War on Drugs: Reauthorization and Oversight of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
War on Drugs: Reauthorization and Oversight
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Updated April 23, 2008
Mark Eddy
Specialist in Crime Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
War on Drugs: Reauthorization and Oversight of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Summary
Located in the Executive Office of the President, the ONDCP Director, known
also as the “drug czar,” is responsible for overseeing and coordinating the federal
War on Drugs, preparing the National Drug Control Strategy, and running certain
drug control programs, such as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA)
Program, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, and the Drug-Free
Communities Program. The office was created in 1988 and has now been
reauthorized three times since then.
ONDCP’s second reauthorization expired on September 30, 2003, and
reauthorization bills were introduced in the 108th Congress but were not enacted.
Reauthorization efforts resumed in the 109th Congress with the introduction of H.R.
2829 and S. 2560. With action on these two reauthorization bills stalled, a
compromise bill was drafted by House and Senate negotiators near the close of the
109th Congress. The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
2006 (H.R. 6344) passed both chambers in the final days of the 109th Congress and
was signed into law (P.L. 109-469) on December 29, 2006, reauthorizing ONDCP
through FY2010.
The new reauthorization act contains extensive amendments to current law. For
example, it requires ONDCP’s annual drug control budget to include all federal drug
control activities, including demand reduction, supply reduction, and federally funded
state, local, and tribal drug law enforcement. ONDCP revised its method for
compiling the federal drug control budget in 2002, narrowing its scope. The new law
forces a return to more inclusive budget numbers for the federal drug control budget.
It statutorily creates the position of U.S. Interdiction Coordinator (USIC) and the
Interdiction Committee (TIC) within ONDCP. It contains numerous new reporting
requirements, including South American and Afghan heroin strategies, a report on
iatrogenic addiction caused by doctor-prescribed opioid analgesic pharmaceuticals,
a national drug interdiction plan, a report on intelligence sharing within HIDTAs, and
a study on the results of an awards program newly created by the act to fund
demonstration programs on coerced abstinence. It allows the media campaign to
focus on marijuana prevention. Mycoherbicides will be studied and tested on U.S.
soil as a means of eliminating illicit drug crops.
The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee held an ONDCP oversight hearing on March 12, 2008. ONDCP
Director John P. Walters presented testimony on the 2008 National Drug Control
Strategy and the 2009 National Drug Control Budget. Two private sector drug
researchers offered criticisms of the Bush Administration’s continuing emphasis on
supply reduction and law enforcement and urged increased funding for treatment
programs directed at hardcore drug users.
This report will be updated in the event of further legislative and oversight
activities in Congress relating to ONDCP and its leadership of the global War on
Drugs.
Contents
Introduction and Background.........................................1
Reauthorization of ONDCP by the 109th Congress........................2
Oversight of ONDCP in the 110th Congress.............................3
ONDCP Reauthorization Bills in the 109th Congress......................6
Enactment of H.R. 6344 (P.L. 109-469)............................6
Introduction of H.R. 2829.......................................6
Actions Taken on H.R. 2829.....................................6
Introduction of S. 2560.........................................8
Actions Taken on S. 2560.......................................8
Introduction of H.R. 2565.......................................8
Actions Taken on H.R. 2565.....................................8
Description and Analysis of H.R. 6344 (P.L. 109-469).....................9
Short Title and Law Being Amended (Sec. 1)........................9
Amendments to Definitions (Sec. 101).............................9
Designation and Duties of ONDCP Officers (Sec. 102)...............10
Responsibilities ..........................................10
Rank of Director.........................................10
Deputy Directors.........................................10
Responsibilities of the Director (Sec. 103).........................10
Country Certification......................................11
Fund Control Notices......................................11
Drug Interdiction (Sec. 103(f))..................................12
U.S. Interdiction Coordinator...............................12
National Interdiction Command and Control Plan...............13
Report to Congress........................................13
Interdiction Committee....................................14
Membership of the Interdiction Committee.....................14
Meetings of the Interdiction Committee.......................14
Report of the Interdiction Committee.........................15
Coordination With Other Agencies (Sec. 104)......................15
Budgetary Matters (Sec. 105)...................................15
Submission of Drug Control Budget Requests..................16
National Drug Control Budget Proposal.......................16
Certification of the National Drug Control Budget...............16
Reprogramming and Transfer Requests........................17
Fund Control Notices......................................17
Annual National Drug Control Strategies (Sec. 201).................17
Strategy Contents.........................................17
Process for Development and Submission......................18
Performance Measurement System...........................19
Annual Report Requirements (Sec. 203)...........................19
Media Campaign.........................................19
Audit ..................................................20
Program Purpose.........................................20
Petitions for Designation...................................21
Organization of HIDTAs...................................21
Treatment Prohibition.....................................22
Counterterrorism Activities.................................22
Role of the Drug Enforcement Administration..................22
Annual HIDTA Program Budget Submissions..................22
HIDTA Funding Formula..................................23
Removal of Areas........................................23
Review of Current Areas...................................23
Emerging Threat Response Fund.............................23
Evaluation of HIDTA Performance...........................24
Assessment of Drug Enforcement Task Forces..................24
Assessment of Intelligence Sharing in HIDTAs.................25
Coordination of Intelligence Sharing With OCDETF.............25
Use of Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking..........25
Authorization of Appropriations.............................26
Funding for Certain HIDTAs (Sec. 302)...........................26
The Dawson Family Community Protection Act.................26
Assessment of the “Balloon Effect” (Sec. 303)......................26
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (Sec. 401)...............27
Technology Transfer Program...............................27
Agreement Authority......................................27
Reporting Requirement....................................27
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (Sec. 501)...............28
Purpose of the Campaign...................................28
Requirements for the Use of Campaign Funds..................28
Testing and Evaluation of Advertising........................29
Purchase of Advertising Time and Space......................29
Division of Responsibilities and Functions.....................29
Prohibition of Ads for Partisan Political Purposes...............30
No-Cost Matching Requirement.............................30
Sponsorship Identification..................................30
Financial and Performance Accountability.....................31
Report to Congress........................................31
Prevention of Marijuana Use................................31
Prevention of Methamphetamine Abuse.......................31
Authorization of Appropriations.............................32
Authorization of Appropriations for ONDCP (Sec. 601)..............32
Termination Date for ONDCP (Sec. 602)..........................32
Designation of U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (Secs. 701-703).............32
Drug-Free Communities Act Reauthorization (Secs. 801-805)..........33
National Guard Counterdrug Schools (Sec. 901).....................33
National Methamphetamine Clearinghouse (Sec. 1001)...............34
Clearinghouse Requirements and Review......................34
Authorization of Appropriations.............................35
Repeals (Sec. 1101)...........................................35
Controlled Substances Act Amendments (Sec. 1102).................35
Report on Intelligence Sharing (Sec. 1103).........................35
South American Heroin Strategy (Sec. 1104).......................36
Model State Drug Laws (Sec. 1105)..............................36
Strategy to Stop Internet Drug Advertising (Sec. 1107)...............37
Report on Diversion of Prescription Drugs (Sec. 1108)...............37
Afghan Heroin Strategy (Sec. 1109)..............................37
Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy (Sec. 1110)..............38
Mycoherbicide Study (Sec. 1111)................................38
State Precursor Chemical Control Law Study (Sec. 1112).............39
Study of Drug-Endangered Children Programs (Sec. 1113)............39
Drug Court Hearings at Alternative Sites Study (Sec. 1114)............39
Report on Tribal Participation in HIDTAs (Sec. 1115)................39
Report on School Drug Testing (Sec. 1116)........................40
Report on ONDCP Performance Bonuses (Sec. 1117)................40
Sponsorship Identification in Advertisements (Sec. 1118).............40
Awards for Coerced Abstinence Programs (Sec. 1119)................41
Use of Award Amounts....................................41
Definition of Eligible Partnership............................41
Reports to Congress.......................................42
Authorization of Appropriations.............................42
Policy Relating to Syringe Exchange Programs (Sec. 1120)............42
Provisions of H.R. 2829 Not Included in H.R. 6344......................43
General Counterdrug Intelligence Plan............................43
Southwest Border Violence Study................................43
Assessment of Youth Drug Use..................................43
Synthetic Drugs Strategy.......................................44
Methamphetamine Strategy.....................................44
Awards for Shutting Down Illicit Drug Markets.....................44
International Summit on Methamphetamine Threat..................44
Report on HHS Sponsorship of Harm Reduction Conference...........45
Report on the Methamphetamine Epidemic........................45
Reauthorization Bills in the 108th Congress.............................45
The House Bill, H.R. 2086......................................46
House Government Reform Subcommittee Hearings.............46
Introduction of H.R. 2086 and Subcommittee Markup............46
Committee Hearing and Markup.............................47
House Judiciary Committee Actions..........................47
H.R. 2086 Passes the House................................48
The Senate Bill, S. 1860.......................................48
Structure and Major Provisions of S. 1860.....................48
War on Drugs: Reauthorization and
Oversight of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy
Introduction and Background
Located in the Executive Office of the President, the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP) was created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 19881 to
coordinate the federal government’s War on Drugs.
