```

[House Report 107-175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                            Rept. 107-175
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================

 
TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT 
  PROGRAM FOR AN ADDITIONAL 5 YEARS, TO AUTHORIZE A NATIONAL COMMUNITY 
  ANTIDRUG COALITION INSTITUTE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

 July 30, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Burton of Indiana, from the Committee on Government Reform, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2291]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2291) to extend the authorization of the Drug-Free 
Communities Support Program for an additional 5 years, to 
authorize a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose and Summary..............................................6
 II. Need for Legislation.............................................7
III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Action........................8
 IV. Oversight Findings..............................................10
  V. Explanation of Bill.............................................10
 VI. Section-by-Section Summary......................................21
VII. Statement of CBO Cost Estimate..................................22
VIII.Statement of Constitutional Authority...........................24

 IX. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b).....24
  X. Changes in Existing Law.........................................24
 XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1..............28
XII. Budget Analysis.................................................28
XIII.Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4, Section 423.....28

XIV. Appendix........................................................28

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT 
                    PROGRAM.

  (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
          (1) In the next 15 years, the youth population in the United 
        States will grow by 21 percent, adding 6,500,000 youth to the 
        population of the United States. Even if drug use rates remain 
        constant, there will be a huge surge in drug-related problems, 
        such as academic failure, drug-related violence, and HIV 
        incidence, simply due to this population increase.
          (2) According to the 1994-1996 National Household Survey, 60 
        percent of students age 12 to 17 who frequently cut classes and 
        who reported delinquent behavior in the past 6 months used 
        marijuana 52 days or more in the previous year.
          (3) The 2000 Washington Kids Count survey conducted by the 
        University of Washington reported that students whose peers 
        have little or no involvement with drinking and drugs have 
        higher math and reading scores than students whose peers had 
        low level drinking or drug use.
          (4) Substance abuse prevention works. In 1999, only 10 
        percent of teens saw marijuana users as popular, compared to 17 
        percent in 1998 and 19 percent in 1997. The rate of past-month 
        use of any drug among 12- to 17-year-olds declined 26 percent 
        between 1997 and 1999. Marijuana use for sixth through eighth 
        graders is at the lowest point in 5 years, as is use of 
        cocaine, inhalants, and hallucinogens.
          (5) Community Anti-Drug Coalitions throughout the United 
        States are successfully developing and implementing 
        comprehensive, long-term strategies to reduce substance abuse 
        among youth on a sustained basis. For example:
                  (A) The Boston Coalition brought college and 
                university presidents together to create the 
                Cooperative Agreement on Underage Drinking. This 
                agreement represents the first coordinated effort of 
                Boston's many institutions of higher education to 
                address issues such as binge drinking, underage 
                drinking, and changing the norms surrounding alcohol 
                abuse that exist on college and university campuses.
                  (B) In 2000, the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater 
                Cincinnati surveyed more than 47,000 local students in 
                grades 7 through 12. The results provided evidence that 
                the Coalition's initiatives are working. For the first 
                time in a decade, teen drug use in Greater Cincinnati 
                appears to be leveling off. The data collected from the 
                survey has served as a tool to strengthen relationships 
                between schools and communities, as well as facilitate 
                the growth of anti-drug coalitions in communities where 
                such coalitions had not existed.
                  (C) The Miami Coalition used a three-part strategy to 
                decrease the percentage of high school seniors who 
                reported using marijuana at least once during the most 
                recent 30-day period. The development of a media 
                strategy, the creation of a network of prevention 
                agencies, and discussions with high school students 
                about the dangers of marijuana all contributed to a 
                decrease in the percentage of seniors who reported 
                using marijuana from over 22 percent in 1995 to 9 
                percent in 1997. The Miami Coalition was able to 
                achieve these results while national rates of marijuana 
                use were increasing.
                  (D) The Nashville Prevention Partnership worked with 
                elementary and middle school children in an attempt to 
                influence them toward positive life goals and 
                discourage them from using substances. The Partnership 
                targeted an area in East Nashville and created after 
                school programs, mentoring opportunities, attendance 
                initiatives, and safe passages to and from school. 
                Attendance and test scores increased as a result of the 
                program.
                  (E) At a youth-led town meeting sponsored by the 
                Bering Strait Community Partnership in Nome, Alaska, 
                youth identified a need for a safe, substance-free 
                space. With help from a variety of community partners, 
                the Partnership staff and youth members created the 
                Java Hut, a substance-free coffeehouse designed for 
                youth. The Java Hut is helping to change norms in the 
                community by providing a fun, youth-friendly atmosphere 
                and activities that are not centered around alcohol or 
                marijuana.
                  (F) Portland's Regional Drug Initiative (RDI) has 
                promoted the establishment of drug-free workplaces 
                among the city's large and small employers. Over 3,000 
                employers have attended an RDI training session, and of 
                those, 92 percent have instituted drug-free workplace 
                policies. As a result, there has been a 5.5 percent 
                decrease in positive workplace drug tests.
                  (G) San Antonio Fighting Back worked to increase the 
                age at which youth first used illegal substances. 
                Research suggests that the later the age of first use, 
                the lower the risk that a young person will become a 
                regular substance abuser. As a result, the age of first 
                illegal drug use increased from 9.4 years in 1992 to 
                13.5 years in 1997.
                  (H) In 1990, multiple data sources confirmed a trend 
                of increased alcohol use by teenagers in the Troy 
                community. Using its ``multiple strategies over 
                multiple sectors'' approach, the Troy Coalition worked 
                with parents, physicians, students, coaches, and others 
                to address this problem from several angles. As a 
                result, the rate of twelfth grade students who had 
                consumed alcohol in the past month decreased from 62.1 
                percent to 53.3 percent between 1991 and 1998, and the 
                rate of eighth grade students decreased from 26.3 
                percent to 17.4 percent. The Troy Coalition believes 
                that this decline represents not only a change in 
                behavior on the part of students, but also a change in 
                the norms of the community.
          (6) Despite these successes, drug use continues to be a 
        serious problem facing communities across the United States. 
        For example:
                  (A) According to the Pulse Check: Trends in Drug 
                Abuse Mid-Year 2000 report--
                          (i) crack and powder cocaine remains the most 
                        serious drug problem;
                          (ii) marijuana remains the most widely 
                        available illicit drug, and its potency is on 
                        the rise;
                          (iii) treatment sources report an increase in 
                        admissions with marijuana as the primary drug 
                        of abuse--and adolescents outnumber other age 
                        groups entering treatment for marijuana;
                          (iv) 80 percent of Pulse Check sources 
                        reported increased availability of club drugs, 
                        with ecstasy (MDMA) and ketamine the most 
                        widely cited club drugs and seven sources 
                        reporting that powder cocaine is being used as 
                        a club drug by young adults;
                          (v) ecstasy abuse and trafficking is 
                        expanding, no longer confined to the ``rave'' 
                        scene;
                          (vi) the sale and use of club drugs has grown 
                        from nightclubs and raves to high schools, the 
                        streets, neighborhoods, open venues, and 
                        younger ages;
                          (vii) ecstasy users often are unknowingly 
                        purchasing adulterated tablets or some other 
                        substance sold as MDMA; and
                          (viii) along with reports of increased heroin 
                        snorting as a route of administration for 
                        initiates, there is also an increase in 
                        injecting initiates and the negative health 
                        consequences associated with injection (for 
                        example, increases in HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C) 
                        suggesting that there is a generational 
                        forgetting of the dangers of injection of the 
                        drug.
                  (B) The 2000 Parent's Resource Institute for Drug 
                Education study reported that 23.6 percent of children 
                in the sixth through twelfth grades used illicit drugs 
                in the past year. The same study found that monthly 
                usage among this group was 15.3 percent.
                  (C) According to the 2000 Monitoring the Future 
                study, the use of ecstasy among eighth graders 
                increased from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 3.1 percent in 
                2000, among tenth graders from 4.4 percent to 5.4 
                percent, and from 5.6 percent to 8.2 percent among 
                twelfth graders.
                  (D) A 1999 Mellman Group study found that--
                          (i) 56 percent of the population in the 
                        United States believed that drug use was 
                        increasing in 1999;
                          (ii) 92 percent of the population viewed 
                        illegal drug use as a serious problem in the 
                        United States; and
                          (iii) 73 percent of the population viewed 
                        illegal drug use as a serious problem in their 
                        communities.
          (7) According to the 2001 report of the National Center on 
        Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University entitled 
        ``Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State 
        Budgets'', using the most conservative assumption, in 1998 
        States spent $77,900,000,000 to shovel up the wreckage of 
        substance abuse, only $3,000,000,000 to prevent and treat the 
        problem and $433,000,000 for alcohol and tobacco regulation and 
        compliance. This $77,900,000,000 burden was distributed as 
        follows:
                  (A) $30,700,000,000 in the justice system (77 percent 
                of justice spending).
                  (B) $16,500,000,000 in education costs (10 percent of 
                education spending).
                  (C) $15,200,000,000 in health costs (25 percent of 
                health spending).
                  (D) $7,700,000,000 in child and family assistance (32 
                percent of child and family assistance spending).
