II
Calendar No. 159
107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2291
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
SEPTEMBER 10, 2001
Received
SEPTEMBER 13, 2001
Read the first time
SEPTEMBER 14, 2001
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
AN ACT
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,
HR 2291 PCS
SECTION 1. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF DRUG-FREE COMMU-
NITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find-
ings:
(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 in-
crease.
(2) According to the 1994–1996 National
Household Survey, 60 percent of students age 12 to
17 who frequently cut classes and who reported de-
linquent behavior in the past 6 months used mari-
juana 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
popular, compared to 17 percent in 1998 and 19
HR 2291 PCS
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 through-
out the United States are successfully developing
and implementing comprehensive, long-term strate-
gies 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 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 re-
sults provided evidence that the Coalition’s ini-
tiatives are working. For the first time in a dec-
HR 2291 PCS
ade, teen drug use in Greater Cincinnati ap-
pears to be leveling off. The data collected from
the survey has served as a tool to strengthen re-
lationships between schools and communities, as
well as facilitate the growth of anti-drug coali-
tions 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 pe-
riod. 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 re-
ported using marijuana from over 22 percent in
1995 to 9 percent in 1997. The Miami Coali-
tion was able to achieve these results while na-
tional 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
HR 2291 PCS
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 va-
riety 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 at-
tended an RDI training session, and of those,
92 percent have instituted drug-free workplace
policies. As a result, there has been a 5.5 per-
cent decrease in positive workplace drug tests.
HR 2291 PCS
(G) San Antonio Fighting Back worked to
increase the age at which youth first used ille-
gal 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 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 con-
sumed 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.
HR 2291 PCS
(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
treatment for marijuana;
(iv) 80 percent of Pulse Check sources
reported increased availability of club
drugs, with ecstasy () 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;
HR 2291 PCS
(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
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
HR 2291 PCS
3.1 percent in 2000, among tenth graders from
4.4 percent to 5.4 percent, and from 5.6 per-
cent 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 prob-
lem in the United States; and
(iii) 73 percent of the population
viewed illegal drug use as a serious prob-
lem in their communities.
(7) According to the 2001 report of the Na-
tional 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 fol-
lows:
HR 2291 PCS
(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 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
percent 
of 
public 
safety 
spending) 
and
$400,000,000 for the state workforce.
(8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordi-
nation 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—
HR 2291 PCS
(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 commu-
nity level fell by more than a quarter, from 51
percent in 1994 to 37 percent in 2000.
(b) EXTENSION AND INCREASE OF PROGRAM.—Sec-
tion 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.’’.
HR 2291 PCS
(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 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),
including a renewal grant under such para-
graph, may not be awarded another grant
under such paragraph, and is eligible for an ad-
ditional grant under this section only under this
paragraph.
HR 2291 PCS
‘‘(C) NO PRIORITY FOR APPLICATIONS.—
The Administrator may not afford a higher pri-
ority in the award of an additional grant under
this paragraph than the Administrator would
afford the applicant for the grant if the appli-
cant were submitting an application for an ini-
tial grant under paragraph (1) or (2) rather
than an application for a grant under this para-
graph.
‘‘(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-
Federal funds, including in-kind contribu-
tions, raised by the coalition for the appli-
cable fiscal year.
‘‘(ii) For the third and fourth fiscal
years of that 4-fiscal-year period, the
HR 2291 PCS
amount equal to 67 percent of the non-
Federal funds, including in-kind contribu-
tions, raised by the coalition for the appli-
cable fiscal 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.—Sec-
tion 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 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 para-
graph:
HR 2291 PCS
‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS
FOR EVALUATION OF PROGRAM.—Amounts for ac-
tivities 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 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 Af-
fairs, 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 add-
ing 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.’’.
HR 2291 PCS
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 coa-
lition under this section is in addition to any grant
awarded to the coalition under section 1032.
‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT FOR BASIC GRANT.—A coa-
lition 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
HR 2291 PCS
application for the grant in such form and manner as the
Administrator 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 ef-
forts, measurable results in the prevention and treat-
ment 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 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