The principal responsibilities of the Director of ONDCP, who is often referred
to as the “drug czar,” include
!establishing policies, objectives, and priorities for the National Drug
Control program;
!annually promulgating the National Drug Control Strategy and
coordinating and overseeing the strategy’s implementation by the
respective drug control agencies of the federal government;
!making recommendations to the President regarding changes in the
organization, management, budgets, and allocation of federal
personnel engaged in drug enforcement;
!consulting with and assisting state and local governments with
respect to their relations with federal drug control agencies and
programs;
!appearing before committees and subcommittees of Congress to
represent the drug policies of the executive branch; and
!notifying any federal drug control agency if its policies are not in
compliance with the National Drug Control Strategy and
transmitting a copy of the notification to the President.
ONDCP’s first reauthorizing act, in 1994,2 produced limited amendments to the
agency’s original enacting legislation. It strengthened the Director’s powers to
influence the allocation of funds and personnel within and between federal drug
control departments and agencies. It prohibited presidentially appointed ONDCP
officials from participating in federal election campaign activities, except for making
contributions to individual candidates. It required the Director to include, in every
1 P.L. 100-690, Title I, Subtitle A, National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988, November
2 P.L. 103-322, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Title IX,
Subtitle B, National Narcotics Leadership Act Amendments, September 13, 1994, 108 Stat.
National Drug Control Strategy, an evaluation of the effectiveness of federal drug
control efforts during the preceding year, and it mandated specific measures of
effectiveness that the evaluation would include. It required the Director to assess
periodically the accuracy of drug use statistics and the factors that restrict the
availability of treatment services, and to propose corrective remedies.
ONDCP was reauthorized again in 1998 when Congress rewrote the agency’s
statutory mandate.3 This time, Congress took advantage of the opportunity, through
staff studies and several hearings, to assess the progress of the antidrug effort and to
develop specific, measurable goals for reducing drug consumption and drug-related
crime in the United States. Annual reports to Congress containing specified
measures of progress in implementing the National Drug Control Strategy were again
required of ONDCP. This second ONDCP reauthorization act expired during the
first session of the 108th Congress on September 30, 2003. Despite the act’s sunset
provision, however, Congress continued to appropriate funds to keep the agency
alive.
In the 108th Congress, an ONDCP reauthorization measure (H.R. 2086/Souder)
passed the House but was not acted on in the Senate. The Senate’s own
reauthorization bill (S. 1860/Hatch) also saw no Senate action beyond introduction
and committee referral. These bills, many provisions of which reappeared in House
and Senate reauthorization bills in the 109th Congress, are discussed briefly in the
final section of this report. Both bills died at the close of the 108th Congress, leaving
the matter of extending ONDCP to the 109th Congress.
Reauthorization of ONDCP by the 109th Congress
In the 109th Congress, a bill (H.R. 2829/Souder) was introduced to reauthorize
ONDCP indefinitely and authorize funding in specific annual amounts through
FY2011 for the HIDTA Program, the media campaign, a Southwest Border violence
study, and a methamphetamine information clearinghouse. The bill passed the
House, amended, on March 13, 2006. A Senate reauthorization bill (S. 2560/Specter)
was reported, amended, by the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 25, 2006.
S. 2560 would have extended ONDCP through FY2010 and authorized
appropriations for the HIDTA Program, the media campaign, the Drug Free
Communities Act, and the methamphetamine information clearinghouse.
Toward the end of the 109th Congress, with action on these two reauthorization
bills stalled, a compromise bill was drafted by House and Senate negotiators. H.R.
6344, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006, was
introduced by Representative Souder on December 5, 2006. It passed both chambers
in the final days of the 109th Congress and was signed into law (P.L. 109-469) on
December 29, 2006, reauthorizing ONDCP through FY2010. More detail on the
making of ONDCP’s third reauthorizing statute can be found below.
3 P.L. 105-277, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999, Division C, Title VII, Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
The new reauthorization act contains extensive amendments to current law. For
example, it requires ONDCP’s annual drug control budget to include all federal drug
control activities, including demand reduction, supply reduction, and federally funded
state, local, and tribal drug law enforcement. ONDCP revised its method for
compiling the federal drug control budget in 2002, narrowing its scope. The new law
forces a return to more inclusive budget numbers for the federal drug control budget.
It statutorily creates the position of U.S. Interdiction Coordinator (USIC) and the
Interdiction Committee (TIC) within ONDCP. It contains numerous new reporting
requirements, including South American and Afghan heroin strategies, a report on
iatrogenic addiction caused by doctor-prescribed opioid analgesic pharmaceuticals,
a national drug interdiction plan, a report on intelligence sharing within HIDTAs, and
a study on the results of an awards program newly created by the act to fund
demonstration programs on coerced abstinence. It allows the media campaign to
focus on marijuana prevention. It provides for mycoherbicides to be studied and
tested on U.S. soil as a means of eliminating illicit drug crops. A more complete
description and analysis of the provisions of the new reauthorization act appear
below.
Given the declining salience of drug abuse as a public policy issue and the shift
in emphasis within federal law enforcement and the U.S. armed services from drug
control to counterterrorism since the events of September 11, 2001,4 it is noteworthy
that the question of whether illicit drug control still warrants a special agency within
the Executive Office of the President went unexamined during congressional
consideration of ONDCP’s reauthorization. Extended for an additional five years,
the agency will continue to play a leading role in America’s global War on Drugs.