                  (E) $5,900,000,000 in mental health and developmental 
                disabilities (31 percent of mental health spending).
                  (F) $1,500,000,000 in public safety (26 percent of 
                public safety spending) and $400,000,000 for the state 
                workforce.
          (8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination through 
        national, State, and local or tribal leadership and 
        partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of 
        substance abuse among youth in communities across the United 
        States.
          (9) Substance abuse is perceived as a much greater problem 
        nationally than at the community level. According to a 2001 
        study sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts, between 1994 and 
        2000--
                  (A) there was a 43 percent increase in the percentage 
                of Americans who felt progress was being made in the 
                war on drugs at the community level;
                  (B) only 9 percent of Americans say drug abuse is a 
                ``crisis'' in their neighborhood, compared to 27 
                percent who say this about the nation; and
                  (C) the percentage of those who felt we lost ground 
                in the war on drugs on a community level fell by more 
                than a quarter, from 51 percent in 1994 to 37 percent 
                in 2000.
  (b) Extension and Increase of Program.--Section 1024(a) of the 
National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1524(a)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4); and
          (2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new 
        paragraphs:
          ``(5) $50,600,000 for fiscal year 2002;
          ``(6) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
          ``(7) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
          ``(8) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
          ``(9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
          ``(10) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
  (c) Extension of Limitation on Administrative Costs.--Section 1024(b) 
of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1524(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (5) 
and inserting the following new paragraph (5):
          ``(5) 6 percent for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
        2007.''.
  (d) Additional Grants.--Section 1032(b) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 
1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph 
(3):
          ``(3) Additional grants.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (F), the 
                Administrator may award an additional grant under this 
                paragraph to an eligible coalition awarded a grant 
                under paragraph (1) or (2) for any first fiscal year 
                after the end of the 4-year period following the period 
                of the initial grant under paragraph (1) or (2), as the 
                case may be.
                  ``(B) Scope of grants.--A coalition awarded a grant 
                under paragraph (1) or (2), including a renewal grant 
                under such paragraph, may not be awarded another grant 
                under such paragraph, and is eligible for an additional 
                grant under this section only under this paragraph.
                  ``(C) No priority for applications.--The 
                Administrator may not afford a higher priority in the 
                award of an additional grant under this paragraph than 
                the Administrator would afford the applicant for the 
                grant if the applicant were submitting an application 
                for an initial grant under paragraph (1) or (2) rather 
                than an application for a grant under this paragraph.
                  ``(D) Renewal grants.--Subject to subparagraph (F), 
                the Administrator may award a renewal grant to a grant 
                recipient under this paragraph for each of the fiscal 
                years of the 4-fiscal-year period following the fiscal 
                year for which the initial additional grant under 
                subparagraph (A) is awarded in an amount not to exceed 
                amounts as follows:
                          ``(i) For the first and second fiscal years 
                        of that 4-fiscal-year period, the amount equal 
                        to 80 percent of the non-Federal funds, 
                        including in-kind contributions, raised by the 
                        coalition for the applicable fiscal year.
                          ``(ii) For the third and fourth fiscal years 
                        of that 4-fiscal-year period, the amount equal 
                        to 67 percent of the non-Federal funds, 
                        including in-kind contributions, raised by the 
                        coalition for the applicable fiscal year.
                  ``(E) Suspension.--If a grant recipient under this 
                paragraph fails to continue to meet the criteria 
                specified in subsection (a), the Administrator may 
                suspend the grant, after providing written notice to 
                the grant recipient and an opportunity to appeal.
                  ``(F) Limitation.--The amount of a grant award under 
                this paragraph may not exceed $100,000 for a fiscal 
                year.''.
  (e) Data Collection and Dissemination.--Section 1033(b) of that Act 
(21 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
          ``(3) Consultation.--The Administrator shall carry out 
        activities under this subsection in consultation with the 
        Advisory Commission and the National Community Antidrug 
        Coalition Institute.''.
  (f) Limitation on Use of Certain Funds for Evaluation of Program.--
Section 1033(b) of that Act, as amended by subsection (e) of this 
section, is further amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
          ``(4) Limitation on use of certain funds for evaluation of 
        program.--Amounts for activities under paragraph (2)(B) may not 
        be derived from amounts under section 1024(a) except for 
        amounts that are available under section 1024(b) for 
        administrative costs.''.
  (g) Treatment of Funds for Coalitions Representing Certain 
Organizations.--Section 1032 of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1532) is further 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(c) Treatment of Funds for Coalitions Representing Certain 
Organizations.--Funds appropriated for the substance abuse activities 
of a coalition that includes a representative of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or a tribal government agency with 
expertise in the field of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal 
funds raised by the coalition for purposes of this section.''.
  (h) Priority in Awarding Grants.--Section 1032 of that Act (21 U.S.C. 
1532) is further amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
  ``(d) Priority in Awarding Grants.--In awarding grants under 
subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), priority shall be given to a coalition serving 
economically disadvantaged areas.''.

SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING ACTIVITIES UNDER 
                    DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM.

  Subchapter I of chapter 2 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 
1988 (21 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:

``SEC. 1035. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING ACTIVITIES.

  ``(a) Authority To Make Grants.--As part of the program established 
under section 1031, the Director may award an initial grant under this 
subsection, and renewal grants under subsection (f), to any coalition 
awarded a grant under section 1032 that meets the criteria specified in 
subsection (d) in order to fund coalition mentoring activities by such 
coalition in support of the program.
  ``(b) Treatment With Other Grants.--
          ``(1) Supplement.--A grant awarded to a coalition under this 
        section is in addition to any grant awarded to the coalition 
        under section 1032.
          ``(2) Requirement for basic grant.--A coalition may not be 
        awarded a grant under this section for a fiscal year unless the 
        coalition was awarded a grant or renewal grant under section 
        1032(b) for that fiscal year.
  ``(c) Application.--A coalition seeking a grant under this section 
shall submit to the Administrator an application for the grant in such 
form and manner as the Administrator may require.
  ``(d) Criteria.--A coalition meets the criteria specified in this 
subsection if the coalition--
          ``(1) has been in existence for at least 5 years;
          ``(2) has achieved, by or through its own efforts, measurable 
        results in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse 
        among youth;
          ``(3) has staff or members willing to serve as mentors for 
        persons seeking to start or expand the activities of other 
        coalitions in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse;
          ``(4) has demonstrable support from some members of the 
        community in which the coalition mentoring activities to be 
        supported by the grant under this section are to be carried 
        out; and
          ``(5) submits to the Administrator a detailed plan for the 
        coalition mentoring activities to be supported by the grant 
        under this section.
  ``(e) Use of Grant Funds.--A coalition awarded a grant under this 
section shall use the grant amount for mentoring activities to support 
and encourage the development of new, self-supporting community 
coalitions that are focused on the prevention and treatment of 
substance abuse in such new coalitions' communities. The mentoring 
coalition shall encourage such development in accordance with the plan 
submitted by the mentoring coalition under subsection (d)(5).
  ``(f) Renewal Grants.--The Administrator may make a renewal grant to 
any coalition awarded a grant under subsection (a), or a previous 
renewal grant under this subsection, if the coalition, at the time of 
application for such renewal grant--
          ``(1) continues to meet the criteria specified in subsection 
        (d); and
          ``(2) has made demonstrable progress in the development of 
        one or more new, self-supporting community coalitions that are 
        focused on the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.
  ``(g) Grant Amounts.--
          ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
        total amount of grants awarded to a coalition under this 
        section for a fiscal year may not exceed the amount of non-
        Federal funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind 
        contributions, for that fiscal year. Funds appropriated for the 
        substance abuse activities of a coalition that includes a 
        representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian 
        Health Service, or a tribal government agency with expertise in 
        the field of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal 
        funds raised by the coalition.
          ``(2) Initial grants.--The amount of the initial grant 
        awarded to a coalition under subsection (a) may not exceed 
        $75,000.
          ``(3) Renewal grants.--The total amount of renewal grants 
        awarded to a coalition under subsection (f) for any fiscal year 
        may not exceed $75,000.
  ``(h) Fiscal Year Limitation on Amount Available for Grants.--The 
total amount available for grants under this section, including renewal 
grants under subsection (f), in any fiscal year may not exceed the 
amount equal to five percent of the amount authorized to be 
appropriated by section 1024(a) for that fiscal year.
  ``(i) Priority in Awarding Initial Grants.--In awarding initial 
grants under this section, priority shall be given to a coalition that 
expressly proposes to provide mentorship to a coalition or aspiring 
coalition serving economically disadvantaged areas.''.

SEC. 3. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DRUG-FREE 
                    COMMUNITIES.

  Section 1048 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 
U.S.C. 1548) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2007''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR NATIONAL COMMUNITY ANTIDRUG COALITION 
                    INSTITUTE.

  (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy may, using amounts authorized to be appropriated by subsection 
(d), make a grant to an eligible organization to provide for the 
establishment of a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.
  (b) Eligible Organizations.--An organization eligible for the grant 
under subsection (a) is any national nonprofit organization that 
represents, provides technical assistance and training to, and has 
special expertise and broad, national-level experience in community 
antidrug coalitions under section 1032 of the National Narcotics 
Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1532).
