort between the
many entities entrusted under the bill with monitoring,
evaluating, and providing training and technical assistance to
anti-drug coalitions. The ranking Minority member of the
subcommittee, Elijah E. Cummings, expressed his support for the
bill and especially for its support of the efforts of
established coalitions to provide assistance to new coalitions.
Mr. Cummings also expressed his concern that DFCA funds be
targeted towards economically disadvantaged communities. The
Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee, Benjamin A. Gilman, made a
statement praising the DFCA program as a major component of our
national demand reduction strategy.
Congressman Portman summarized the goals of the DFCA
program and its successes since original enactment. He noted
that reauthorization of the DFCA was one of the centerpieces of
President George W. Bush's anti-drug strategy, and that the
bill is a priority for the Administration. Mr. Portman remarked
on the vital role played by the faith community in the program,
and expressed his support for the bill's creation of a National
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute. Mr. Portman also stated
his support for the bill's increase in the administrative
expenses cap, while acknowledging that a central goal of the
original legislation was to limit the number of dollars being
spent on administrative overhead.
Congressman Sander Levin discussed the history of the DFCA,
explaining how it had been enacted to deal with the nation's
crippling drug problem. Mr. Levin expressed his support for the
bill's authorization of grants to support the mentoring of new
coalitions by established ones, and for the proposed Institute.
Mr. Levin noted that demand for grants under the DFCA has risen
tremendously since the program's inception.
Dr. Vereen testified to the successes of the DFCA program
and to the need for increasing the administrative expenses cap.
Mr. Wilson described OJJDP's administration of most aspects of
the program, and also testified as to the need for the increase
in the cap. Both also provided testimony in response to
questions from the Subcommittee concerning the size of the
administrative expenses cap and the risk of duplication of
administrative tasks.
Mr. Dean expressed his support for the reauthorization of
the DFCA, and in particular for the creation of the proposed
Institute. Judge Kramer and Mr. Couch also expressed their
support for the legislation, and described their experiences as
leaders of DFCA coalitions.
B. Committee Action
The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources favorably referred An Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to the bill, as amended, by voice vote on July 24,
2001, to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
On July 25, 2001, a quorum being present, the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight favorably reported An Amendment
in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2291, as amended, by
voice vote.
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight--107th
Congress Rollcall
Date: July 25, 2001.
Amendment No. 1.
Description: Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 2291.
Offered by: Hon. Dan Burton (IN).
Adopted by: Voice Vote.
Date: July 25, 2001.
Amendment No. 2.
Description: Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 2291, page 11, strike lines 2 through 4 and
insert the following: ``(8) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and (10) $99,000,000 for
fiscal year 2007.''
Offered by: Hon. Danny K. Davis (IL).
Adopted by: Voice Vote.
Date: July 25, 2001.
Motion to favorably report H.R. 2291, as amended.
Offered by: Hon. Dan Burton (IN).
Adopted by Voice Vote.
IV. Oversight Findings
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1), and rule X, clause
2(b)(1) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee presents the following oversight findings from its
own investigation. During the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee
on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources held a
hearing on June 28, 2001 concerning H.R. 2291. Witnesses at the
hearing testified as to the need for the legislation and its
provisions, as well as the past administration of the DFCA
program. The results and findings from Committee oversight
activities are incorporated in the bill and this report.
V. Explanation of Bill
The Committee provides the following description of the
proposed legislation and an explanation of the Committee's
actions. Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, it includes a description of its
general performance goals and objectives, as well as outcome-
related goals and objectives.
A. Findings (Sec. 1(a))
The bill's findings are outlined clearly. They demonstrate
(1) the pressing need for further demand-reduction efforts,
particularly among our nation's youth, and (2) the record of
success and prospects for future progress offered by local
community anti-drug coalitions.
B. Extension and Increase of Program (Sec. 1(b))
The reauthorization of DFCA is critical to the nation's
continuing efforts to reduce drug abuse. Moreover, to ensure
that enough funds are available to assist the rapidly growing
number of coalitions emerging throughout the country,
increasing the funds authorized for the program is essential.
Thus, H.R. 2291 (as amended) would reauthorize DFCA for 5 years
(through fiscal year 2002), and gradually increase the funds
authorized, up to $99,000,000 in the final year (fiscal year
2007).
Concerns were raised concerning the size of these
increases. The Committee believes that these concerns are well-
founded, particularly since they could threaten the
availability of funds for other pressing national priorities.
In addition, there are legitimate questions about just how many
coalitions capable of properly using these funds currently
exist, or are likely to exist over the next five fiscal years.
It is certainly the case that over the past four years this
program has expanded rapidly, and the demand for grant funding
should continue to grow. For the past 3 years, grants have been
made to only about 40 percent of the applicant pool, with no
degradation from one year to the next. Such significant
increases in the amounts authorized for the program, however,
may well outstrip the number of coalitions ready and able to
provide the level and quality of services expected in the
program. It is the intention of the Committee that ONDCP
carefully monitor the grant criteria and administration to
ensure that there is no relaxation of them for DFCA grants. The
Committee also emphasizes that only the amounts authorized have
been increased. During the annual appropriations process,
Congress, in consultation with the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP), should take care to ensure that only
those amounts are appropriated as can be awarded to coalitions
that fully meet all applicable criteria.
Some concern were expressed to the Committee that special
language should be included regarding the eligibility of
statewide anti-drug coalitions for a DFCA grant. After
reviewing the legislation and the legislative history, it is
the belief both of the bill's sponsors in the House of
Representatives and the Senate and of the Committee that no
special language would be necessary. The purpose of a DFCA
grant is to support the growth of eligible coalitions, no
matter what their size. Therefore, where a statewide coalition
meets all of the other eligibility requirements outlined by the
legislation, it should be able to compete on equal footing with
other coalitions for a grant.