Oversight of ONDCP in the 110th Congress
In the House, both authorization and oversight of ONDCP lie within the
jurisdiction of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Accordingly, that
committee’s Domestic Policy Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Kucinich,
held an oversight hearing on March 12, 2008, entitled “The National Drug Control
Strategy for 2008, the Fiscal Year 2009 Drug Control Budget, and Compliance with
the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006: Priorities and Accountability at ONDCP.”
The stated purpose of the hearing was to examine (1) the priorities of the 2008
National Drug Control Strategy, (2) the priorities of the FY2009 national drug control
budget, and (3) ONDCP’s compliance with the reauthorization act, especially the
revised budgetary reporting requirements and the mandated performance
measurement system.
4 See, for example, Josh Meyer, “Burdened U.S. Military Cuts Role in Drug War,” Los
Angeles Times, January 22, 2007.
In his opening statement,5 Chairman Kucinich set forth issues concerning
“ONDCP’s accountability and overall effectiveness” to be covered at the hearing,
including
!the lack of transparency and accountability at ONDCP, which
impairs ONDCP’s and Congress’s ability to determine which federal
drug control programs are effective in combating drug abuse;
!the failure of ONDCP to include in the national drug control budget
“all funding requests for any drug control activity, including costs
attributable to drug law enforcement activities such as prosecuting
and incarcerating federal drug law offenders,” as required by the new
reauthorization act;
!ONDCP’s unwillingness “to comply with the standards of
accountability Congress has imposed” in providing Congress with
the reports mandated by the reauthorization act;
!the difficulty faced by Congress in determining whether progress is
being made in combating drug abuse because ONDCP “doesn’t
employ consistent or useful performance measures and frequently
shifts its policy goals”; and
!the imbalance in the national drug control budget between supply-
side programs (such as source-country eradication and interdiction)
and demand-side initiatives (such as prevention and treatment), with
the supply side receiving a growing share of the budget “despite
research that demonstrates that demand-side approaches are
generally more cost-effective than supply-side approaches.”
Chairman Kucinich also noted that the written testimony of the principal witness
at the hearing, ONDCP Director John P. Walters, “entirely omits discussion of
ONDCP’s compliance with the Reauthorization Act despite repeated clear requests
that these issues be addressed.” The prepared testimony of the other two hearing
witnesses, however, did cover the concerns of the subcommittee.
Former ONDCP official John Carnevale expressed his disagreement with the
current Bush Administration’s emphasis on supply reduction:
By the 1990’s we had learned that interdiction was a relatively ineffective way
of reducing drug use — and expensive besides. So we focused our efforts on
demand reduction. Now, at the beginning of the new millennium we have —
inexplicably — come to believe again that source and transit zone interdiction
is an effective way to reduce drug use in America. There is no evidence to
support this belief.... In short, what we now know is that so long as there is a
demand for illicit drugs, supply will follow.
He pointed out “significant shortcomings” in ONDCP’s meeting of its statutory
obligations and said, “As a result of these failures, ONDCP is no longer seen as a
serious player in the drug issue.” He outlined some ways to restructure the agency
5 This statement and the written testimony of the hearing witnesses are available on the
subcommittee’s website at [http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1801].
A transcript of the hearing’s proceedings is not yet available.
so that it might regain “a meaningful role in shaping drug policy in the next
Administration,” such as moving some of its programs to other drug control agencies
so that ONDCP could return to being a policy office. According to Dr. Carnevale:
ONDCP must rediscover its roots. By this statement, I mean that ONDCP should
again focus on becoming a leader in policy formulation on behalf of the President
to allow the Administration to develop a drug policy that is evidence-based and
includes performance measurement to hold it accountable for results.
The final hearing witness, Economist Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, co-Director of
the Drug Policy Research Center at the RAND Corporation, testified on what
research says about the reasonableness of the current priorities of national drug
control. In her view, the 2008 National Drug Control Strategy supports programs in
several areas that “have already been shown to be completely ineffective” or that
have “never been scientifically proven to be effective and which on analytic grounds
seem unlikely to be successful.” These include efforts in Colombia and Afghanistan
intended to decrease the supplies in the United States of cocaine and heroin,
respectively; random student drug testing; and the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign.
According to Dr. Pacula, research conducted at RAND and elsewhere shows
that source-country crop eradication and interdiction efforts along with prevention
and education programs work best in emerging drug markets at the early stages of a
drug epidemic. Later in the cycle, after the size of the market for a particular has
grown, the epidemic reaches its mature phase and the number of new users declines.
At this point, research shows that treatment programs directed at heavy and
dependent users become a more cost-effective way of addressing the problem and
reducing use. “Given that drug markets for our three primary drugs of abuse
(marijuana, cocaine and heroin) are all in mature stages,” her written testimony
states, “the continued emphasis on supply-side strategies is inappropriate.” She
concludes:
The Strategy in its current form is neither balanced nor cost-effective, and
as such, suggests a need for Congress to carefully scrutinize the structure of the
budget request. By cutting the budget for programs lacking scientific support or
strong analytic arguments and reallocating those funds to program areas that are
known to be effective, the nation will have a much better chance of successfully
reducing substance abuse and its many costs on society. This would produce a
Strategy that more closely addresses the drug situation that exists here in the
United States.
The first oversight hearing since enactment of the new reauthorization act in
2006 thus provided criticisms and insights regarding ONDCP’s leadership of the
federal War on Drugs that might influence the appropriations process for FY2009
and beyond, inform future congressional oversight, and even provide the next
Administration with ideas for restructuring ONDCP and rethinking the goals and
strategies of the federal government’s approach to the problem of drug addiction in
American society.
ONDCP Reauthorization Bills in the 109th Congress
Enactment of H.R. 6344 (P.L. 109-469)
H.R. 6344, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
2006, a compromise bill negotiated between the House and Senate during the waning
days of the 109th Congress, was introduced by Representative Souder on December
5, 2006. Two days later, it passed the House by voice vote, under suspension of the
rules, and was sent to the Senate, where it was approved by unanimous consent the
following day, the final day of the 109th Congress. H.R. 6344 was signed into law
(P.L. 109-469) on December 29, 2006, reauthorizing ONDCP through FY2010.
ONDCP’s new reauthorization act was based on provisions contained in H.R.
2560, which had been reported in the Senate. Hurriedly drafted by Senate and House
negotiators during the final weeks of the 109th Congress, and not without its drafting
errors (some of which are mentioned below), the legislative history of H.R. 6344 is
largely that of H.R. 2829 and S. 2560.
Introduction of H.R. 2829
The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R.
2829) was introduced by Representative Souder on June 9, 2005. The language of
H.R. 2829 was largely based on the House and Senate reauthorization bills from the
preceding Congress,6 making H.R. 2829 a blend of those two bills from the 108th,
with new provisions added at drafting and by subsequent amendments adopted in
committee and on the floor of the House.