  (c) Use of Grant Amount.--The organization receiving the grant under 
subsection (a) shall establish a National Community Antidrug Coalition 
Institute to--
          (1) provide education, training, and technical assistance for 
        coalition leaders and community teams, with emphasis on the 
        development of coalitions serving economically disadvantaged 
        areas;
          (2) develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and 
        measures to better assess and document coalition performance 
        measures and outcomes; and
          (3) bridge the gap between research and practice by 
        translating knowledge from research into practical information.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for purposes of activities under this section, including 
the grant under subsection (a), amounts as follows:
          (1) For each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, $2,000,000.
          (2) For each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, $1,000,000.
          (3) For each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, $750,000.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATION OF EFFORT.

  The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall 
ensure that the same or similar activities are not carried out, through 
the use of funds for administrative costs provided under subchapter II 
of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et 
seq.) or funds provided under section 4 of this Act, by more than one 
recipient of such funds.

                         I. Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of the ``Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997'' 
(21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1521 et seq.) (``DFCA'') is to establish a 
program to support and encourage local communities that first 
demonstrate a comprehensive, long-term commitment to reduce 
substance abuse among youth. The DFCA did this primarily by 
authorizing grants of up to $100,000 to local community 
coalitions to assist them in their anti-drug efforts. H.R. 2291 
would expand that program and reauthorize it for an additional 
five years (through fiscal year 2007). The reauthorizing 
legislation includes provisions that would (1) annually 
increase the total funds authorized for the program from 
$50,600,000 in fiscal year 2002 to $99,000,000 in fiscal year 
2007; (2) increase the percentage of the total funds authorized 
available for administrative costs from the 3 percent allowed 
under current law to 6 percent; (3) instruct the Director of 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to take 
steps to ensure that there is no bureaucratic duplication of 
effort among the various entities charged with administering 
the program and assisting coalitions; (4) allow coalitions to 
re-apply for grants even after five years, but only with an 
increased matching requirement; (5) create a new class of 
grants that help mature coalitions ``mentor'' newly-formed 
coalitions; (6) instruct the Director to give priority for all 
grants to coalitions that propose to assist economically 
disadvantaged communities; (7) help coalitions serving Native 
American communities to meet their private fundraising 
``matching requirement'' under existing law by allowing them to 
count Federal funds allocated to tribal government agencies as 
non-Federal funds raised; and (8) establish a National 
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.

                        II. Need for Legislation

    Drug use among the nation's youth is a substantial and 
continuing problem. After achieving significant declines in 
teen drug use in the 1980's, the United States began to lose 
ground in the 1990's. According to the 2000 Monitoring the 
Future Study, from 1992 to 1996 past-month use of any illicit 
drug rose from 14.4 percent to 24.6 percent for twelfth 
graders; 11.0 percent to 23.2 percent for tenth graders; and 
6.8 percent to 14.6 percent for eighth graders. The National 
Household Survey on Drug Abuse, conducted by the Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 
reported that between 1994 and 1996, LSD and hallucinogen use 
increased by 183 percent and cocaine use increased by 166 
percent.
    The rise in drug use reflected a growing level of ignorance 
about the risks and consequences of illegal drug use. For 
example, disapproval of marijuana use and perception of the 
risks associated with that drug weakened significantly during 
that same period among eighth graders, corresponding (not 
surprisingly) with an increase in marijuana use among eighth 
graders (from approximately 3 percent to approximately 11 
percent). (Source: 2000 Monitoring the Future Study.) 
Perception of the risks of LSD, powder cocaine and crack 
cocaine had similarly declined. These two trends (growing 
ignorance of the dangers of drug abuse, and growing drug abuse 
among youth) suggested a looming national crisis.
    Congress responded to this threat by passing, among other 
legislation, the Drug Free Communities Act of 1997 (``DFCA''), 
an amendment to the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988. 
DFCA sought to strengthen what has proven to be one of the most 
effective demand-side weapons in the fight against teen drug 
use: local community anti-drug coalitions. These coalitions 
bring individuals and institutions together to pool their 
knowledge, experience and resources in the struggle against 
illegal drug use in their local communities. As locally-based 
organizations, these coalitions are uniquely well-situated to 
deal with the special problems of their communities.
    DFCA established a program of direct grants to community 
organizations demonstrating a comprehensive, long-term 
commitment to reduce substance abuse among youth. The DFCA 
program was intended, among other things, to strengthen 
collaboration among communities, the federal government, and 
state, local and tribal governments, to serve as a catalyst for 
increased citizen participation in community anti-drug efforts, 
and to rechannel federal anti-drug resources and information to 
local communities.
    At the heart of the DFCA are grants to ``coalitions,'' 
which are broad-based groups consisting of representatives of 
youth, parents, businesses, the media, law 
enforcement,religious or other civic groups, health care professionals, 
and others that seek to reduce drug addiction in their communities, 
especially among the young. The coalitions are required to submit 
detailed applications for grants, describing their commitment to anti-
drug efforts, their long-term strategy for combating drug addiction, 
and their ability to sustain and account for their efforts. The grants 
are limited to $100,000 per year, and are subject to a matching 
requirement (under which the coalition must match each Federal grant 
dollar with a dollar raised from non-Federal sources). Coalitions from 
rural areas may be excused from meeting all of the DECA's program 
requirements. Under existing law, a coalition receiving a grant is 
entitled to apply for renewal grants for four years after its initial 
award.
    The program has been a resounding success, and is one of 
the cornerstones of our nation's narcotics demand-reduction 
efforts. The ``Findings'' section of H.R. 2291 (Section 1(a)) 
gives only a few examples of the successes of the local 
coalitions assisted by DFCA. According to ONDCP, there are now 
307 coalitions receiving grants under DFCA, with an additional 
144 new awards projected for fiscal year 2001. Though it is 
difficult precisely to quantify the effect these local 
coalitions have had on the nation's drug problem, there is no 
doubt but that the steep increases in drug abuse among the 
young have leveled off since 1997. (Source: 2000 Monitoring the 
Future Study.)
    Nevertheless, significant work remains to be done. The 
National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE) 
survey of high school seniors for the 2000-2001 school year 
shows that 2 out of every 5 seniors used an illegal drug in the 
past year. The PRIDE shows that parental involvement (one key 
strategy promoted by DFCA) has a tremendous impact on the rate 
of youth drug abuse. Students are nearly twice as likely to use 
drugs if their parents do not talk to them about drugs, and 
students whose parents set clear rules about family standards 
are more than 50 percent less likely to use drugs than those 
who do not. The reauthorization of DFCA is critical to the 
nation's continuing efforts to reduce drug abuse.

             III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Action

A. Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources held a hearing on June 28, 2001, at which Congressman 
Rob Portman and Congressman Sander Levin testified as sponsors 
of the bill. Dr. Donald M. Vereen, Jr., Deputy Director of the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy, Mr. John J. Wilson, 
Acting Director of the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention at the U.S. Department of Justice, 
General Arthur T. Dean (retired), Chairman and CEO of Community 
Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Judge Michael Kramer of the 
Noble County, Indiana, Superior Court and Chair of Drug-Free 
Noble County, and Mr. Lawrence Couch, Program Manager of the 
Montgomery County Partnership, Maryland, also testified in 
support of the bill.
    Subcommittee Chairman Mark E. Souder began the hearing with 
a statement in strong support of the bill, and taking note of 
the many successes made possible by the original Drug-Free 
Communities Act. Chairman Souder also expressed his concerns, 
however, with the bill's increase in the administrative 
expenses cap and the risk of duplication of effort between the 
many entities entrusted under the bill with monitoring, 
evaluating, and providing training and technical assistance to 
anti-drug coalitions. The ranking Minority member of the 
subcommittee, Elijah E. Cummings, expressed his support for the 
bill and especially for its support of the efforts of 
established coalitions to provide assistance to new coalitions. 
Mr. Cummings also expressed his concern that DFCA funds be 
targeted towards economically disadvantaged communities. The 
Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee, Benjamin A. Gilman, made a 
statement praising the DFCA program as a major component of our 
national demand reduction strategy.
    Congressman Portman summarized the goals of the DFCA 
program and its successes since original enactment. He noted 
that reauthorization of the DFCA was one of the centerpieces of 
President George W. Bush's anti-drug strategy, and that the 
bill is a priority for the Administration. Mr. Portman remarked 
on the vital role played by the faith community in the program, 
and expressed his support for the bill's creation of a National 
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute. Mr. Portman also stated 
his support for the bill's increase in the administrative 
expenses cap, while acknowledging that a central goal of the 
original legislation was to limit the number of dollars being 
spent on administrative overhead.
    Congressman Sander Levin discussed the history of the DFCA, 
explaining how it had been enacted to deal with the nation's 
crippling drug problem. Mr. Levin expressed his support for the 
bill's authorization of grants to support the mentoring of new 
coalitions by established ones, and for the proposed Institute. 
Mr. Levin noted that demand for grants under the DFCA has risen 
tremendously since the program's inception.
