89–006

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:

2

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 substancefree 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.

3

(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 reVerDate 30-JUL-2001 16:11 Aug 01, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR175P1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR175P1
4

duction 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 inkind 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 inkind 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:

5

‘‘(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 ORGANIZA- TIONS.—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 ORGANIZA- TIONS.—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 DRUGFREE 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 acVerDate 30-JUL-2001 16:11 Aug 01, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR175P1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR175P1
6

tivities 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. §§ 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

7

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’’ newlyformed 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

8

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 antidrug 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 longterm 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),

9

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

10

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 prosVerDate 30-JUL-2001 16:11 Aug 01, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR175P1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR175P1
11

pects 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 antidrug 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

12

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

13

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:

Grants per manager Days spent on telephone 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.

14

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.

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

FY

Total

funds

(millions)

Total

grants

Staffers Total cost (millions)

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

15

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.

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

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,

16

3This 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.

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

Fiscal year

44 grants per program

manager

40 grants per program

manager

38 grants per program

manager

In millions Percent In millions Percent In 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 administraVerDate 30-JUL-2001 16:11 Aug 01, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR175P1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR175P1
17

tive cost cap permitted by the amended bill should be more than

sufficient to allow ONDCP and OJJDP to reduce the grants-perprogram 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 grantsper-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 assistVerDate 30-JUL-2001 16:11 Aug 01, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR175P1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR175P1
18

ance from some coalitions just as they are starting to become effective.

The reauthorizing legislation therefore allows for a second fiveyear 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 with expertise in the field

19

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 nonFederal 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 menVerDate 30-JUL-2001 16:11 Aug 01, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR175P1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR175P1
20

tor 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 AntiDrug 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 the need 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

21

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 coaliVerDate 30-JUL-2001 16:11 Aug 01, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR175P1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR175P1
22

tions 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

23

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 level1 ................................................. 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 level1 ................................................. 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

24

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—

25

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; øand¿

ø(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) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(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:

26

(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 CER- TAIN 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.

27

(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.

28

(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 ø2002¿ 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 considerVerDate 30-JUL-2001 16:11 Aug 01, 2001 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR175P1.XXX pfrm04 PsN: HR175P1
29

ation 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 DrugFree 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.

Æ