Pursuant to a directive of the ONDCP program Administrator,
the maximum amount that a coalition can receive under a renewal
grant was reduced from $100,000 to $75,000 for years 3, 4, and
5 of this program. While neither the bill's sponsors in the
House of Representatives and the Senate nor the Committee are
convinced of the necessity of this reduction, they do believe
that the Administrator, when acting with the clear advice and
understanding of the Advisory Commission, has the authority to
make such changes. However, the Committee believes it is
essential that all coalitions receive adequate notice well in
advance of any future changes in the eligibility amounts, as
coalition fund-raising strategies may be affected by changes to
the program.
C. Extension of limitation on administrative costs
Reflecting the intent of Congress to minimize the amount of
money spent on bureaucratic overhead instead of grants to local
anti-drug coalitions, administrative costs have been subject to
a decreasing percentage cap since 1998 (reflecting the
increasing levels of overall funding): 10 percent of fund
authorized in fiscal year 1998 (meaning $1,000,000 was
available for administrative costs), 6 percent in fiscal year
1999 ($1,200,000), 4 percent in fiscal year 2000 ($1,200,000),
and 3 percent in fiscal year 2001 ($1,200,000). The 3 percent
cap would remain in effect under existing law for fiscal year
2002 ($1,305,000).
As amended, H.R. 2291 will raise the administrative costs
cap to 6 percent of funds authorized for fiscal years 2002
through 2006. ONDCP requested, and the original version of the
bill provided, a cap of 8 percent. (See the further discussion
of this issue below.) The Committee carefully analyzed the
information provided to it by ONDCP in determining an
appropriate administrative costs cap.
ONDCP identified five sources of administrative costs
associated with DFCA which it believes should be paid for with
DFCA funds:
1. Grants management by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), a division of the Department of
Justice.
2. Peer review of grant applications, and marketing and
publicity of the DFCA program, all of which are undertaken by a
private firm called Aspen Systems Corporation.
3. Technical assistance and training to grantees,
undertaken by the six regional Centers for Application of
Prevention Technologies (CAPTs), which are administered by the
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (a division of the
Department of Health and Human Services).
4. Independent evaluation of the DFCA program, undertaken
by another private firm, Caliber Associates.
5. Salary and costs of ONDCP's DFCA Administrator and the
Advisory Commission established by DFCA.
Each of these is analyzed below.
1. Grants management by OJJDP
Section 1031(b) of the DFCA directs ONDCP to ``(1) make and
track grants to grant recipients; (2) provide for the technical
assistance and training, data collection, and dissemination of
information on state-of-the-art practices that the Director
determines to be effective in reducing substance abuse; and (3)
provide for the general administration of the program.''
Pursuant to an Interagency Agreement, ONDCP has delegated most
of the tasks of administering the DFCA program to the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, a division of the
Department of Justice, which has the personnel and experience
necessary to carry them out.
According to an Administrative Cost Study (the ``Study''),
first submitted by ONDCP to the Appropriations Committee of the
United States Senate on January 18, 2001 and subsequently
provided to this Committee, OJJDP administers the DFCA program
through its Special Emphasis Division (SED). SED has assigned 9
staff members to work full-time on the DFCA program. Seven of
these staffers are program managers, who are responsible for
monitoring and administering the grants program, and two are
administrative support staff.
During the hearing held by the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources concerning this bill,
representatives of ONDCP and OJJDP testified to the need for
more program managers to handle the growing number of grants.
According to OJJDP, currently each program manager is
responsible for an average of 44 grants. That number will rise
as the number of grants rises; thus the Committee recognizes
that there is a need to hire more program managers if the
administration of the program is not to suffer. OJJDP has
stated that ideally each program manager would be responsible
for only 26 grants, as this is the amount reportedly used in
many other grant programs.
In an effort to determine how many program managers would
be required, the Committee asked ONDCP and OJJDP to identify
the activities carried out by these staffers, and how much time
they spend on them. In their joint written response, ONDCP and
OJJDP identified the following three principal activities: (1)
administering the grant application process, which according to
ONDCP and OJJDP occupies virtually all of the program managers'
time from May through November each year; (2) bi-monthly
telephone contacts with grantees, which require, on average,
one hour per grantee per month; and (3) conducting on-site
visits, one per grantee per year, each visit taking an average
of 2 days. Assuming that May through November of each year are
indeed completely taken up by the grant application process,
five months are left in which to carry out the other two
principal activities. The following chart shows the demands
made on a program manager's time during those 5 months at
various grants-per-program manager levels, assuming an 8-hour
working day:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days spent on telephone
Grants per manager contacts Days spent on site visits Total days per month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44 5.5 17.6 23.1
42 5.3 16.8 22.1
40 5.0 16.0 21.0
38 4.8 15.2 20.0
36 4.5 14.4 18.9
34 4.3 13.6 17.9
32 4.0 12.8 16.8
30 3.8 12.0 15.8
28 3.5 11.2 14.7
26 3.3 10.4 13.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are slightly less than 22 working days per month, on
average. Thus, a ratio in the range of 38 to 40 grants per
program manager would appear to be adequate. While a ratio
approaching 26 grants per manager (as requested by OJJDP) would
certainly allow for a great deal of flexibility in the schedule
of each program manager, as well as the potential for greater
individual attention to each grantee, it must be remembered
that the DFCA program was envisioned as involving very low
administrative and bureaucratic overhead--lower than that of
the typical Federal grant program. The Committee believes that
to keep those administrative costs low, only such staff as
necessary should be added.