    Dr. Vereen testified to the successes of the DFCA program 
and to the need for increasing the administrative expenses cap. 
Mr. Wilson described OJJDP's administration of most aspects of 
the program, and also testified as to the need for the increase 
in the cap. Both also provided testimony in response to 
questions from the Subcommittee concerning the size of the 
administrative expenses cap and the risk of duplication of 
administrative tasks.
    Mr. Dean expressed his support for the reauthorization of 
the DFCA, and in particular for the creation of the proposed 
Institute. Judge Kramer and Mr. Couch also expressed their 
support for the legislation, and described their experiences as 
leaders of DFCA coalitions.

B. Committee Action

    The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources favorably referred An Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute to the bill, as amended, by voice vote on July 24, 
2001, to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
    On July 25, 2001, a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight favorably reported An Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2291, as amended, by 
voice vote.
            Committee on Government Reform and Oversight--107th 
                    Congress Rollcall
    Date: July 25, 2001.
    Amendment No. 1.
    Description: Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to 
H.R. 2291.
    Offered by: Hon. Dan Burton (IN).
    Adopted by: Voice Vote.
    Date: July 25, 2001.
    Amendment No. 2.
    Description: Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute to H.R. 2291, page 11, strike lines 2 through 4 and 
insert the following: ``(8) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; 
(9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and (10) $99,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2007.''
    Offered by: Hon. Danny K. Davis (IL).
    Adopted by: Voice Vote.
    Date: July 25, 2001.
    Motion to favorably report H.R. 2291, as amended.
    Offered by: Hon. Dan Burton (IN).
    Adopted by Voice Vote.

                         IV. Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1), and rule X, clause 
2(b)(1) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee presents the following oversight findings from its 
own investigation. During the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee 
on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources held a 
hearing on June 28, 2001 concerning H.R. 2291. Witnesses at the 
hearing testified as to the need for the legislation and its 
provisions, as well as the past administration of the DFCA 
program. The results and findings from Committee oversight 
activities are incorporated in the bill and this report.

                         V. Explanation of Bill

    The Committee provides the following description of the 
proposed legislation and an explanation of the Committee's 
actions. Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, it includes a description of its 
general performance goals and objectives, as well as outcome-
related goals and objectives.

A. Findings (Sec. 1(a))

    The bill's findings are outlined clearly. They demonstrate 
(1) the pressing need for further demand-reduction efforts, 
particularly among our nation's youth, and (2) the record of 
success and prospects for future progress offered by local 
community anti-drug coalitions.

B. Extension and Increase of Program (Sec. 1(b))

    The reauthorization of DFCA is critical to the nation's 
continuing efforts to reduce drug abuse. Moreover, to ensure 
that enough funds are available to assist the rapidly growing 
number of coalitions emerging throughout the country, 
increasing the funds authorized for the program is essential. 
Thus, H.R. 2291 (as amended) would reauthorize DFCA for 5 years 
(through fiscal year 2002), and gradually increase the funds 
authorized, up to $99,000,000 in the final year (fiscal year 
2007).
    Concerns were raised concerning the size of these 
increases. The Committee believes that these concerns are well-
founded, particularly since they could threaten the 
availability of funds for other pressing national priorities. 
In addition, there are legitimate questions about just how many 
coalitions capable of properly using these funds currently 
exist, or are likely to exist over the next five fiscal years. 
It is certainly the case that over the past four years this 
program has expanded rapidly, and the demand for grant funding 
should continue to grow. For the past 3 years, grants have been 
made to only about 40 percent of the applicant pool, with no 
degradation from one year to the next. Such significant 
increases in the amounts authorized for the program, however, 
may well outstrip the number of coalitions ready and able to 
provide the level and quality of services expected in the 
program. It is the intention of the Committee that ONDCP 
carefully monitor the grant criteria and administration to 
ensure that there is no relaxation of them for DFCA grants. The 
Committee also emphasizes that only the amounts authorized have 
been increased. During the annual appropriations process, 
Congress, in consultation with the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy (ONDCP), should take care to ensure that only 
those amounts are appropriated as can be awarded to coalitions 
that fully meet all applicable criteria.
    Some concern were expressed to the Committee that special 
language should be included regarding the eligibility of 
statewide anti-drug coalitions for a DFCA grant. After 
reviewing the legislation and the legislative history, it is 
the belief both of the bill's sponsors in the House of 
Representatives and the Senate and of the Committee that no 
special language would be necessary. The purpose of a DFCA 
grant is to support the growth of eligible coalitions, no 
matter what their size. Therefore, where a statewide coalition 
meets all of the other eligibility requirements outlined by the 
legislation, it should be able to compete on equal footing with 
other coalitions for a grant.
    Pursuant to a directive of the ONDCP program Administrator, 
the maximum amount that a coalition can receive under a renewal 
grant was reduced from $100,000 to $75,000 for years 3, 4, and 
5 of this program. While neither the bill's sponsors in the 
House of Representatives and the Senate nor the Committee are 
convinced of the necessity of this reduction, they do believe 
that the Administrator, when acting with the clear advice and 
understanding of the Advisory Commission, has the authority to 
make such changes. However, the Committee believes it is 
essential that all coalitions receive adequate notice well in 
advance of any future changes in the eligibility amounts, as 
coalition fund-raising strategies may be affected by changes to 
the program.

C. Extension of limitation on administrative costs

    Reflecting the intent of Congress to minimize the amount of 
money spent on bureaucratic overhead instead of grants to local 
anti-drug coalitions, administrative costs have been subject to 
a decreasing percentage cap since 1998 (reflecting the 
increasing levels of overall funding): 10 percent of fund 
authorized in fiscal year 1998 (meaning $1,000,000 was 
available for administrative costs), 6 percent in fiscal year 
1999 ($1,200,000), 4 percent in fiscal year 2000 ($1,200,000), 
and 3 percent in fiscal year 2001 ($1,200,000). The 3 percent 
cap would remain in effect under existing law for fiscal year 
2002 ($1,305,000).
    As amended, H.R. 2291 will raise the administrative costs 
cap to 6 percent of funds authorized for fiscal years 2002 
through 2006. ONDCP requested, and the original version of the 
bill provided, a cap of 8 percent. (See the further discussion 
of this issue below.) The Committee carefully analyzed the 
information provided to it by ONDCP in determining an 
appropriate administrative costs cap.
    ONDCP identified five sources of administrative costs 
associated with DFCA which it believes should be paid for with 
DFCA funds:
    1. Grants management by the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), a division of the Department of 
Justice.
    2. Peer review of grant applications, and marketing and 
publicity of the DFCA program, all of which are undertaken by a 
private firm called Aspen Systems Corporation.
    3. Technical assistance and training to grantees, 
undertaken by the six regional Centers for Application of 
Prevention Technologies (CAPTs), which are administered by the 
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (a division of the 
Department of Health and Human Services).
    4. Independent evaluation of the DFCA program, undertaken 
by another private firm, Caliber Associates.
    5. Salary and costs of ONDCP's DFCA Administrator and the 
Advisory Commission established by DFCA.
    Each of these is analyzed below.
            1. Grants management by OJJDP
    Section 1031(b) of the DFCA directs ONDCP to ``(1) make and 
track grants to grant recipients; (2) provide for the technical 
assistance and training, data collection, and dissemination of 
information on state-of-the-art practices that the Director 
determines to be effective in reducing substance abuse; and (3) 
provide for the general administration of the program.'' 
Pursuant to an Interagency Agreement, ONDCP has delegated most 
of the tasks of administering the DFCA program to the Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, a division of the 
Department of Justice, which has the personnel and experience 
necessary to carry them out.
    According to an Administrative Cost Study (the ``Study''), 
first submitted by ONDCP to the Appropriations Committee of the 
United States Senate on January 18, 2001 and subsequently 
provided to this Committee, OJJDP administers the DFCA program 
through its Special Emphasis Division (SED). SED has assigned 9 
staff members to work full-time on the DFCA program. Seven of 
these staffers are program managers, who are responsible for 
monitoring and administering the grants program, and two are 
administrative support staff.
    During the hearing held by the Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources concerning this bill, 
representatives of ONDCP and OJJDP testified to the need for 
more program managers to handle the growing number of grants. 
According to OJJDP, currently each program manager is 
responsible for an average of 44 grants. That number will rise 
as the number of grants rises; thus the Committee recognizes 
that there is a need to hire more program managers if the 
administration of the program is not to suffer. OJJDP has 
stated that ideally each program manager would be responsible 
for only 26 grants, as this is the amount reportedly used in 
many other grant programs.