Actions Taken on H.R. 2829
The House reauthorization bill was referred to the Committee on Government
Reform and to the Committees on the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and
Intelligence (Permanent Select) for consideration of provisions that fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources held a hearing to consider H.R. 2829 on June 15, 2005.7 ONDCP
Director Walters testified at this hearing, along with officials from the National
HIDTA Directors Association and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
The following day, at markup, the full Government Reform Committee
approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by Representative
6 These bills from the 108th Congress are discussed briefly in the final section of this report.
7 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, H.R. 2829, The Office of National Drugthst
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005, hearing on H.R. 2829, 109 Cong., 1 sess,
June 15, 2005 (Washington: GPO, 2005).
Souder, that incorporated the provisions of the Clean Sports Act of 2005 (H.R. 2565,
discussed below), which had been approved earlier by the committee. H.R. 2829 was
ordered to be reported favorably, as amended, with a recommendation that it pass.8
(The committee also approved at markup a report that critically analyzed the National
Drug Control Strategy for 2005 and the proposed federal drug control budget for
FY2006.)9
The House Energy and Commerce Committee marked up H.R. 2829 on
February 16, 2006. The committee removed the Clean Sports Act from the bill on
the grounds that it — not the Government Reform Committee — had jurisdiction
over the issue of steroid use in professional sports and that it had already approved
its own bill on the subject (H.R. 3084/Stearns). The Energy and Commerce
Committee reported the bill, as amended, without recommendation.10
The House Judiciary Committee considered H.R. 2829 on March 2, 2006.11
Five amendments were adopted, including one by Chairman Sensenbrenner to
remove the Clean Sports Act provisions from the bill. The committee reported the
measure favorably, as amended, with a recommendation that it pass.
The House Judiciary Committee’s version of the bill was considered by the
House on March 9, 2006.12 The rule governing floor consideration (H.Res. 713)
made 15 amendments in order, of which 14 were approved. Four of the adopted
amendments dealt specifically with the control of methamphetamine.13 The bill
passed the House, as amended, by a vote of 399 to 5. On March 13, 2006, the bill
was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it
saw no action.
8 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005, report to accompany H.R. 2829, 109th Cong.,st
1 sess., H.Rept. 109-315, part I (Washington: GPO, 2005). Hereinafter referred to as
House Government Reform Committee Report.
9 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, The National Drug Control
Strategy for 2005 and the National Drug Control Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, 109th Cong.,st
10 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005, report to accompany H.R. 2829, 109th Cong.,nd
11 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Office of National Drug Control
Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005, report to accompany H.R. 2829, 109th Cong., 2nd sess.,
H.Rept. 109-315, part III (Washington: GPO, 2006).
12 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152 (March 9, 2006), pp. H795-H847.
13 On the same day, Pres. Bush signed into law the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-177), which contained extensive provisions to
control methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals.
Introduction of S. 2560
The Senate’s ONDCP Reauthorization Act (S. 2560) was introduced by Senator
Specter on April 6, 2006.14 The bill as introduced contained many provisions similar
to the House and Senate reauthorization bills that were considered in the 108th
Congress. It was also similar, in many of its provisions, to H.R. 2829.
Actions Taken on S. 2560
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, S. 2560 was considered by the full
committee on May 25, 2006. The committee adopted, by voice vote, an amendment
in the nature of a substitute offered by Chairman Specter. The substitute amendment
contained the language of the original measure, with a few added provisions drawn
from the House-passed version of H.R. 2829, including studies of prescription drug
abuse to be conducted by ONDCP and the creation of a National Methamphetamine
Clearing House. The committee favorably reported the bill, as amended and without
written report, to the full Senate by voice vote, but no further action was taken on
S. 2560.
Introduction of H.R. 2565
Representative Tom Davis introduced an ONDCP reauthorization bill on May
24, 2005. H.R. 2565 would have extended ONDCP indefinitely by repealing the
sunset provision of the agency’s 1998 reauthorization act.15 The bill also would have
authorized the appropriation of such sums as necessary for ONDCP and its programs
for FY2006 through FY2010.
The main purpose of H.R. 2565, however, was to amend ONDCP’s 1998
Reauthorization Act by adding to it the Clean Sports Act of 2005, which would have
established minimum drug testing standards for the major professional sports
leagues. The Federal Trade Commission would promulgate regulations and levy
fines in implementation of these standards. (The Clean Sports Act was also
introduced in the Senate (S. 1114/McCain), but the Senate bill would not have
amended ONDCP’s 1998 reauthorization act, nor would it have reauthorized
ONDCP.)
Actions Taken on H.R. 2565
H.R. 2565 was considered by the House Committee on Government Reform on
May 26, 2005, and approved by voice vote. The provisions of the Clean Sports Act
were added to H.R. 2829 at the Government Reform Committee markup on June 16,
2005. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, at its markup of H.R. 2829 on
February 16, 2006, however, removed the Clean Sports Act from the ONDCP
14 Sen. Arlen Specter, “Introductory Statement — ‘Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 2006’,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152 (April 6,
15 P.L. 105-277, sec. 715, 21 U.S.C. § 1712.
reauthorization bill on the grounds that it, not the Government Reform Committee,
had jurisdiction over the issue and that it had already approved its own bill (H.R.
Description and Analysis of H.R. 6344 (P.L. 109-469)
The discussion that follows describes and analyzes the provisions of H.R. 6344,
as enacted, in the order that they appear in the new reauthorization act. The
discussion deals primarily with amendments or changes made by H.R. 6344 to the
expired act — the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
1998.16 Provisions of the prior law that remain unchanged are mentioned only where
necessary to provide context for understanding the revisions made by H.R. 6344.
Short Title and Law Being Amended (Sec. 1)17
Unless otherwise stated, the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 2006 amends or repeals provisions contained in the Office of
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277) (21 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.). Since H.R. 6344 was written to amend the expired ONDCP
reauthorization act, many of the provisions of this prior law remain untouched by the
new reauthorization act. These provisions that are carried over from the expired act,
along with the amendments provided in H.R. 6344, constitute “current law” and are
so designated in the remainder of this report.
Amendments to Definitions (Sec. 101)
The new reauthorization act changes the definition of certain terms as they were
defined in the expired law (sec. 702) (21 U.S.C. §1701). Perhaps the most important
changes are in the definitions of “state and local affairs” and “supply reduction.”
Domestic law enforcement directed against drug users has been dropped from the
definition of “supply reduction” and placed under the definition of “state and local
affairs.” This change serves statutorily to move responsibility for handling domestic
law enforcement matters from ONDCP’s Office of Supply Reduction to its Office of
State and Local Affairs. These changes are intended to make current law reflect what
ONDCP is already doing, in practice, and would make it clear that domestic law
enforcement activities serve a wider purpose than supply reduction.
The new act also expands the definition of demand reduction to include demand
reduction efforts abroad, and it newly defines “appropriate congressional
committees” to mean the appropriations and judiciary committees of both chambers
16 P.L. 105-277, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999, Division C, Title VII, Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
17 The section numbers that appear in the subtitles of this report refer to H.R. 6344 (P.L.
along with the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and the House
Government Reform Committee.18
Designation and Duties of ONDCP Officers (Sec. 102)
Responsibilities. Current law (sec. 703(a)) (21 U.S.C. § 1702(a)) requires
that ONDCP evaluate the effectiveness of the national drug control policy and agency
programs. The new reauthorization act has added language requiring that the
evaluation be done “by developing and applying specific goals and performance
m easurem ent s .”