According to OJJDP, the cost of adding each new
professional staffer is $100,000. Set forth below is a chart
showing what the cost would be per year to keep the grants-to-
program manager ratio at its current level of 44, to reduce it
to 40, and to reduce it still further to 38. (Each grant is
assumed to be $100,000, which is the assumption used by OJJDP
in the calculations provided to the Committee and its staff.)
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that this chart overstates the number of program managers
required, since it does not subtract administrative expenses from the
total funds available for grants. For example, in fiscal year 2002, the
actual number of grants which OJJDP would have to manage would be less
than 500 once administrative costs were subtracted from the $50,600,000
authorized for DFCA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Staffers Total cost (millions)
FY funds Total ------------------------------------------------------
(millions) grants 44 40 38 44 40 38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002................................ $50.6 506 12 13 13 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3
2003................................ 60 600 14 15 16 1.4 1.5 1.6
2004................................ 70 700 16 18 18 1.6 1.8 1.8
2005................................ 80 800 18 20 21 1.8 2 2.1
2006................................ 90 900 21 23 24 2.1 2.3 2.4
2007................................ 99 990 23 25 26 2.3 2.5 2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Peer review of grant applications, and marketing and
publicity of the DFCA program, by Aspen Systems
Corporation
According to the written responses provided to the
Committee, OJJDP has contracted with Aspen Systems Corporation
to provide 3 services: (1) a ``peer review'' of grant
applicants as part of the application process; (2) development
of publications on the DFCA program; and (3) website support
and information dissemination activities. From 1998 through
2000, OJJDP reports paying $289,000 per year to Aspen for these
services. According to OJJDP, it plans to pay Aspen $325,000 in
2002. While OJJDP did not state precisely how much it planned
to pay Aspen in the years after 2002, it predicted
``proportional growth'' as the number of grants increased.
Assuming proportional growth (to match the growth in total
funds for DFCA), the Committee projects the approximate growth
of this cost as follows:
2002.......................................................... $325,000
2003.......................................................... 385,000
2004.......................................................... 447,000
2005.......................................................... 510,000
2006.......................................................... 574,000
2007.......................................................... 631,000
3. Technical assistance and training provided by the CAPTs
OJJDP reports that it has agreed with CSAP that the CAPTs
will (1) provide to each DFCA grantee 8 hours of technical
assistance upon request, (2) allow grantees to attend regional
training conferences registration-free, (3) provide a Drug-Free
Communities Grantee Workshop (at which an overview of the
CAPTs' research and training is presented), and (4) provide
training to potential applicants and/or unsuccessful applicants
for DFCA grants to assist them with the application process.
OJJDP informed Committee staff that it costs approximately
$1,000 per grantee to provide these services. Subsequently,
OJJDP stated that the $1,000 figure was arrived at simply by
dividing the $350,000 it paid to CSAP by the total number of
grantees (307). It is therefore not clear how much the total
cost will grow as the number of grantees grows, since the cost
of some of the services provided by the CAPTs (such as the
Workshop and the conferences) may not vary significantly with
the number of participants.
However, using the $1,000 figure per grantee produces the
following rough estimate of the future costs: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As was the case with the number of program managers, this
estimate overstates the amount required, since administrative costs
have not yet been subtracted from the total funds available for grants;
also, 5 percent of the total funds would be spent on mentoring grants,
which would not carry with them the requirement for additional CAPTs
training.
2002.......................................................... $506,000
2003.......................................................... 600,000
2004.......................................................... 700,000
2005.......................................................... 800,000
2006.......................................................... 900,000
2007.......................................................... 990,000
4. Independent evaluation by Caliber Associates
According to ONDCP, the independent evaluation is designed
to measure: ``(1) The impact of coalition efforts on community
capacity for prevention service delivery and (2) the degree to
which coalition efforts result in a strengthened community
response to alcohol, tobacco, and other drug problems.'' It is
a 5-year study. ONDCP spent $600,000 from 1998 to 2000 on this
evaluation, and plans to spend the same amount in 2001. It
proposes, however, to increase the funding for it by $50,000
increments, up to a maximum of $750,000.
Due to the difficulties involved in quantifying the
``results'' of the DFCA program and the problems entailed in
comparing the effectiveness of coalitions in widely varying
local circumstances, the evaluation does not attempt to
determine whether individual coalitions have been effective.
Indeed, since so many variables are involved in attempting to
quantify both the nation's drug problem and efforts to deal
with it, the independent evaluation cannot reasonably be
expected to provide a comprehensive, quantifiable analysis of
the results of the program as a whole. Instead, the independent
evaluation is designed principally to attempt to identify
coalition activities that have proven effective. The evaluation
thus relies primarily on analyzing the activities of a
representative sample of the coalitions, rather than analyzing
in detail the activities of all of the coalitions.
The Committee acknowledges the difficulties inherent in
evaluating a program like the DFCA program. Under the
circumstances, the Caliber Associates evaluation is probably
the best possible evaluation that can be achieved, particularly
given the intent of Congress to minimize the administrative
costs of the program. Because of these inherent difficulties,
however, the Committee does not believe that increasing the
funding of the evaluation or attempting to expand it would be
likely to be very fruitful. Since the evaluation relies
primarily on a representative sample for its most significant
findings, there is little need for increased funding, even as
the number of grantees grows. Indeed, if the evaluation really
had to be increased to match the growing number of grants, it
would have to rise by more than $150,000 over the next 5 fiscal
years. Thus, the Committee believes that the current funding
level of $600,000 per year is sufficient.
