IB
Union Calendar No. 104
107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2291
[Report No. 107–175, Part I]
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.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 21, 2001
Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. RAN-
GEL, Mr. HERGER, Mr. WYNN, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. STUPAK, Mr.
LEWIS of Kentucky, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. KILDEE,
Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. REYES, Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma, Mr. MCNUL-
TY, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, and Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,
in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the juris-
diction of the committee concerned
JULY 30, 2001
Additional sponsors: Mr. LAFALCE, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. RAHALL,
Mr. BERMAN, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. ROGERS of
Michigan, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr.
KUCINICH, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. WHITFIELD, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. HEFLEY,
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, and Ms. HART
JULY 30, 2001
Reported from the Committee on Government Reform with an amendment
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on June 21, 2001]
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.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF DRUG-FREE COMMU-
NITIES 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 inci-
dence, simply due to this population increase.
(2) According to the 1994–1996 National House-
hold Survey, 60 percent of students age 12 to 17 who
frequently cut classes and who reported delinquent be-
havior 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 involve-
ment 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 pop-
ular, 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 be-
tween 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 im-
plementing comprehensive, long-term strategies to re-
duce 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 drink-
ing, 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 fa-
cilitate the growth of anti-drug coalitions in
communities where such coalitions had not ex-
isted.
(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 discus-
sions with high school students about the dangers
of marijuana all contributed to a decrease in the
percentage of seniors who reported using mari-
juana 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 chil-
dren 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 sub-
stance-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 per-
cent 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 in-
creased from 9.4 years in 1992 to 13.5 years in
1997.
(H) In 1990, multiple data sources con-
firmed a trend of increased alcohol use by teen-
agers in the Troy community. Using its ‘‘mul-
tiple strategies over multiple sectors’’ approach,
the Troy Coalition worked with parents, physi-
cians, 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 Coa-
lition believes that this decline represents not
only a change in behavior on the part of stu-
dents, but also a change in the norms of the com-
munity.
(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 wide-
ly available illicit drug, and its potency is
on the rise;
(iii) treatment sources report an in-
crease in admissions with marijuana as the
primary drug of abuse—and adolescents
outnumber other age groups entering treat-
ment 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 ex-
panding, 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 unknow-
ingly purchasing adulterated tablets or
some other substance sold as MDMA; and
(viii) along with reports of increased
heroin snorting as a route of administra-
tion for initiates, there is also an increase
in injecting initiates and the negative
health consequences associated with injec-
tion (for example, increases in HIV/AIDS
and Hepatitis C) suggesting that there is a
generational forgetting of the dangers of in-
jection 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 in-
creasing 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 Colum-
bia 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 sub-
stance 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 per-
cent of health spending).
(D) $7,700,000,000 in child and family as-
sistance (32 percent of child and family assist-
ance 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 per-
cent of public safety spending) and $400,000,000
for the state workforce.
(8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordina-
tion through national, State, and local or tribal lead-
ership and partnerships are critical to facilitate the
reduction of substance abuse among youth in commu-
nities 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 commu-
nity level;
(B) only 9 percent of Americans say drug
abuse is a ‘‘crisis’’ in their neighborhood, com-
pared to 27 percent who say this about the na-
tion; 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 per-
cent 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 fol-
lowing 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 subpara-
graph (F), the Administrator may award an ad-
ditional grant under this paragraph to an eligi-
ble 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), in-
cluding 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 para-
graph.
‘‘(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 ap-
plication for a grant under this paragraph.
‘‘(D) RENEWAL
GRANTS.—Subject to sub-
paragraph (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 sub-
paragraph (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-Fed-
eral funds, including in-kind contributions,
raised by the coalition for the applicable fis-
cal year.
‘‘(ii) For the third and fourth fiscal
years of that 4-fiscal-year period, the
amount equal to 67 percent of the non-Fed-
eral funds, including in-kind contributions,
raised by the coalition for the applicable fis-
cal year.
‘‘(E) SUSPENSION.—If a grant recipient
under this paragraph fails to continue to meet
the criteria specified in subsection (a), the Ad-
ministrator may suspend the grant, after pro-
viding 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 add-
ing at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(3) CONSULTATION.—The Administrator shall
carry out activities under this subsection in consulta-
tion 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 activi-
ties 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 adminis-
trative costs.’’.
(g) TREATMENT OF FUNDS FOR COALITIONS REP-
RESENTING 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 REP-
RESENTING
CERTAIN
ORGANIZATIONS.—Funds appro-
priated 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 count-
ed 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 MEN-
TORING ACTIVITIES UNDER DRUG-FREE COM-
MUNITIES 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 MEN-
TORING 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 ac-
tivities by such coalition in support of the program.
‘‘(b) TREATMENT WITH OTHER GRANTS.—
‘‘(1) SUPPLEMENT.—A grant awarded to a coali-
tion under this section is in addition to any grant
awarded to the coalition under section 1032.
‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT FOR BASIC GRANT.—A coali-
tion 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 applica-
tion for the grant in such form and manner as the Adminis-
trator may require.
‘‘(d) CRITERIA.—A coalition meets the criteria speci-
fied 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 ac-
tivities of other coalitions in the prevention and treat-
ment of substance abuse;
‘‘(4) has demonstrable support from some mem-
bers of the community in which the coalition men-
toring 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 sup-
ported 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 develop-
ment of new, self-supporting community coalitions that are
focused on the prevention and treatment of substance abuse
in such new coalitions’ communities. The mentoring coali-
tion shall encourage such development in accordance with
the plan submitted by the mentoring coalition under sub-
section (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 de-
velopment of one or more new, self-supporting com-
munity 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 coa-
lition under this section for a fiscal year may not ex-
ceed 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 rep-
resentative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the In-
dian 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 ini-
tial 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 sub-
section (f) for any fiscal year may not exceed $75,000.
‘‘(h) FISCAL YEAR LIMITATION ON AMOUNT AVAIL-
ABLE FOR GRANTS.—The total amount available for grants
under this section, including renewal grants under sub-
section (f), in any fiscal year may not exceed the amount
equal to five percent of the amount authorized to be appro-
priated 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 eco-
nomically 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 ANTI-
DRUG COALITION INSTITUTE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of Na-
tional 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 eli-
gible for the grant under subsection (a) is any national non-
profit organization that represents, provides technical as-
sistance 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 re-
ceiving the grant under subsection (a) shall establish a Na-
tional 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 serv-
ing economically disadvantaged areas;
(2) develop and disseminate evaluation tools,
mechanisms, and measures to better assess and docu-
ment 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 Nar-
cotics 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.
Union Calendar No. 104
107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2291
[Report No. 107–175, Part I]
A BILL
To extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Com-
munities Support Program for an additional 5
years, to authorize a National Community Anti-
drug Coalition Institute, and for other purposes.
JULY 30, 2001
Reported from the Committee on Government Reform
with an amendment