Rank of Director. Current law (sec. 703(b)) (21 U.S.C. § 1702(b)) has been
amended by H.R. 6344 to give the ONDCP Director the same “rank and status” as
the heads of the executive departments. (Current law already assigns the Director to
the same pay scale as the executive department heads.)
Deputy Directors. As in the expired law, the new reauthorization act
provides for deputy directors for demand reduction, supply reduction, and state, local,
and tribal affairs. The new act specifies that these three deputy directors report to the
Deputy Director of National Drug Control Policy, who reports to the Director. The
new law further states that the Deputy Director for Supply Reduction must “have
substantial experience and expertise in drug interdiction and other supply reduction
activities.” The Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs is made
responsible for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program and the
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center.
Responsibilities of the Director (Sec. 103)
The new reauthorization act retains the current structure of ONDCP and makes
limited changes to strengthen the authority of the Director. In addition to the
Director’s responsibilities contained in current law (sec. 704(b)) (21 U.S.C. §
!supporting the substance abuse information clearinghouse
administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration;
!coordinating with the private sector to promote private research and
development of medications to treat addiction;19
!seeking the support and commitment of state and local officials in
the formulation and implementation of the National Drug Control
Strategy;
18 The Committee on Government Reform has been renamed the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform in the 110th Congress.
19 This and the following three provisions were taken from S. 1860 (sec. 103(b)(6)) in the
!monitoring and evaluating the allocation of resources among federal
law enforcement agencies in response to significant local and
regional drug trafficking and production threats;
!submitting an annual report to Congress detailing how ONDCP has
consulted with and assisted state and local governments with respect
to the formulation and implementation of the National Drug Control
Strategy and other relevant issues; and
!reporting to Congress, within one year after the date of enactment of
the new reauthorization act, on the impact each federal drug
reduction strategy has had upon the availability, addiction rate, use
rate, and other harms of illegal drugs.20
Country Certification. Both H.R. 2829 (sec. 6(g)(4)) and S. 2560 (sec.
§ 1703(d)) a requirement that the Director submit to the President, no later than
August 1 of each year, a report that (1) identifies countries that are major drug transit
countries or major drug producing countries; (2) assesses those countries’ efforts to
reduce the supply of illicit drugs to the United States; and (3) assesses whether
application of the procedures set forth in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended (22 U.S.C. § 2291j-1), should be applied against those countries that “have
not cooperated fully” with the United States. The standard by which the Secretary
of State evaluates the cooperation of foreign nations in drug control efforts was
reduced in 2003 from “not fully cooperating” to “failed demonstrably.” The House
Government Reform Committee wanted the President to receive a second,
independent assessment from the ONDCP Director that would have been conducted
under the older, more rigorous standard.21 This requirement, however, was not
included in H.R. 6344. Under the new reauthorization act, therefore, the Director
will continue to participate in the State Department’s country certification process,
but will not be required statutorily to submit independent findings based on the pre-
Fund Control Notices. The Director has the power to issue to the head of
a National Drug Control Program agency a fund control notice to ensure that
agency’s compliance with the National Drug Control Strategy (sec. 704(d)(9)) (21
U.S.C. § 1703(d)(9)). A fund control notice may direct that all or part of an amount
appropriated to the National Drug Control Program agency account be obligated by
specific periods of time (monthly, quarterly, etc.) and by specific activities, functions,
projects, or object classes. National Drug Control Program agencies are not
permitted to expend funds contrary to a fund control notice issued by the ONDCP
Director.
H.R. 6344 has amended the fund control notice provisions of current law (sec.
704(f)) (21 U.S.C. §1703(f)) to require that a copy of each fund control notice be
transmitted to the appropriate congressional committees. It also has restricted the
Director from issuing a fund control notice to direct that all or part of an amount
20 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by an amendment offered by Rep. Robert Scott
at the House Judiciary markup.
21 House Government Reform Committee Report, p. 45.
appropriated to a National Drug Control Program agency account be obligated,
modified, or altered in any manner contrary, in whole or in part, to a specific
appropriation or statute. (Due to a drafting error, this provision is repeated later in
H.R. 6344 (sec. 105(f)) with slightly different wording.)
Drug Interdiction (Sec. 103(f))22
U.S. Interdiction Coordinator. In 2002, Congress legislatively created the
position of U.S. Interdiction Coordinator (USIC) within the Department of Homeland23
Security. The position had existed previously within ONDCP, but without statutory
authority.
S. 2560 (sec. 103(f)) would have amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002
to restore the position to ONDCP. H.R. 2829 (secs. 5(c) and 13) would have given
the Deputy Director for Supply Reduction the additional title and responsibilities of
U.S. Interdiction Coordinator but would not have amended the Homeland Security
Act, presumably leaving the federal government with two interdiction coordinators.
(Under the Senate bill, the interdiction coordinator would have been designated by
the Director and would not necessarily have been the Deputy Director for Supply
Reduction, as would have been required by H.R. 2829.)
The new reauthorization act has restored the position of USIC to ONDCP
through amendment of the Homeland Security Act but is oddly silent as to certain
details of the position, such as who appoints the USIC and where the position is to
be located within the agency.
H.R. 6344 incorporated language that appeared in both H.R. 2829 and S. 2560
regarding the duties of the USIC. The USIC is responsible to the Director for
!coordinating the interdiction activities of the National Drug Control
Program agencies to ensure consistency with the National Drug
Control Strategy;
!developing and issuing, by March 1 of each year, a National
Interdiction Command and Control Plan to ensure consistency with
the National Drug Control Strategy;
!assessing the sufficiency of assets committed to illicit drug
interdiction by the relevant National Drug Control Program
agencies; and
22 This section of H.R. 6344 appears to contain a drafting error. The language relating to
drug interdiction is written as if it were replacing sec. 711 of the expired act, but the bill
says the new language is to be added at the end of sec. 711. The old sec. 711 actually
contains reporting and budget planning requirements relating to interdiction that are
outdated and should be replaced, not added to. These and other drafting errors undoubtedly
occurred because of the hurried manner in which the bill was prepared near the close of theth
23 Homeland Security Act of 2002, sec. 878, P.L. 107-296, November 25, 2002, 116 Stat.
!advising the Director on the efforts of each National Drug Control
Program agency to implement the National Interdiction Command
and Control Plan.
The new reauthorization act further specifies that the Director will assign
permanent ONDCP staff, as appropriate, to help the USIC carry out the
responsibilities of the position and may also request that appropriate National Drug
Control Program agencies detail or assign staff to the Office of Supply Reduction for
that purpose.
National Interdiction Command and Control Plan. The new
reauthorization act provides that the National Interdiction Command and Control
Plan (NICCP) prepared by the USIC will
!set forth the federal government’s strategy for drug interdiction,
!state the specific roles and responsibilities of the relevant National
Drug Control Program agencies for implementing the strategy,
!identify the specific resources required to enable the relevant
National Drug Control Program agencies to implement the strategy,
and
!be issued in consultation with the other members of the Interdiction
Committee.
The NICCP cannot change existing agency authorities or the laws governing
interagency relationships, but it may include recommendations about making such
changes.