5. Salary and costs of ONDCP Administrator and Advisory
Commission
In accordance with the statute, ONDCP has assigned a
program Administrator to oversee the DFCA program. The DFCA
also established an Advisory Commission, consisting of
representatives (appointed by the President) of the public, of
non-profit organizations, and state agencies with experience in
substance abuse prevention. The Advisory Commission makes
recommendations to ONDCP regarding the DFCA program, and may
collect information on substance abuse prevention and make that
information available to eligible coalitions and the general
public through publications and workshops or conferences.
ONDCP has spent $200,000 per year to pay the salary and
expenses of the DFCA Administrator and the Advisory Commission
established by the statute. ONDCP has informed the Committee
that it will not need to increase that figure through 2007.
6. Other administrative costs
The Committee asked ONDCP and OJJDP to describe any
additional costs that they believed should be paid for out of
the amounts authorized for administrative costs. In its written
response, these agencies did not identify any such additional
costs. Subsequently the Committee's staff was informed (1) that
travel costs had not been included in previous cost forecasts,
and (2) that additional administrative staff would need to be
added at OJJDP (beyond the additional program managers). The
Committee has not received sufficient documentation of these
costs to be able to quantify or evaluate them.
7. Total administrative costs
Adding up all of the costs identified by ONDCP and OJJDP,
and holding the funding of the Caliber Associates evaluation
constant at $600,000, the following would be the approximate
total administrative costs per year and the percentage of the
total funding, if the grants per program manager were held
constant at 44, or were reduced to 40 or 38: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This chart reflects both the reduction in the number of total
grants due to the subtraction of administrative costs, and the fact
that 5 percent of the grants will be mentoring grants which are set at
$75,000 instead of $100,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44 grants per 40 grants per 38 grants per
program manager program manager program manager
Fiscal year -----------------------------------------------------------------
In In In
millions Percent millions Percent millions Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.......................................... $2.69 5.3 $2.80 5.5 $2.86 5.7
2003.......................................... 3.05 5.1 3.18 5.3 3.25 5.4
2004.......................................... 3.43 4.9 3.58 5.1 3.66 5.2
2005.......................................... 3.80 4.8 3.98 5.0 4.07 5.1
2006.......................................... 4.18 4.6 4.38 4.9 4.49 5.0
2007.......................................... 4.52 4.6 4.74 4.8 4.86 4.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding chart indicates that the total administrative
costs will fall as a percentage of the total funds authorized
from 2002 through 2007. Moreover, it indicates that the 6
percent administrative cost cap permitted by the amended bill
should be morethan sufficient to allow ONDCP and OJJDP to
reduce the grants-per-program manager ratio by a significant amount.
The Committee acknowledges that the preceding estimates, being limited
to those costs for which sufficient information and documentation were
provided, may not include every possible administrative cost of the
program. However, the creation of new entities to assist coalitions
also strongly suggests that some cost reduction reasonably may be
expected within the delineated categories. Even at the 38 grants-per-
manager level, the authorized administrative cost limit will still
leave additional funds to meet other needs. It is no doubt the case
that choices will have to be made about where to allocate these
administrative resources. In the view of the Committee, however, that
was part of Congress' original intent in establishing an administrative
cost cap: to control the growth of the bureaucracy and to ensure that
the maximum number of dollars goes to the local coalitions.
8. Additional views concerning the administrative expenses
cap
As acknowledged above, there was a dispute about the
appropriate level for the cap on administrative expenses for
the DFCA program. Both the House and Senate bills set the level
at 8 percent, which was the level requested by both the Clinton
and Bush Administrations. The bill's sponsors on both the House
and Senate side have expressed concern that cutting the
administrative costs to 6 percent would jeopardize the
administration of the program. The Committee agrees that
continued review of the proper level to be authorized for
administrative expenses of this program is warranted, and will
monitor this issue next year after the changes made by this
legislation are put in place. The Committee acknowledges that,
even at 8 percent, the administrative costs would still be
lower than those for other Department of Justice programs
including the At-Risk Children program (10 percent) and the
Drug Court program (up to 15 percent for training and technical
assistance alone).
C. Additional grants (Sec. 1(d))
Under the original DFCA, after being awarded an initial
grant, a local coalition was entitled to reapply for a renewal
grant for four additional years. No provision was made for
additional aid after that point. This reflected in part
Congress' intention that Federal aid to local coalitions would
only be temporary, enabling the coalitions to establish
themselves and begin their anti-drug efforts, but not to become
permanently dependent on Federal funding. The Committee
continues to support that goal. Representatives of many of the
coalitions, however, informed the Committee and the bill's
sponsors on both the House and Senate side that an abrupt
cessation of Federal assistance would cause many of these
coalitions to halt their activities. After five years, many of
these coalitions (being primarily voluntary organizations) have
only just begun to make a difference in their communities. A
limit of 5 years, while certainly supportive of the goal of
financial independence, may have the additional and unintended
effect of withdrawing assistance from some coalitions just as
they are starting to become effective.
The reauthorizing legislation therefore allows for a second
five-year period of Federal funding, but only with certain
restrictions. First, ONDCP may not accord any priority during
the application process to a coalition because of its status as
a previous grantee; that coalition must compete with all other
applicants on an equal footing. Second, any renewal grants are
subject to an increased matching requirement, under which the
coalition must raise $1.25 in non-Federal funds for every
dollar of DFCA funds it receives for the first two renewal
grants, and approximately $1.33 in non-Federal funds for every
DFCA dollar for the last two renewal grants.