    In an effort to determine how many program managers would 
be required, the Committee asked ONDCP and OJJDP to identify 
the activities carried out by these staffers, and how much time 
they spend on them. In their joint written response, ONDCP and 
OJJDP identified the following three principal activities: (1) 
administering the grant application process, which according to 
ONDCP and OJJDP occupies virtually all of the program managers' 
time from May through November each year; (2) bi-monthly 
telephone contacts with grantees, which require, on average, 
one hour per grantee per month; and (3) conducting on-site 
visits, one per grantee per year, each visit taking an average 
of 2 days. Assuming that May through November of each year are 
indeed completely taken up by the grant application process, 
five months are left in which to carry out the other two 
principal activities. The following chart shows the demands 
made on a program manager's time during those 5 months at 
various grants-per-program manager levels, assuming an 8-hour 
working day:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Days spent on telephone
     Grants per manager                contacts            Days spent on site visits     Total days per month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       44                          5.5                        17.6                        23.1
                       42                          5.3                        16.8                        22.1
                       40                          5.0                        16.0                        21.0
                       38                          4.8                        15.2                        20.0
                       36                          4.5                        14.4                        18.9
                       34                          4.3                        13.6                        17.9
                       32                          4.0                        12.8                        16.8
                       30                          3.8                        12.0                        15.8
                       28                          3.5                        11.2                        14.7
                       26                          3.3                        10.4                        13.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are slightly less than 22 working days per month, on 
average. Thus, a ratio in the range of 38 to 40 grants per 
program manager would appear to be adequate. While a ratio 
approaching 26 grants per manager (as requested by OJJDP) would 
certainly allow for a great deal of flexibility in the schedule 
of each program manager, as well as the potential for greater 
individual attention to each grantee, it must be remembered 
that the DFCA program was envisioned as involving very low 
administrative and bureaucratic overhead--lower than that of 
the typical Federal grant program. The Committee believes that 
to keep those administrative costs low, only such staff as 
necessary should be added.
    According to OJJDP, the cost of adding each new 
professional staffer is $100,000. Set forth below is a chart 
showing what the cost would be per year to keep the grants-to-
program manager ratio at its current level of 44, to reduce it 
to 40, and to reduce it still further to 38. (Each grant is 
assumed to be $100,000, which is the assumption used by OJJDP 
in the calculations provided to the Committee and its staff.) 
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Note that this chart overstates the number of program managers 
required, since it does not subtract administrative expenses from the 
total funds available for grants. For example, in fiscal year 2002, the 
actual number of grants which OJJDP would have to manage would be less 
than 500 once administrative costs were subtracted from the $50,600,000 
authorized for DFCA.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Total                      Staffers             Total cost (millions)
                 FY                      funds     Total  ------------------------------------------------------
                                      (millions)   grants     44       40       38       44       40        38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002................................      $50.6       506       12       13       13     $1.2      $1.3     $1.3
2003................................       60         600       14       15       16      1.4       1.5      1.6
2004................................       70         700       16       18       18      1.6       1.8      1.8
2005................................       80         800       18       20       21      1.8       2        2.1
2006................................       90         900       21       23       24      2.1       2.3      2.4
2007................................       99         990       23       25       26      2.3       2.5      2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            2. Peer review of grant applications, and marketing and 
                    publicity of the DFCA program, by Aspen Systems 
                    Corporation
    According to the written responses provided to the 
Committee, OJJDP has contracted with Aspen Systems Corporation 
to provide 3 services: (1) a ``peer review'' of grant 
applicants as part of the application process; (2) development 
of publications on the DFCA program; and (3) website support 
and information dissemination activities. From 1998 through 
2000, OJJDP reports paying $289,000 per year to Aspen for these 
services. According to OJJDP, it plans to pay Aspen $325,000 in 
2002. While OJJDP did not state precisely how much it planned 
to pay Aspen in the years after 2002, it predicted 
``proportional growth'' as the number of grants increased.
    Assuming proportional growth (to match the growth in total 
funds for DFCA), the Committee projects the approximate growth 
of this cost as follows:

2002..........................................................  $325,000
2003..........................................................   385,000
2004..........................................................   447,000
2005..........................................................   510,000
2006..........................................................   574,000
2007..........................................................   631,000
            3. Technical assistance and training provided by the CAPTs
    OJJDP reports that it has agreed with CSAP that the CAPTs 
will (1) provide to each DFCA grantee 8 hours of technical 
assistance upon request, (2) allow grantees to attend regional 
training conferences registration-free, (3) provide a Drug-Free 
Communities Grantee Workshop (at which an overview of the 
CAPTs' research and training is presented), and (4) provide 
training to potential applicants and/or unsuccessful applicants 
for DFCA grants to assist them with the application process.
    OJJDP informed Committee staff that it costs approximately 
$1,000 per grantee to provide these services. Subsequently, 
OJJDP stated that the $1,000 figure was arrived at simply by 
dividing the $350,000 it paid to CSAP by the total number of 
grantees (307). It is therefore not clear how much the total 
cost will grow as the number of grantees grows, since the cost 
of some of the services provided by the CAPTs (such as the 
Workshop and the conferences) may not vary significantly with 
the number of participants.
    However, using the $1,000 figure per grantee produces the 
following rough estimate of the future costs: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ As was the case with the number of program managers, this 
estimate overstates the amount required, since administrative costs 
have not yet been subtracted from the total funds available for grants; 
also, 5 percent of the total funds would be spent on mentoring grants, 
which would not carry with them the requirement for additional CAPTs 
training.

2002..........................................................  $506,000
2003..........................................................   600,000
2004..........................................................   700,000
2005..........................................................   800,000
2006..........................................................   900,000
2007..........................................................   990,000
            4. Independent evaluation by Caliber Associates
    According to ONDCP, the independent evaluation is designed 
to measure: ``(1) The impact of coalition efforts on community 
capacity for prevention service delivery and (2) the degree to 
which coalition efforts result in a strengthened community 
response to alcohol, tobacco, and other drug problems.'' It is 
a 5-year study. ONDCP spent $600,000 from 1998 to 2000 on this 
evaluation, and plans to spend the same amount in 2001. It 
proposes, however, to increase the funding for it by $50,000 
increments, up to a maximum of $750,000.
    Due to the difficulties involved in quantifying the 
``results'' of the DFCA program and the problems entailed in 
comparing the effectiveness of coalitions in widely varying 
local circumstances, the evaluation does not attempt to 
determine whether individual coalitions have been effective. 
Indeed, since so many variables are involved in attempting to 
quantify both the nation's drug problem and efforts to deal 
with it, the independent evaluation cannot reasonably be 
expected to provide a comprehensive, quantifiable analysis of 
the results of the program as a whole. Instead, the independent 
evaluation is designed principally to attempt to identify 
coalition activities that have proven effective. The evaluation 
thus relies primarily on analyzing the activities of a 
representative sample of the coalitions, rather than analyzing 
in detail the activities of all of the coalitions.
    The Committee acknowledges the difficulties inherent in 
evaluating a program like the DFCA program. Under the 
circumstances, the Caliber Associates evaluation is probably 
the best possible evaluation that can be achieved, particularly 
given the intent of Congress to minimize the administrative 
costs of the program. Because of these inherent difficulties, 
however, the Committee does not believe that increasing the 
funding of the evaluation or attempting to expand it would be 
likely to be very fruitful. Since the evaluation relies 
primarily on a representative sample for its most significant 
findings, there is little need for increased funding, even as 
the number of grantees grows. Indeed, if the evaluation really 
had to be increased to match the growing number of grants, it 
would have to rise by more than $150,000 over the next 5 fiscal 
years. Thus, the Committee believes that the current funding 
level of $600,000 per year is sufficient.
            5. Salary and costs of ONDCP Administrator and Advisory 
                    Commission
    In accordance with the statute, ONDCP has assigned a 
program Administrator to oversee the DFCA program. The DFCA 
also established an Advisory Commission, consisting of 
representatives (appointed by the President) of the public, of 
non-profit organizations, and state agencies with experience in 
substance abuse prevention. The Advisory Commission makes 
recommendations to ONDCP regarding the DFCA program, and may 
collect information on substance abuse prevention and make that 
information available to eligible coalitions and the general 
public through publications and workshops or conferences.
    ONDCP has spent $200,000 per year to pay the salary and 
expenses of the DFCA Administrator and the Advisory Commission 
established by the statute. ONDCP has informed the Committee 
that it will not need to increase that figure through 2007.
            6. Other administrative costs
    The Committee asked ONDCP and OJJDP to describe any 
additional costs that they believed should be paid for out of 
the amounts authorized for administrative costs. In its written 
response, these agencies did not identify any such additional 
costs. Subsequently the Committee's staff was informed (1) that 
travel costs had not been included in previous cost forecasts, 
and (2) that additional administrative staff would need to be 
added at OJJDP (beyond the additional program managers). The 
Committee has not received sufficient documentation of these 
costs to be able to quantify or evaluate them.
            7. Total administrative costs
    Adding up all of the costs identified by ONDCP and OJJDP, 
and holding the funding of the Caliber Associates evaluation 
constant at $600,000, the following would be the approximate 
total administrative costs per year and the percentage of the 
total funding, if the grants per program manager were held 
constant at 44, or were reduced to 40 or 38: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ This chart reflects both the reduction in the number of total 
grants due to the subtraction of administrative costs, and the fact 
that 5 percent of the grants will be mentoring grants which are set at 
$75,000 instead of $100,000.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    44 grants per         40 grants per         38 grants per
                                                   program manager       program manager       program manager
                  Fiscal year                  -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    In                    In                    In
                                                 millions   Percent    millions   Percent    millions   Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002..........................................      $2.69        5.3      $2.80        5.5      $2.86        5.7
2003..........................................       3.05        5.1       3.18        5.3       3.25        5.4
2004..........................................       3.43        4.9       3.58        5.1       3.66        5.2
2005..........................................       3.80        4.8       3.98        5.0       4.07        5.1
2006..........................................       4.18        4.6       4.38        4.9       4.49        5.0
2007..........................................       4.52        4.6       4.74        4.8       4.86        4.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preceding chart indicates that the total administrative 
costs will fall as a percentage of the total funds authorized 
from 2002 through 2007. Moreover, it indicates that the 6 
percent administrative cost cap permitted by the amended bill 
should be morethan sufficient to allow ONDCP and OJJDP to 
reduce the grants-per-program manager ratio by a significant amount. 