Report to Congress. The new reauthorization act further requires that, on
or before March 1 of each year, the USIC will provide a report to Congress,24 on
behalf of the Director, that will include
!a copy of that year’s National Interdiction Command and Control
Plan;
!information for the previous 10 years on the number and type of
seizures of drugs by each National Drug Control Program agency
conducting drug interdiction activities, as well as statistical
information on the geographic areas of such seizures; and
!information for the previous 10 years regarding the number of air
and maritime patrol hours undertaken by each National Drug Control
Program agency conducting drug interdiction activities, as well as
statistical information on the geographic areas in which such patrol
hours took place.
24 This report will be provided, in the Senate, to the Committee on the Judiciary, the
Committee on Appropriations, the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee on Armed
Services and, in the House, to the Committee on Government Reform, the Committee on the
Judiciary, the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the
Committee on Homeland Security.
Any classified or sensitive information will be presented to Congress separately from
the rest of the report.
Interdiction Committee. The Interdiction Committee (TIC) has existed for
many years, and the new reauthorization act creates it statutorily for the first time.
The purpose of the TIC, as stated in the new reauthorization act, is to
!discuss and resolve issues related to the coordination, oversight, and
integration of international, border, and domestic drug interdiction
efforts in support of the National Drug Control Strategy;
!review the annual National Interdiction Command and Control Plan
and provide advice to the Director and the United States Interdiction
Coordinator concerning that plan; and
!provide other advice to the Director concerning drug interdiction
strategy and policies, as deemed appropriate by the committee.
Membership of the Interdiction Committee. The new reauthorization act
is silent on the membership of the TIC. H.R. 2829, from which provisions relating
to the TIC were drawn, however, specified that the TIC would consist of the
following, one of whom would be designated Chairman by the Director:
!the Commissioner of the bureau of Customs and Border Protection
at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS);
!the Assistant Secretary of the bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement at the DHS;
!the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard;
!the Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement at the
DHS;
!the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration;
!the Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs;
!the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low
Intensity Conflict;
!the Deputy Director for Supply Reduction of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, acting in his role as the United States
Interdiction Coordinator;
!the Director of the Crime and Narcotics Center of the Central
Intelligence Agency;
!the Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy;
!the Chief of the National Guard Bureau’s Counterdrug Program; and
!additional persons, as determined by the Director.
It is possible that this provision establishing the membership of the TIC was intended
for inclusion in H.R. 6344 but was omitted due to a drafting error.
Meetings of the Interdiction Committee. The members of the TIC will
meet, in person and not through any delegate or representative, at least once per
calendar year, prior to March 1. At the call of either the Director or the current
chairman, the TIC can hold additional meetings, which will be attended by the
members either in person or through their chosen delegates or representatives.
Report of the Interdiction Committee. Not later than September 30 of
each year, the TIC chairman will submit a report to the Director and to the
appropriate congressional committees describing the results of the meetings and any
significant findings of the TIC during the previous 12 months. Any classified or
sensitive information will be presented to Congress separately from the rest of the
report.
Coordination With Other Agencies (Sec. 104)
The new reauthorization act amends current law (sec. 705(a)(3)) (21 U.S.C. §
1704(a)(3)) to mandate that the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Homeland
Security, and Defense prepare annual reports for the Director and specified
committees of Congress detailing specific aspects of their departments’ drug control
activities. The new act also requires a report from the Attorney General on drug
violation arrests and prosecutions and drug seizures. These new reporting
requirements are designed to help the agencies allocate resources and to aid the
committees in their oversight function, especially as it relates to assessing the impact
of diverting drug control assets to unrelated missions.
Budgetary Matters (Sec. 105)
The ONDCP Director develops a consolidated National Drug Control Program
budget based on the budget request proposals received from the National Drug
Control Program agencies. ONDCP revised its method for compiling the national
drug control budget summary in 2002. As a result, total funding included in the
FY2003 drug budget request was revised downward from $19.2 billion to $11.4
billion. Under the new method, activities were included only if they were deemed
to have a “primary” drug control purpose and if they had a separate line item account
in the President’s annual budget request. These changes resulted in lower budget
numbers for many drug control agencies and the elimination of some agencies from
the drug control budget altogether.
ONDCP said the new drug budget would better serve Congress and the public
and bring greater accountability to federal drug control efforts. Others, however,
including some Members of Congress, said the new drug budget distorted the true
costs of the War on Drugs by, among other things, excluding the costs of
incarcerating drug offenders and the costs of other drug law enforcement activities.
This served to exaggerate the proportion of the budget slated for drug treatment
expenditures, thereby making the budget appear more evenly balanced between
enforcement and prevention than in previous years, even though little if any change
had actually taken place.
The new reauthorization act contains provisions designed to force ONDCP to
return to the older, more inclusive way of calculating the federal drug control budget
summary.
Submission of Drug Control Budget Requests. Under current law (sec.
704(c)(1)) (21 U.S.C. §1703(c)(1)), the head of each National Drug Control Program
agency must submit annually to the ONDCP Director a copy of the agency’s
proposed drug control budget request before it is submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget. The new reauthorization act adds the requirement that
drug control budgets submitted by departments, agencies, or programs must include
all funds being requested for any drug control activity undertaken by that entity,
including demand reduction, supply reduction, and state, local, and tribal affairs, and
also including any drug law enforcement activities.
Furthermore, if an activity has both drug control and nondrug control purposes
or applications, the department, agency, or program must estimate, by a documented
calculation, the total funds requested for that activity that would be used for drug
control, and must set forth in its budget request the basis and method used in making
the estimate. (Both H.R. 2829 (sec. 6(c)) and S. 2560 (sec. 105(a)) contained these
requirements, and they were carried over into H.R. 6344.)
National Drug Control Budget Proposal. In addition to consulting with
the head of each drug control agency, as required by current law (sec. 704(c)(2)) (21
U.S.C. §1703(c)(2)), the new reauthorization act requires that the Director, in
drawing up the national drug control budget proposal, also consult with “the head of
each major national organization that represents law enforcement officers, agencies,
or associations.”25
Certification of the National Drug Control Budget. The responsibility
of the Director to review and certify the budget requests of national drug control
program agencies is considered a vital tool of the Director in planning and
implementing an effective national antidrug strategy. H.R. 6344 adds new
requirements to the budget certification process. The Director is now prevented from
approving any agency’s proposed budget that requests funding for
!federal law enforcement activities that do not adequately compensate
for transfers of drug enforcement resources and personnel to
unrelated activities such as counterterrorism;
!law enforcement activities along U.S. borders that do not adequately
direct resources to drug interdiction and enforcement;
!drug treatment activities that do not provide adequate results and
accountability measures;
!any activities of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program that do not
include a clear antidrug message or purpose intended to reduce drug
use;
!drug treatment activities that do not adequately support and enhance
federal drug treatment programs and capacity;26
25 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Rep. Terry.
26 This language, inspired by two amendments proposed by Rep. Cummings and adopted by
voice vote at the House Government Reform subcommittee markup of H.R. 2565 in the 108th
Congress, is intended to apply to the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment block grant
(continued...)
!activities of the Department of Education for FY2007, unless the
request is accompanied by a report setting forth a plan for providing
expedited consideration of student loan applications for all
individuals whose applications were denied because of a conviction
for a drug-related offense that occurred when the individual was not
receiving federal assistance; and
!the operations and management of the Department of Homeland
Security that does not include a specific request for funds for the
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement.