D. Data collection and dissemination (Sec. 1(e))
This subsection directs the program Administrator to carry
out data collection and dissemination activities under Section
1033(b) of the DFCA in consultation with the Advisory
Commission and the National Community Antidrug Coalition
Institute created by this legislation. This provision is
intended to ensure that the resources and experience of the
Advisory Commission and the new Institute are fully utilized
for these important activities.
E. Limitation on use of certain funds for evaluation of program (Sec.
1(f))
This provision codifies Congress' original understanding
that the cost of any program evaluation is an administrative
expense subject to the limitation on administrative expenses.
Indeed, as two committees of the United States informed ONDCP,
the cost of evaluation, technical assistance and training are
considered to be administrative costs subject to the cap. (See
Administrative Cost Study, submitted by ONDCP to the Senate
Appropriations Committee, January 18, 2001, page 8.)
F. Treatment of funds for coalitions representing certain organizations
(Sec. 1(g))
This provision remedies a problem that had arisen under the
previous statute in the treatment of coalitions that serve
Indian tribes and include representatives of tribal government
agencies (as specifically allowed by the DFCA). The Committee
was informed that it is frequently more difficult for
coalitions serving Indian tribes to raise non-Federal funds to
meet the matching requirement under Section 1032 of the DFCA.
These coalitions typically receive Federal funds (other than
DFCA funds) instead of State government funds for anti-drug
activities, putting those coalitions at a comparative
disadvantage to coalitions with greater access to State and
local government funds.
ONDCP informed the Committee that pursuant to Federal
Indian law, ONDCP has the authority to waive or modify the
matching requirement for tribes that are Federally recognized
and enjoy a government-to-government relationship with the
United States. However, this authority would not extend to non-
Federally recognized tribes.
This provision therefore enables any coalition including a
representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian
Health Service, or a tribal government agency withexpertise in
the field of substance abuse prevention, to count any funds it receives
from any source, including Federal sources (other than the DFCA program
itself), as non-Federal funds for purposes of the matching requirement.
This subsection removes the barrier to receiving DFCA funds and
eliminates any disparity in the treatment of coalitions serving
Federally-recognized and non-Federally recognized tribes.
G. Priority in awarding grants (Sec. 1(h))
Several members of the Committee expressed their concern
that coalitions serving economically disadvantaged communities
might face added difficulties in obtaining grants under the
DFCA. Since these coalitions may lack the same resources
available to coalitions from more prosperous communities, their
applications may not seem as well supported as those of other
coalitions. This provision seeks to remedy this imbalance, by
directing those evaluating grant applications to give priority
to coalitions serving economically disadvantaged communities.
This subsection should not be read, however, to mean that any
coalition (whether serving an economically disadvantaged
community or not) should be excused from the minimum criteria
and standards necessary to receive a grant. It is not the
Committee's intent that this provision eliminate those criteria
and standards. Rather, the Committee intends that among those
coalitions meeting those minimum criteria and standards,
priority is to be given to the ones that serve our nation's
neediest areas.
H. Supplemental grants for coalition mentoring activities (Sec. 2)
A number of established coalitions with proven histories of
success have expressed an interest in mentoring new and/or
struggling coalitions, particularly in neighboring communities.
Rather than creating a new and separate grant program, the bill
will authorize certain coalitions to apply for a supplemental
grant of up to $75,000. Up to 5 percent of the total funds
authorized under DFCA may be used for these grants. This
coalition mentoring grant program capitalizes on the idea,
which underpins the entire DFCA, that local communities, rather
than the Federal government, often know how best to address
challenges in those communities. The Committee expects that as
a result of these mentoring grants, new coalitions can have the
benefit of local insights and common experiences when
addressing similar problems.
Section 2 of H.R. 2291, as amended, imposes a number of
conditions on the receipt of these grants, including
requirements that a grantee have been in existence for at least
5 years, and that it have achieved demonstrable results in the
prevention and treatment of substance abuse among youth.
Renewal grants are allowed. A non-Federal funds matching
requirement identical to that applying to general grants is
imposed, but with an exception for coalitions serving Indian
tribes (identical to that described in part II.F above). There
is no requirement that the non-Federal funds have been raised
specifically for mentoring purposes; rather, funds raised for
any anti-substance abuse activities may be counted against the
matching requirement.
To ensure that coalitions are given an appropriate
incentive to mentor coalitions serving those most in need,
priority in awarding these grants is to be given to coalitions
expressly proposing to mentor coalitions or aspiring coalitions
serving economically disadvantaged areas.
I. Five-year extension of advisory commission on drug-free communities
(Sec. 3)
The Advisory Commission is reauthorized for an additional 5
years.
J. Authorization for national community anti-drug coalition institute
(Sec. 4)
In response to a perceived need on the part of many grant
recipients for greater guidance and information in carrying out
their anti-substance abuse activities, the bill's drafters in
both the House of Representatives and the Senate looked for
ways effectively to provide that guidance and information. The
end result of those efforts is the bill's authorization of a
National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute. The Institute
is intended to (1) provide education, training, and technical
assistance for coalition leaders and community teams; (2)
develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and
measures to better assess and document coalition performance
measures and outcomes; and (3) bridge the gap between research
and practice by translating knowledge from research into
practical information. In response to concerns raised by
several members, the Committee added language directing the
Institute to place special emphasis on the development of
coalitions serving economically disadvantaged areas.