The Committee acknowledges that the preceding estimates, being limited 
to those costs for which sufficient information and documentation were 
provided, may not include every possible administrative cost of the 
program. However, the creation of new entities to assist coalitions 
also strongly suggests that some cost reduction reasonably may be 
expected within the delineated categories. Even at the 38 grants-per-
manager level, the authorized administrative cost limit will still 
leave additional funds to meet other needs. It is no doubt the case 
that choices will have to be made about where to allocate these 
administrative resources. In the view of the Committee, however, that 
was part of Congress' original intent in establishing an administrative 
cost cap: to control the growth of the bureaucracy and to ensure that 
the maximum number of dollars goes to the local coalitions.
            8. Additional views concerning the administrative expenses 
                    cap
    As acknowledged above, there was a dispute about the 
appropriate level for the cap on administrative expenses for 
the DFCA program. Both the House and Senate bills set the level 
at 8 percent, which was the level requested by both the Clinton 
and Bush Administrations. The bill's sponsors on both the House 
and Senate side have expressed concern that cutting the 
administrative costs to 6 percent would jeopardize the 
administration of the program. The Committee agrees that 
continued review of the proper level to be authorized for 
administrative expenses of this program is warranted, and will 
monitor this issue next year after the changes made by this 
legislation are put in place. The Committee acknowledges that, 
even at 8 percent, the administrative costs would still be 
lower than those for other Department of Justice programs 
including the At-Risk Children program (10 percent) and the 
Drug Court program (up to 15 percent for training and technical 
assistance alone).

C. Additional grants (Sec. 1(d))

    Under the original DFCA, after being awarded an initial 
grant, a local coalition was entitled to reapply for a renewal 
grant for four additional years. No provision was made for 
additional aid after that point. This reflected in part 
Congress' intention that Federal aid to local coalitions would 
only be temporary, enabling the coalitions to establish 
themselves and begin their anti-drug efforts, but not to become 
permanently dependent on Federal funding. The Committee 
continues to support that goal. Representatives of many of the 
coalitions, however, informed the Committee and the bill's 
sponsors on both the House and Senate side that an abrupt 
cessation of Federal assistance would cause many of these 
coalitions to halt their activities. After five years, many of 
these coalitions (being primarily voluntary organizations) have 
only just begun to make a difference in their communities. A 
limit of 5 years, while certainly supportive of the goal of 
financial independence, may have the additional and unintended 
effect of withdrawing assistance from some coalitions just as 
they are starting to become effective.
    The reauthorizing legislation therefore allows for a second 
five-year period of Federal funding, but only with certain 
restrictions. First, ONDCP may not accord any priority during 
the application process to a coalition because of its status as 
a previous grantee; that coalition must compete with all other 
applicants on an equal footing. Second, any renewal grants are 
subject to an increased matching requirement, under which the 
coalition must raise $1.25 in non-Federal funds for every 
dollar of DFCA funds it receives for the first two renewal 
grants, and approximately $1.33 in non-Federal funds for every 
DFCA dollar for the last two renewal grants.

D. Data collection and dissemination (Sec. 1(e))

    This subsection directs the program Administrator to carry 
out data collection and dissemination activities under Section 
1033(b) of the DFCA in consultation with the Advisory 
Commission and the National Community Antidrug Coalition 
Institute created by this legislation. This provision is 
intended to ensure that the resources and experience of the 
Advisory Commission and the new Institute are fully utilized 
for these important activities.

E. Limitation on use of certain funds for evaluation of program (Sec. 
        1(f))

    This provision codifies Congress' original understanding 
that the cost of any program evaluation is an administrative 
expense subject to the limitation on administrative expenses. 
Indeed, as two committees of the United States informed ONDCP, 
the cost of evaluation, technical assistance and training are 
considered to be administrative costs subject to the cap. (See 
Administrative Cost Study, submitted by ONDCP to the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, January 18, 2001, page 8.)

F. Treatment of funds for coalitions representing certain organizations 
        (Sec. 1(g))

    This provision remedies a problem that had arisen under the 
previous statute in the treatment of coalitions that serve 
Indian tribes and include representatives of tribal government 
agencies (as specifically allowed by the DFCA). The Committee 
was informed that it is frequently more difficult for 
coalitions serving Indian tribes to raise non-Federal funds to 
meet the matching requirement under Section 1032 of the DFCA. 
These coalitions typically receive Federal funds (other than 
DFCA funds) instead of State government funds for anti-drug 
activities, putting those coalitions at a comparative 
disadvantage to coalitions with greater access to State and 
local government funds.
    ONDCP informed the Committee that pursuant to Federal 
Indian law, ONDCP has the authority to waive or modify the 
matching requirement for tribes that are Federally recognized 
and enjoy a government-to-government relationship with the 
United States. However, this authority would not extend to non-
Federally recognized tribes.
    This provision therefore enables any coalition including a 
representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian 
Health Service, or a tribal government agency withexpertise in 
the field of substance abuse prevention, to count any funds it receives 
from any source, including Federal sources (other than the DFCA program 
itself), as non-Federal funds for purposes of the matching requirement. 
This subsection removes the barrier to receiving DFCA funds and 
eliminates any disparity in the treatment of coalitions serving 
Federally-recognized and non-Federally recognized tribes.

G. Priority in awarding grants (Sec. 1(h))

    Several members of the Committee expressed their concern 
that coalitions serving economically disadvantaged communities 
might face added difficulties in obtaining grants under the 
DFCA. Since these coalitions may lack the same resources 
available to coalitions from more prosperous communities, their 
applications may not seem as well supported as those of other 
coalitions. This provision seeks to remedy this imbalance, by 
directing those evaluating grant applications to give priority 
to coalitions serving economically disadvantaged communities. 
This subsection should not be read, however, to mean that any 
coalition (whether serving an economically disadvantaged 
community or not) should be excused from the minimum criteria 
and standards necessary to receive a grant. It is not the 
Committee's intent that this provision eliminate those criteria 
and standards. Rather, the Committee intends that among those 
coalitions meeting those minimum criteria and standards, 
priority is to be given to the ones that serve our nation's 
neediest areas.

H. Supplemental grants for coalition mentoring activities (Sec. 2)

    A number of established coalitions with proven histories of 
success have expressed an interest in mentoring new and/or 
struggling coalitions, particularly in neighboring communities. 
Rather than creating a new and separate grant program, the bill 
will authorize certain coalitions to apply for a supplemental 
grant of up to $75,000. Up to 5 percent of the total funds 
authorized under DFCA may be used for these grants. This 
coalition mentoring grant program capitalizes on the idea, 
which underpins the entire DFCA, that local communities, rather 
than the Federal government, often know how best to address 
challenges in those communities. The Committee expects that as 
a result of these mentoring grants, new coalitions can have the 
benefit of local insights and common experiences when 
addressing similar problems.
    Section 2 of H.R. 2291, as amended, imposes a number of 
conditions on the receipt of these grants, including 
requirements that a grantee have been in existence for at least 
5 years, and that it have achieved demonstrable results in the 
prevention and treatment of substance abuse among youth. 
Renewal grants are allowed. A non-Federal funds matching 
requirement identical to that applying to general grants is 
imposed, but with an exception for coalitions serving Indian 
tribes (identical to that described in part II.F above). There 
is no requirement that the non-Federal funds have been raised 
specifically for mentoring purposes; rather, funds raised for 
any anti-substance abuse activities may be counted against the 
matching requirement.
    To ensure that coalitions are given an appropriate 
incentive to mentor coalitions serving those most in need, 
priority in awarding these grants is to be given to coalitions 
expressly proposing to mentor coalitions or aspiring coalitions 
serving economically disadvantaged areas.

I. Five-year extension of advisory commission on drug-free communities 
        (Sec. 3)

    The Advisory Commission is reauthorized for an additional 5 
years.

J. Authorization for national community anti-drug coalition institute 
        (Sec. 4)

    In response to a perceived need on the part of many grant 
recipients for greater guidance and information in carrying out 
their anti-substance abuse activities, the bill's drafters in 
both the House of Representatives and the Senate looked for 
ways effectively to provide that guidance and information. The 
end result of those efforts is the bill's authorization of a 
National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute. The Institute 
is intended to (1) provide education, training, and technical 
assistance for coalition leaders and community teams; (2) 
develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and 
measures to better assess and document coalition performance 
measures and outcomes; and (3) bridge the gap between research 
and practice by translating knowledge from research into 
practical information. In response to concerns raised by 
several members, the Committee added language directing the 
Institute to place special emphasis on the development of 
coalitions serving economically disadvantaged areas.