Reprogramming and Transfer Requests. The expired act contained a
requirement (sec. 704(c)(4)(A)) (21 U.S.C. § 1703(c)(4)(A)) that no national drug
control agency shall submit to Congress a request to reprogram or transfer any
amount of appropriated funds over $5 million that is included in the federal drug
control budget unless the request has first been approved by the Director. The new
reauthorization act has reduced that amount to $1 million. The new act also provides
that if the Director has not responded to an agency request for reprogramming within
30 days, the request shall be considered approved by the Director and forwarded to
Congress.
Fund Control Notices. In an apparent drafting error, the provisions
concerning fund control notices that appear in sec. 103 of the new reauthorization act,
and which are discussed earlier in this report, are repeated here with slightly different
wording.
Annual National Drug Control Strategies (Sec. 201)
Under the new reauthorization act, the preparation, submission, implementation,
and assessment of the National Drug Control Strategy remain one of the most
important responsibilities of ONDCP. The emphasis in the expired act (sec. 706(a))
(21 U.S.C. § 1705(a)) on a five-year strategy supplemented by annual updates is
shifted to the preparation of annual strategies. The new act does, however, keep the
provision in current law that requires the strategies to include five-year projections
for program and budget priorities. The annual strategies continue to be due from the
President to Congress no later than February 1 of each year.
Strategy Contents. The contents that must be included in the annual
strategies under the new reauthorization act are largely the same as those that were
required under the expired law. A new requirement is a summary of the efforts made
to coordinate with private sector entities to conduct private research and development
of medications to treat addiction by screening chemicals for their potential
therapeutic value, developing promising compounds, conducting clinical trials,
seeking Food and Drug Administration approval for drugs to treat addiction,
marketing drugs for the treatment of addiction, urging physicians to use such drugs
26 (...continued)
program and the Targeted Capacity Expansion grant program of the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.
in the treatment of addiction, and encouraging insurance companies to reimburse the
cost of drugs used in the treatment of addiction.
Also newly required is a supplement to the strategy that reviews the activities
of each individual National Drug Control Program agency during the preceding year
with respect to the National Drug Control Strategy and that contains the Director’s
assessment of the progress of each agency in meeting its responsibilities under the
strategy.
The new reauthorization act drops the specific numerical targets for reducing
drug use contained in the expired law (sec. 706(a)(4)) (21 U.S.C. § 1705(a)(4)).
These targets covered the period 1999 to 2003 and were largely unmet. The new act
lets stand, however, the requirement for comprehensive, long-range, and quantifiable
goals for reducing drug abuse and its consequences, backed by annual objectives and
targets that are designed to move the country toward the strategy’s goals and
objectives.
Not included in the new reauthorization act was a provision in H.R. 2829 (sec.
8) that would have required the strategy to include data on current drug use trends
that can be compared with previously compiled data to permit long-term assessment
of the strategy’s effectiveness and data that would permit a standardized and uniform
assessment of the effectiveness of drug treatment programs in the United States.
Process for Development and Submission. Current law (sec.
706(a)(3)(A)(i)) (21 U.S.C. § 1705(a)(3)(A)(i)) requires the Director, in developing
and effectively implementing the National Drug Control Strategy, to consult with
!the heads of the National Drug Control Program agencies;
! Congress;
!state, local, and tribal officials;
!private citizens and organizations, including community and faith-
based organizations, with expertise in demand reduction;
!private citizens and organizations with experience and expertise in
supply reduction; and
!appropriate representatives of foreign governments.
Tribal officials and community and faith-based organizations were newly added to
this list by the new reauthorization act. The new act also requires the Director to
ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that state, local and tribal officials and
relevant private organizations commit to support and take steps to achieve the goals
and objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy.
Current law (sec. 706(a)(3)(A)(ii)) (21 U.S.C. § 1705(a)(3)(A)(ii)) permits the
Director, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, to require the El Paso
Intelligence Center to undertake specific tasks and projects to implement the National
Drug Control Strategy and, with the concurrence of the Director of National
Intelligence and the Attorney General, to request that the National Drug Intelligence
Center undertake specific tasks or projects to implement the strategy. The new
reauthorization act does not include a provision in H.R. 2829 (sec. 8) that would have
allowed the Director to make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (HHS) concerning research by the National Institute on Drug Abuse
or other HHS agencies that would support or advance the National Drug Control
Strategy.
Performance Measurement System. The expired act (sec. 706(c)) (21
U.S.C. §1705(c)) required that a performance measurement system be designed in
consultation with affected National Drug Control Program agencies and be submitted
to Congress no later than February 1, 1999, with modifications to be included in
subsequent annual strategy reports. The new reauthorization act retains this
requirement with certain changes. The performance measurement system is to be
submitted annually as part of the strategy and will contain two- and five-year
performance measures and targets for each National Drug Control Strategy goal and
objective established for reducing drug use, drug availability, and the consequences
of drug use. It will describe the sources of information and data to be used for each
performance measure. It will also assess the adequacy of existing national treatment
outcome monitoring systems to measure the effectiveness of drug abuse treatment in
reducing illicit drug use and criminal behavior during and after the completion of
substance abuse treatment.
Dropped is the provision in the expired act that required the drug control
performance measurement system’s performance objectives, measures, and targets
to be revised to conform with National Drug Control Program agency budgets. Also
dropped is the requirement that the performance measurement system be designed
in consultation with affected National Drug Control Program agencies. Other aspects
of the drug control performance measurement system remain largely unchanged.
Annual Report Requirements (Sec. 203)27
Media Campaign.28 H.R. 6344 requires the Director to submit annually, by
February 1 of each year, a report to Congress on the National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign that describes
!the strategy of the media campaign and whether specific objectives
of the campaign were accomplished;
!steps taken to ensure that the media campaign operates in an
effective and efficient manner consistent with its overall strategy and
focus;
!plans to purchase advertising time and space;
!policies and practices implemented to ensure that federal funds are
used responsibly to purchase advertising time and space and
eliminate the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse;
27 Due to a drafting error, the new reauthorization act contains no sec. 202.
28 Due to a drafting error, this reporting requirement is repeated in sec. 501 of the new
reauthorization act minus the final three report elements shown here. The date of February
!all contracts entered into with a corporation, partnership, or
individual working on behalf of the media campaign;
!specific policies and steps implemented to ensure compliance with
the media campaign provisions of this act;29
!steps taken to ensure that the media campaign will secure, to the
maximum extent possible, no-cost matches of advertising time and
space or in-kind contributions that are directly related to the statutory
purposes of the campaign; and
!a review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the media campaign
strategy for the past year.
Audit. The new reauthorization act requires the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to conduct, at least annually, an audit and investigation of the
operations of ONDCP, including the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program,
the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, and the National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign. The GAO report, which will be provided to the Director and the
appropriate congressional committees, must contain an evaluation of, and
recommendations on, the policies and activities of ONDCP and its programs, their
economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and any policy or management changes
needed to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in the operation of the programs.