To help create the Institute, the bill authorizes a federal
grant, to be awarded by ONDCP to a national organization that
represents, provides technical assistance to and training to,
and has special expertise and broad, national-level experience
in working with DFCA coalitions. The Committee expects that
ONDCP will ensure that a competitive process, in accordance
with applicable Federal law, will be used to determine the
ultimate recipient of that grant. Nevertheless, only one such
organization, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
(CADCA), has communicated with the Committee regarding the
legislation. Thus, the Committee received extensive information
from CADCA concerning its views of possible future goals and
activities of the Institute.
The bill authorizes up to $2,000,000 in each of fiscal
years 2002 and 2003 for the grant establishing the Institute.
CADCA has expressed the view that it believes the Institute
could expect to receive sufficient outside funding after 2003
to enable it to achieve financial independence. Nevertheless,
some provision should be made for financial assistance to the
Institute (regardless of which organization ultimately receives
the grant) from fiscal years 2004 through 2007, should
insufficient non-Federal funding be available. The Committee
believes that a cap on such assistance of $1,000,000 in fiscal
years 2004 and 2005, and $750,000 in fiscal years 2006 and
2007, will balance theneed for contingent financial assistance
with the intent of the Committee that the Institute move quickly
towards independence from Federal support.
The Committee had some concerns with respect to the level
of the initial grants in 2002 and 2003. CADCA submitted to the
Committee its view of a proposed budget for the Institute
which, while describing activities and expenditures that
undoubtedly have great merit, suggests the risk of duplicating
some tasks already being undertaken or commissioned by ONDCP
and/or OJJDP. The Committee expects that the ultimate recipient
of the Institute grants will take its own steps to ensure that
such duplication of effort does not occur and that overall
costs are minimized as much as possible.
K. Prohibition against duplication of effort (Sec. 5)
The Committee is very concerned that the creation of the
mentoring grants and the Institute, coupled with the raising of
the administrative expenses cap, poses a significant danger of
duplication of tasks among all the various entities providing
monitoring, training and technical assistance, and/or
evaluation services to DFCA grantees. Such duplication of tasks
would be antithetical to one of the central purposes of the
DFCA, namely to minimize the number of dollars spent on
administrative overhead while maximizing the number of dollars
directed to the coalitions themselves. This section instructs
the Director of ONDCP to take affirmative steps to ensure that
such duplication of effort does not occur.
VI. Section-by-Section Summary
SECTION 1. FIVE YEAR EXTENSION OF DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM
The Drug-Free Communities Act program is reauthorized for
five years, from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2007. The
amounts authorized for the program are increased in fiscal year
2002 (the last year of authorization under the current DFCA) to
$50,600,000 in fiscal year 2002; thereafter $60,000,000 is
authorized in fiscal year 2003, $70,000,000 in fiscal year
2004, $80,000,000 in fiscal year 2005, $90,000,000 in fiscal
year 2006, and $99,000,000 in fiscal year 2007. The limitation
on administrative costs is extended through fiscal year 2007,
but is raised for fiscal years 2002 through 2007 to 6 percent
of the amounts authorized.
Authority is given to the program Administrator to make
additional grants to coalitions that already received an
initial grant and 4 renewal grants. No priority is to be given
these coalitions during the application process, however.
Moreover, renewal grants for these additional grants are
subject to a more stringent matching requirement, under which
the renewal grant may be equal to no more than 80 percent of
the total non-Federal funds raised by the coalition for the
first two years after the initial grant, and 67 percent for the
final two years. These grants remain capped at $100,000 per
year.
The program Administrator is directed to carry out data
collection and dissemination activities under Section 1033(b)
of the original DFCA in consultation with the Advisory
Commission and the National Community Antidrug Coalition
Institute established by Section 4 of this bill.
This Section provides that amounts expended on a program
evaluation are to be derived from the amounts authorized for
administrative expenses only, and not from any other funds
authorized by the DFCA.
The non-Federal fundraising matching requirement is changed
for coalitions serving Indian communities by allowing such
coalitions to include Federal funds appropriated to them for
substance abuse activities.
This Section provides that priority in awarding DFCA grants
is to be given to otherwise eligible coalitions that serve
economically disadvantaged areas.
SECTION 2. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING ACTIVITIES UNDER
DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM
Section 2 authorizes the Administrator to award
supplemental grants to coalitions already receiving DFCA
grants, for the purpose of supporting the mentoring of new or
emerging coalitions. The criteria for receiving such a grant
are listed in Section 2(d). Renewal grants are permitted under
certain conditions. The grants are limited to $75,000 per year,
and the total amount of all such grants cannot exceed 5 percent
of the funds authorized under the DFCA. Priority for the grants
is given to coalitions expressly proposing to assist coalitions
serving economically disadvantaged areas.
SECTION 3. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DRUG-FREE
COMMUNITIES
The Advisory Commission is reauthorized through fiscal year
2007.
SECTION 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR NATIONAL COMMUNITY ANTI-DRUG COALITION
INSTITUTE
This Section authorizes the ONDCP Director to award a grant
to a private, not-for-profit organization with substantial
experience in working with community anti-drug coalitions for
the purpose of establishing a National Community Anti-Drug
Coalition Institute. The Institute's activities are outlined in
subsection (c). Up to $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002
and 2003 is authorized for this grant. If necessary, up to
$1,000,000 may be awarded to the Institute in each of fiscal
years 2004 and 2005, and up to $750,000 in each of fiscal years
2006 and 2007.
SECTION 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATION OF EFFORT
The Director of ONDCP is instructed to take steps to ensure
no duplication of effort by entities receiving funds under the
DFCA or under Section 4 of this bill.