    To help create the Institute, the bill authorizes a federal 
grant, to be awarded by ONDCP to a national organization that 
represents, provides technical assistance to and training to, 
and has special expertise and broad, national-level experience 
in working with DFCA coalitions. The Committee expects that 
ONDCP will ensure that a competitive process, in accordance 
with applicable Federal law, will be used to determine the 
ultimate recipient of that grant. Nevertheless, only one such 
organization, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America 
(CADCA), has communicated with the Committee regarding the 
legislation. Thus, the Committee received extensive information 
from CADCA concerning its views of possible future goals and 
activities of the Institute.
    The bill authorizes up to $2,000,000 in each of fiscal 
years 2002 and 2003 for the grant establishing the Institute. 
CADCA has expressed the view that it believes the Institute 
could expect to receive sufficient outside funding after 2003 
to enable it to achieve financial independence. Nevertheless, 
some provision should be made for financial assistance to the 
Institute (regardless of which organization ultimately receives 
the grant) from fiscal years 2004 through 2007, should 
insufficient non-Federal funding be available. The Committee 
believes that a cap on such assistance of $1,000,000 in fiscal 
years 2004 and 2005, and $750,000 in fiscal years 2006 and 
2007, will balance theneed for contingent financial assistance 
with the intent of the Committee that the Institute move quickly 
towards independence from Federal support.
    The Committee had some concerns with respect to the level 
of the initial grants in 2002 and 2003. CADCA submitted to the 
Committee its view of a proposed budget for the Institute 
which, while describing activities and expenditures that 
undoubtedly have great merit, suggests the risk of duplicating 
some tasks already being undertaken or commissioned by ONDCP 
and/or OJJDP. The Committee expects that the ultimate recipient 
of the Institute grants will take its own steps to ensure that 
such duplication of effort does not occur and that overall 
costs are minimized as much as possible.

K. Prohibition against duplication of effort (Sec. 5)

    The Committee is very concerned that the creation of the 
mentoring grants and the Institute, coupled with the raising of 
the administrative expenses cap, poses a significant danger of 
duplication of tasks among all the various entities providing 
monitoring, training and technical assistance, and/or 
evaluation services to DFCA grantees. Such duplication of tasks 
would be antithetical to one of the central purposes of the 
DFCA, namely to minimize the number of dollars spent on 
administrative overhead while maximizing the number of dollars 
directed to the coalitions themselves. This section instructs 
the Director of ONDCP to take affirmative steps to ensure that 
such duplication of effort does not occur.

                     VI. Section-by-Section Summary

SECTION 1. FIVE YEAR EXTENSION OF DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM

    The Drug-Free Communities Act program is reauthorized for 
five years, from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2007. The 
amounts authorized for the program are increased in fiscal year 
2002 (the last year of authorization under the current DFCA) to 
$50,600,000 in fiscal year 2002; thereafter $60,000,000 is 
authorized in fiscal year 2003, $70,000,000 in fiscal year 
2004, $80,000,000 in fiscal year 2005, $90,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2006, and $99,000,000 in fiscal year 2007. The limitation 
on administrative costs is extended through fiscal year 2007, 
but is raised for fiscal years 2002 through 2007 to 6 percent 
of the amounts authorized.
    Authority is given to the program Administrator to make 
additional grants to coalitions that already received an 
initial grant and 4 renewal grants. No priority is to be given 
these coalitions during the application process, however. 
Moreover, renewal grants for these additional grants are 
subject to a more stringent matching requirement, under which 
the renewal grant may be equal to no more than 80 percent of 
the total non-Federal funds raised by the coalition for the 
first two years after the initial grant, and 67 percent for the 
final two years. These grants remain capped at $100,000 per 
year.
    The program Administrator is directed to carry out data 
collection and dissemination activities under Section 1033(b) 
of the original DFCA in consultation with the Advisory 
Commission and the National Community Antidrug Coalition 
Institute established by Section 4 of this bill.
    This Section provides that amounts expended on a program 
evaluation are to be derived from the amounts authorized for 
administrative expenses only, and not from any other funds 
authorized by the DFCA.
    The non-Federal fundraising matching requirement is changed 
for coalitions serving Indian communities by allowing such 
coalitions to include Federal funds appropriated to them for 
substance abuse activities.
    This Section provides that priority in awarding DFCA grants 
is to be given to otherwise eligible coalitions that serve 
economically disadvantaged areas.

SECTION 2. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING ACTIVITIES UNDER 
                 DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM

    Section 2 authorizes the Administrator to award 
supplemental grants to coalitions already receiving DFCA 
grants, for the purpose of supporting the mentoring of new or 
emerging coalitions. The criteria for receiving such a grant 
are listed in Section 2(d). Renewal grants are permitted under 
certain conditions. The grants are limited to $75,000 per year, 
and the total amount of all such grants cannot exceed 5 percent 
of the funds authorized under the DFCA. Priority for the grants 
is given to coalitions expressly proposing to assist coalitions 
serving economically disadvantaged areas.

  SECTION 3. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DRUG-FREE 
                              COMMUNITIES

    The Advisory Commission is reauthorized through fiscal year 
2007.

  SECTION 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR NATIONAL COMMUNITY ANTI-DRUG COALITION 
                               INSTITUTE

    This Section authorizes the ONDCP Director to award a grant 
to a private, not-for-profit organization with substantial 
experience in working with community anti-drug coalitions for 
the purpose of establishing a National Community Anti-Drug 
Coalition Institute. The Institute's activities are outlined in 
subsection (c). Up to $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 
and 2003 is authorized for this grant. If necessary, up to 
$1,000,000 may be awarded to the Institute in each of fiscal 
years 2004 and 2005, and up to $750,000 in each of fiscal years 
2006 and 2007.

          SECTION 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATION OF EFFORT

    The Director of ONDCP is instructed to take steps to ensure 
no duplication of effort by entities receiving funds under the 
DFCA or under Section 4 of this bill.

                  VII. Statement of CBO Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee was provided the 
following estimate of the cost of H.R. 2291 prepared by the 
Congressional Budget Office.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2291, a bill to 
extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities Support 
Program for an additional 5 years, to authorize a National 
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute, and for other purposes.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                         Barry B. Anderson,
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2291--A bill to extend the authorization of the Drug-Free 
        Communities Support Program for an additional 5 years, to 
        authorize a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute, 
        and for other purposes

    Summary: H.R. 2291 would authorize the appropriation of 
$406 million over the 2002-2007 period to extend the Drug-Free 
Communities Support Program. In addition, the bill would 
authorize the appropriation of $7.5 million over the 2002-2007 
period to establish a National Community Antidrug Coalition 
Institute.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 2291 would cost $235 million 
over the 2002-2006 period, mostly for the Drug-Free Communities 
Support Program. This legislation would not affect direct 
spending or receipts so pay-as-you-go procedures would not 
apply.
    H.R. 2291 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
Any costs to state and local governments receiving grants under 
this bill would be incurred voluntarily.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2291 is shown in the following table. 
For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
authorized amounts will be appropriated by the start of each 
fiscal year and that spending would follow the historical 
spending rates for these or similar activities. The cost of 
this legislation falls within budget function 800 (general 
government).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                By fiscal year in millions of dollars--
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending under current law for the Drug-Free
 Communities Support Program:
    Authorization level\1\..........................        40        44         0         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................        31        39        30         9         0         0
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization level.............................         0         9        62        71        81        91
    Estimated outlays...............................         0         4        24        53        72        82
Spending under H.R. 2291 for the Drug-Free
 Communties Support Program and the National
 Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute:
    Authorization level\1\..........................        40        53        62        71        81        91
    Estimated outlays...............................        31        43        54        62        72        82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2001 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the Drug-Free Communities Support Program. The
  2002 level is the amount authorized to be appropriated in current law for that program.

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2291 
contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. Any 
costs of state and local governments receiving grants under 
this bill would be incurred voluntarily.
    Estimated prepared by: Federal costs: Mark Grabowicz; 
impact on State, local, and tribal governments: Susan Sieg 
Tompkins; impact on the the private sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director of Budget Analysis.

              VIII. Statement of Constitutional Authority

    Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that Congress is 
specifically granted the power to enact this law under Article 
I, Section 8, clause 1 under which Congress is granted the 
``Power To * * * provide for the * * * general Welfare of the 
United States[.]''

    IX. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b)

    As H.R. 2291 does not establish a new advisory committee 
within the meaning of Section 5(b) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, no statement under that section is necessary. 
The Committee refers interested parties to Section IX of Report 
105-105, dated May 20, 1997, which contains the Section 5(b) 
statement for the Advisory Commission created by the original 
DFCA.

        X. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

               NATIONAL NARCOTICS LEADERSHIP ACT OF 1988

             TITLE I--COORDINATION OF NATIONAL DRUG POLICY

               Subtitle A--National Drug Control Program

SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

  This subtitle may be cited as the ``National Narcotics 
Leadership Act of 1988''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   CHAPTER 2--DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 1024. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy to carry out this 
chapter--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; [and]
          [(5) $43,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.]