VII. Statement of CBO Cost Estimate
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee was provided the
following estimate of the cost of H.R. 2291 prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2291, a bill to
extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities Support
Program for an additional 5 years, to authorize a National
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute, and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson,
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 2291--A bill to extend the authorization of the Drug-Free
Communities Support Program for an additional 5 years, to
authorize a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute,
and for other purposes
Summary: H.R. 2291 would authorize the appropriation of
$406 million over the 2002-2007 period to extend the Drug-Free
Communities Support Program. In addition, the bill would
authorize the appropriation of $7.5 million over the 2002-2007
period to establish a National Community Antidrug Coalition
Institute.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 2291 would cost $235 million
over the 2002-2006 period, mostly for the Drug-Free Communities
Support Program. This legislation would not affect direct
spending or receipts so pay-as-you-go procedures would not
apply.
H.R. 2291 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Any costs to state and local governments receiving grants under
this bill would be incurred voluntarily.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 2291 is shown in the following table.
For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the
authorized amounts will be appropriated by the start of each
fiscal year and that spending would follow the historical
spending rates for these or similar activities. The cost of
this legislation falls within budget function 800 (general
government).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending under current law for the Drug-Free
Communities Support Program:
Authorization level\1\.......................... 40 44 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays............................... 31 39 30 9 0 0
Proposed Changes:
Authorization level............................. 0 9 62 71 81 91
Estimated outlays............................... 0 4 24 53 72 82
Spending under H.R. 2291 for the Drug-Free
Communties Support Program and the National
Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute:
Authorization level\1\.......................... 40 53 62 71 81 91
Estimated outlays............................... 31 43 54 62 72 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2001 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the Drug-Free Communities Support Program. The
2002 level is the amount authorized to be appropriated in current law for that program.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2291
contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. Any
costs of state and local governments receiving grants under
this bill would be incurred voluntarily.
Estimated prepared by: Federal costs: Mark Grabowicz;
impact on State, local, and tribal governments: Susan Sieg
Tompkins; impact on the the private sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director of Budget Analysis.
VIII. Statement of Constitutional Authority
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that Congress is
specifically granted the power to enact this law under Article
I, Section 8, clause 1 under which Congress is granted the
``Power To * * * provide for the * * * general Welfare of the
United States[.]''
IX. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b)
As H.R. 2291 does not establish a new advisory committee
within the meaning of Section 5(b) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, no statement under that section is necessary.
The Committee refers interested parties to Section IX of Report
105-105, dated May 20, 1997, which contains the Section 5(b)
statement for the Advisory Commission created by the original
DFCA.
X. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL NARCOTICS LEADERSHIP ACT OF 1988
TITLE I--COORDINATION OF NATIONAL DRUG POLICY
Subtitle A--National Drug Control Program
SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``National Narcotics
Leadership Act of 1988''.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 2--DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1024. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Office of National Drug Control Policy to carry out this
chapter--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; [and]
[(5) $43,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.]
(5) $50,600,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(6) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(7) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(8) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(10) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(b) Administrative Costs.--Not more than the following
percentages of the amounts authorized under subsection (a) may
be used to pay administrative costs:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(5) 3 percent for fiscal year 2002.]
(5) 6 percent for each of fiscal years 2002 through
2007.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter I--Drug-Free Communities Support Program
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1032. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.
(a) * * *
(b) Grant Amounts.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Additional grants.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (F),
the Administrator may award an additional grant
under this paragraph to an eligible coalition
awarded a grant under paragraph (1) or (2) for
any first fiscal year after the end of the 4-
year period following the period of the initial
grant under paragraph (1) or (2), as the case
may be.
(B) Scope of grants.--A coalition awarded a
grant under paragraph (1) or (2), including a
renewal grant under such paragraph, may not be
awarded another grant under such paragraph, and
is eligible for an additional grant under this
section only under this paragraph.
(C) No priority for applications.--The
Administrator may not afford a higher priority
in the award of an additional grant under this
paragraph than the Administrator would afford
the applicant for the grant if the applicant
were submitting an application for an initial
grant under paragraph (1) or (2) rather than an
application for a grant under this paragraph.
(D) Renewal grants.--Subject to subparagraph
(F), the Administrator may award a renewal
grant to a grant recipient under this paragraph
for each of the fiscal years of the 4-fiscal-
year period following the fiscal year for which
the initial additional grant under subparagraph
(A) is awarded in an amount not to exceed
amounts as follows:
(i) For the first and second fiscal
years of that 4-fiscal-year period, the
amount equal to 80 percent of the non-
Federal funds, including in-kind
contributions, raised by the coalition
for the applicable fiscal year.
(ii) For the third and fourth fiscal
years of that 4-fiscal-year period, the
amount equal to 67 percent of the non-
Federal funds, including in-kind
contributions, raised by the coalition
for the applicable fiscal year.
(E) Suspension.--If a grant recipient under
this paragraph fails to continue to meet the
criteria specified in subsection (a), the
Administrator may suspend the grant, after
providing written notice to the grant recipient
and an opportunity to appeal.
(F) Limitation.--The amount of a grant award
under this paragraph may not exceed $100,000
for a fiscal year.
(c) Treatment of Funds for Coalitions Representing Certain
Organizations.--Funds appropriated for the substance abuse
activities of a coalition that includes a representative of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or a
tribal government agency with expertise in the field of
substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal funds raised by
the coalition for purposes of this section.
(d) Priority in Awarding Grants.--In awarding grants under
subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), priority shall be given to a coalition
serving economically disadvantaged areas.