          (5) $50,600,000 for fiscal year 2002;
          (6) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
          (7) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
          (8) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
          (9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
          (10) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
  (b) Administrative Costs.--Not more than the following 
percentages of the amounts authorized under subsection (a) may 
be used to pay administrative costs:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(5) 3 percent for fiscal year 2002.]
          (5) 6 percent for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
        2007.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

         Subchapter I--Drug-Free Communities Support Program

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 1032. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Grant Amounts.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Additional grants.--
                  (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (F), 
                the Administrator may award an additional grant 
                under this paragraph to an eligible coalition 
                awarded a grant under paragraph (1) or (2) for 
                any first fiscal year after the end of the 4-
                year period following the period of the initial 
                grant under paragraph (1) or (2), as the case 
                may be.
                  (B) Scope of grants.--A coalition awarded a 
                grant under paragraph (1) or (2), including a 
                renewal grant under such paragraph, may not be 
                awarded another grant under such paragraph, and 
                is eligible for an additional grant under this 
                section only under this paragraph.
                  (C) No priority for applications.--The 
                Administrator may not afford a higher priority 
                in the award of an additional grant under this 
                paragraph than the Administrator would afford 
                the applicant for the grant if the applicant 
                were submitting an application for an initial 
                grant under paragraph (1) or (2) rather than an 
                application for a grant under this paragraph.
                  (D) Renewal grants.--Subject to subparagraph 
                (F), the Administrator may award a renewal 
                grant to a grant recipient under this paragraph 
                for each of the fiscal years of the 4-fiscal-
                year period following the fiscal year for which 
                the initial additional grant under subparagraph 
                (A) is awarded in an amount not to exceed 
                amounts as follows:
                          (i) For the first and second fiscal 
                        years of that 4-fiscal-year period, the 
                        amount equal to 80 percent of the non-
                        Federal funds, including in-kind 
                        contributions, raised by the coalition 
                        for the applicable fiscal year.
                          (ii) For the third and fourth fiscal 
                        years of that 4-fiscal-year period, the 
                        amount equal to 67 percent of the non-
                        Federal funds, including in-kind 
                        contributions, raised by the coalition 
                        for the applicable fiscal year.
                  (E) Suspension.--If a grant recipient under 
                this paragraph fails to continue to meet the 
                criteria specified in subsection (a), the 
                Administrator may suspend the grant, after 
                providing written notice to the grant recipient 
                and an opportunity to appeal.
                  (F) Limitation.--The amount of a grant award 
                under this paragraph may not exceed $100,000 
                for a fiscal year.
  (c) Treatment of Funds for Coalitions Representing Certain 
Organizations.--Funds appropriated for the substance abuse 
activities of a coalition that includes a representative of the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or a 
tribal government agency with expertise in the field of 
substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal funds raised by 
the coalition for purposes of this section.
  (d) Priority in Awarding Grants.--In awarding grants under 
subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), priority shall be given to a coalition 
serving economically disadvantaged areas.

SEC. 1033. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION WITH RESPECT TO 
                    GRANT RECIPIENTS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Data Collection and Dissemination.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Consultation.--The Administrator shall carry out 
        activities under this subsection in consultation with 
        the Advisory Commission and the National Community 
        Antidrug Coalition Institute.
          (4) Limitation on use of certain funds for evaluation 
        of program.--Amounts for activities under paragraph 
        (2)(B) may not be derived from amounts under section 
        1024(a) except for amounts that are available under 
        section 1024(b) for administrative costs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 1035. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING ACTIVITIES.

  (a) Authority To Make Grants.--As part of the program 
established under section 1031, the Director may award an 
initial grant under this subsection, and renewal grants under 
subsection (f), to any coalition awarded a grant under section 
1032 that meets the criteria specified in subsection (d) in 
order to fund coalition mentoring activities by such coalition 
in support of the program.
  (b) Treatment With Other Grants.--
          (1) Supplement.--A grant awarded to a coalition under 
        this section is in addition to any grant awarded to the 
        coalition under section 1032.
          (2) Requirement for basic grant.--A coalition may not 
        be awarded a grant under this section for a fiscal year 
        unless the coalition was awarded a grant or renewal 
        grant under section 1032(b) for that fiscal year.
  (c) Application.--A coalition seeking a grant under this 
section shall submit to the Administrator an application for 
the grant in such form and manner as the Administrator may 
require.
  (d) Criteria.--A coalition meets the criteria specified in 
this subsection if the coalition--
          (1) has been in existence for at least 5 years;
          (2) has achieved, by or through its own efforts, 
        measurable results in the prevention and treatment of 
        substance abuse among youth;
          (3) has staff or members willing to serve as mentors 
        for persons seeking to start or expand the activities 
        of other coalitions in the prevention and treatment of 
        substance abuse;
          (4) has demonstrable support from some members of the 
        community in which the coalition mentoring activities 
        to be supported by the grant under this section are to 
        be carried out; and
          (5) submits to the Administrator a detailed plan for 
        the coalition mentoring activities to be supported by 
        the grant under this section.
  (e) Use of Grant Funds.--A coalition awarded a grant under 
this section shall use the grant amount for mentoring 
activities to support and encourage the development of new, 
self-supporting community coalitions that are focused on the 
prevention and treatment of substance abuse in such new 
coalitions' communities. The mentoring coalition shall 
encourage such development in accordance with the plan 
submitted by the mentoring coalition under subsection (d)(5).
  (f) Renewal Grants.--The Administrator may make a renewal 
grant to any coalition awarded a grant under subsection (a), or 
a previous renewal grant under this subsection, if the 
coalition, at the time of application for such renewal grant--
          (1) continues to meet the criteria specified in 
        subsection (d); and
          (2) has made demonstrable progress in the development 
        of one or more new, self-supporting community 
        coalitions that are focused on the prevention and 
        treatment of substance abuse.
  (g) Grant Amounts.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), 
        the total amount of grants awarded to a coalition under 
        this section for a fiscal year may not exceed the 
        amount of non-Federal funds raised by the coalition, 
        including in-kind contributions, for that fiscal year. 
        Funds appropriated for the substance abuse activities 
        of a coalition that includes a representative of the 
        Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or 
        a tribal government agency with expertise in the field 
        of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal funds 
        raised by the coalition.
          (2) Initial grants.--The amount of the initial grant 
        awarded to a coalition under subsection (a) may not 
        exceed $75,000.
          (3) Renewal grants.--The total amount of renewal 
        grants awarded to a coalition under subsection (f) for 
        any fiscal year may not exceed $75,000.
  (h) Fiscal Year Limitation on Amount Available for Grants.--
The total amount available for grants under this section, 
including renewal grants under subsection (f), in any fiscal 
year may not exceed the amount equal to five percent of the 
amount authorized to be appropriated by section 1024(a) for 
that fiscal year.
  (i) Priority in Awarding Initial Grants.--In awarding initial 
grants under this section, priority shall be given to a 
coalition that expressly proposes to provide mentorship to a 
coalition or aspiring coalition serving economically 
disadvantaged areas.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  Subchapter II--Advisory Commission

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 1048. TERMINATION.

  The Advisory Commission shall terminate at the end of fiscal 
year [2002] 2007.

         XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of Section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (PL 104-1).

                          XII. Budget Analysis

    Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, and Section 308(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee finds that no 
new budget authority, new spending authority, new credit 
authority or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax 
expenditures results from enactment of this resolution.

    XIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4 Section 423

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not impose 
any Federal mandates within the meaning of Section 423 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (P.L. 104-4).

                             XIV. Appendix

                          House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                     Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Burton: I am writing with regard to H.R. 
2291, which the Committee on Government Reform ordered reported 
on July 25, 2001. The Committee on Energy and Commerce was 
named as an additional Committee of jurisdiction upon the 
bill's introduction.
    I recognize your desire to bring this bill before the House 
in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not exercise the 
Committee's right to exercise its referral. By agreeing to 
waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and 
Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 
2291. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves 
its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill 
that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
conference that may be convened on this similar legislation. I 
ask for your commitment to support any request by the Energy 
and Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 2291 or similar 
legislation.
    I request that you include this letter as a part of the 
Committee's report on H.R. 2291 and in the Congressional Record 
during debate on its provisions. Thank you for your attention 
to these matters.
            Sincerely,
                                     W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Government Reform,
                                     Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 
2001, regarding H.R. 2291, a bill to extend the authorization 
of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program.
    I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions of this 
legislation, and I appreciate your decision not to exercise 
your referral in the interest of expediting consideration of 
the bill. I agree that by foregoing your right to consider this 
legislation, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not 
waiving its jurisdiction. I will also support your Committee's 
request to seek conferees on provisions of the bill that fall 
within your jurisdiction, should the bill go to a House-Senate 
conference. Further, as your requested, this exchange of 
letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill 
and in the Congressional Record as part of the floor debate.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                                Dan Burton,
                                                          Chairman.

                                  

```