SEC. 1033. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION WITH RESPECT TO
GRANT RECIPIENTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Data Collection and Dissemination.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Consultation.--The Administrator shall carry out
activities under this subsection in consultation with
the Advisory Commission and the National Community
Antidrug Coalition Institute.
(4) Limitation on use of certain funds for evaluation
of program.--Amounts for activities under paragraph
(2)(B) may not be derived from amounts under section
1024(a) except for amounts that are available under
section 1024(b) for administrative costs.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1035. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING ACTIVITIES.
(a) Authority To Make Grants.--As part of the program
established under section 1031, the Director may award an
initial grant under this subsection, and renewal grants under
subsection (f), to any coalition awarded a grant under section
1032 that meets the criteria specified in subsection (d) in
order to fund coalition mentoring activities by such coalition
in support of the program.
(b) Treatment With Other Grants.--
(1) Supplement.--A grant awarded to a coalition under
this section is in addition to any grant awarded to the
coalition under section 1032.
(2) Requirement for basic grant.--A coalition may not
be awarded a grant under this section for a fiscal year
unless the coalition was awarded a grant or renewal
grant under section 1032(b) for that fiscal year.
(c) Application.--A coalition seeking a grant under this
section shall submit to the Administrator an application for
the grant in such form and manner as the Administrator may
require.
(d) Criteria.--A coalition meets the criteria specified in
this subsection if the coalition--
(1) has been in existence for at least 5 years;
(2) has achieved, by or through its own efforts,
measurable results in the prevention and treatment of
substance abuse among youth;
(3) has staff or members willing to serve as mentors
for persons seeking to start or expand the activities
of other coalitions in the prevention and treatment of
substance abuse;
(4) has demonstrable support from some members of the
community in which the coalition mentoring activities
to be supported by the grant under this section are to
be carried out; and
(5) submits to the Administrator a detailed plan for
the coalition mentoring activities to be supported by
the grant under this section.
(e) Use of Grant Funds.--A coalition awarded a grant under
this section shall use the grant amount for mentoring
activities to support and encourage the development of new,
self-supporting community coalitions that are focused on the
prevention and treatment of substance abuse in such new
coalitions' communities. The mentoring coalition shall
encourage such development in accordance with the plan
submitted by the mentoring coalition under subsection (d)(5).
(f) Renewal Grants.--The Administrator may make a renewal
grant to any coalition awarded a grant under subsection (a), or
a previous renewal grant under this subsection, if the
coalition, at the time of application for such renewal grant--
(1) continues to meet the criteria specified in
subsection (d); and
(2) has made demonstrable progress in the development
of one or more new, self-supporting community
coalitions that are focused on the prevention and
treatment of substance abuse.
(g) Grant Amounts.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3),
the total amount of grants awarded to a coalition under
this section for a fiscal year may not exceed the
amount of non-Federal funds raised by the coalition,
including in-kind contributions, for that fiscal year.
Funds appropriated for the substance abuse activities
of a coalition that includes a representative of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or
a tribal government agency with expertise in the field
of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal funds
raised by the coalition.
(2) Initial grants.--The amount of the initial grant
awarded to a coalition under subsection (a) may not
exceed $75,000.
(3) Renewal grants.--The total amount of renewal
grants awarded to a coalition under subsection (f) for
any fiscal year may not exceed $75,000.
(h) Fiscal Year Limitation on Amount Available for Grants.--
The total amount available for grants under this section,
including renewal grants under subsection (f), in any fiscal
year may not exceed the amount equal to five percent of the
amount authorized to be appropriated by section 1024(a) for
that fiscal year.
(i) Priority in Awarding Initial Grants.--In awarding initial
grants under this section, priority shall be given to a
coalition that expressly proposes to provide mentorship to a
coalition or aspiring coalition serving economically
disadvantaged areas.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter II--Advisory Commission
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1048. TERMINATION.
The Advisory Commission shall terminate at the end of fiscal
year [2002] 2007.
XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of Section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (PL 104-1).
XII. Budget Analysis
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, and Section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee finds that no
new budget authority, new spending authority, new credit
authority or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax
expenditures results from enactment of this resolution.
XIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4 Section 423
The Committee finds that the legislation does not impose
any Federal mandates within the meaning of Section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (P.L. 104-4).
XIV. Appendix
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Burton: I am writing with regard to H.R.
2291, which the Committee on Government Reform ordered reported
on July 25, 2001. The Committee on Energy and Commerce was
named as an additional Committee of jurisdiction upon the
bill's introduction.
I recognize your desire to bring this bill before the House
in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not exercise the
Committee's right to exercise its referral. By agreeing to
waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and
Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R.
2291. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves
its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill
that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference that may be convened on this similar legislation. I
ask for your commitment to support any request by the Energy
and Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 2291 or similar
legislation.
I request that you include this letter as a part of the
Committee's report on H.R. 2291 and in the Congressional Record
during debate on its provisions. Thank you for your attention
to these matters.
Sincerely,
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 30,
2001, regarding H.R. 2291, a bill to extend the authorization
of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program.
I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions of this
legislation, and I appreciate your decision not to exercise
your referral in the interest of expediting consideration of
the bill. I agree that by foregoing your right to consider this
legislation, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not
waiving its jurisdiction. I will also support your Committee's
request to seek conferees on provisions of the bill that fall
within your jurisdiction, should the bill go to a House-Senate
conference. Further, as your requested, this exchange of
letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill
and in the Congressional Record as part of the floor debate.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton,
Chairman.