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program (Sec. 301)
The expired act (sec. 707) contained only four brief sub-sections relating to the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program. The new reauthorization
act greatly expands the statutory requirements that ONDCP must follow in
conducting the program and reflects the high level of congressional interest in how
the program should be run.
Program Purpose. The expired law did not explicitly state the purpose of
the HIDTA Program. In the 108th Congress, the House bill (H.R. 2086) and the
Senate bill (S. 1860) attempted to correct this omission, albeit with differing results.
In their statements of purpose, both bills emphasized the importance of facilitating
cooperation, intelligence sharing, and coordination of strategies and drug
enforcement activities between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in
the 28 groupings of U.S. counties now designated as HIDTAs. It was never clear,
however, whether individual HIDTAs were created to deal with local and/or regional
problems or if their activities must address drug problems of national scope. The
Senate bill (sec. 301(2)) stated that these efforts were “to reduce the supply of illegal
drugs in HIDTA designated areas.” The House bill (sec. 6(a)), along with the
29 In another apparent drafting error, this and the following reporting requirements refer
textually to Title IV of the act, which covers the Counterdrug Technology Assessment
Center, instead of Title V, which reauthorizes the media campaign. The incorrect reference
to title IV probably comes from the Senate bill, S. 2560. The descriptions of the two
reporting requirements that appear here are adjusted to reflect the intent of the law rather
than its actual wording.
Government Reform Committee’s report,30 stressed that the purpose of HIDTAs is
to deal with “drug trafficking problems that harmfully impact other parts of the
Nation.”
In the 109th Congress, both H.R. 2829 (sec. 9) and S. 2560 (sec. 707) adopted
the language from the previous Senate bill verbatim, except that the phrase “to reduce
the supply of illegal drugs in HIDTA designated areas” was modified to read “to
reduce the supply of illegal drugs in designated areas and in the United States as a
whole” [emphasis added]. This dual purpose was carried over into H.R. 6344 and
is now law.
Petitions for Designation. Previously, there were no statutory or even
regulatory requirements concerning how HIDTAs are designated beyond the directive
in the expired act that the Director may designate such areas in consultation with the
Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, heads of the National Drug Control
Program agencies, and the governors of the applicable states. Most HIDTAs have
been designated through this consultative process, although a few have been created
by Congress in appropriations acts.
The new reauthorization act retains the consultative process for designating
HIDTAs and, in addition, requires the Director to establish regulations under which
a coalition of interested law enforcement agencies from an area may petition for
designation as a HIDTA. These regulations must provide for a regular review by the
Director of the petition, including a recommendation regarding the merit of the
petition to the Director by a panel of qualified, independent experts.
Organization of HIDTAs. The expired act did not address how HIDTAs
should be organized and operated. The new reauthorization act goes into
considerable detail on this subject and would bring the law into alignment with
current practice. Each HIDTA, as is now the case, is to be governed by an Executive
Board. The Executive Board, composed of an equal number of votes between
representatives of federal agencies and state and local agencies,31 would be
responsible for
!providing direction and oversight in establishing and achieving the
goals of the HIDTA,
!managing the HIDTA’s funds,
!reviewing and approving all funding proposals consistent with the
overall objective of the HIDTA, and
!reviewing and approving all reports to the Director on HIDTA
activities.
30 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003, report to accompany H.R. 2086, 108th Cong.,st
31 This balance is mandated, in part, to help ensure that the HIDTAs maintain their focus,
at least in part, on drug investigations of national importance.
Treatment Prohibition. The new reauthorization act retains the provision
in the expired act that no HIDTA funds may be used to establish or expand drug32
treatment programs. It adds the requirement that up to 5% of federal funds
appropriated for the program can be expended to establish drug prevention33
programs. (The treatment prohibition provision caused consternation among some
Members of the House Judiciary Committee during its markup of H.R 2086 in theth34
108 Congress. It is helpful to remember that the HIDTA Program is a law
enforcement program and that treatment and prevention funds are found elsewhere
in the federal drug control budget, principally within the Department of Health and
Human Services.)
Counterterrorism Activities. The new reauthorization act allows the
Director to authorize the use of available HIDTA resources to assist federal, state,
local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in investigations and activities related to
terrorism and terrorism prevention, especially when such investigations and activities
are also related to drug trafficking. The Director, however, is required to ensure that
assistance provided for counterterrorism remains incidental to the HIDTA Program’s
purpose of reducing drug availability and carrying out drug-related law enforcement
activities, and that significant program resources are not redirected to activities
exclusively related to terrorism, except on a temporary basis under extraordinary
circumstances, as determined by the Director.
Role of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The Director, in
consultation with the Attorney General, is now required to ensure that a
representative of the Drug Enforcement Administration is included in the Intelligence
Support Center of each HIDTA.
Annual HIDTA Program Budget Submissions. Previously, the amount
of funding received by each HIDTA was determined by the Director after the annual
appropriations bill was enacted, thereby bypassing congressional scrutiny. The new
reauthorization act requires the Director to include in ONDCP’s annual budget
justification to Congress a breakdown showing the amount being requested for each
HIDTA, with a supporting narrative describing the rationale for each request. The
narrative must include a detailed justification for each funding request that explains
32 The House ONDCP reauthorization bill in the 108th Congress (H.R. 2086, sec. 6(a)) would
have created an exception for the Baltimore/Washington HIDTA, which has historically and
uniquely been a combined law enforcement and drug treatment program. No such exception
exists in the new reauthorization act. Even so, although treatment programs cannot be
established or expanded, existing HIDTA-funded treatment programs, such as those in the
Baltimore/Washington HIDTA, can be continued.
33 This 5% provision was added to H.R. 2829 at the House Judiciary markup by adoption of
an amendment proposed by Rep. Linda Sánchez. The underlying bill would have prevented
any HIDTA funds from being used for prevention.
34 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Office of National Drug Control
Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003, report to accompany H.R. 2086, 108th Cong., 1st sess.,
H.Rept. 108-167, part 2, July 14, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 114-119, 152-156,
and passim.
the reasons for the requested funding level, how the funding level was determined
based on current assessments of the drug trafficking threat in each HIDTA, how such
funding will ensure that the goals and objectives of each HIDTA will be achieved,
how the requested funding supports the National Drug Control Strategy, and the
amount of HIDTA funds that was used to investigate and prosecute organizations and
individuals trafficking in methamphetamine in the prior calendar year along with a
description of how those funds were used.
HIDTA Funding Formula. The House reauthorization bill in the 108th
Congress (sec. 6(a)) would have codified a funding formula for the allocation of
HIDTA funds. It would have required that 30% of program funds be expended in the
seven HIDTAs determined to have the greatest impact on reducing overall drug
trafficking in the country, 25% to the nine next most significant HIDTAs, and 10%
to the remaining HIDTAs. No less than 20% of program funds would have gone to
the Southwest Border HIDTA. The remaining 15% would have been expended by
the Director on a discretionary basis. Instead of limiting the Director’s discretion,
this allocation formula was intended to reverse provisions in appropriations acts that
have mandated that no HIDTA may be funded at a level below the previous year,
thereby allowing the Director discretion to allocate only funding increases, if any, in
any given year. The funding formula proved controversial, however, and it did notth
reappear in any of the 109 Congress’s reauthorization bills.
Removal of Areas. The expired act said nothing about removing an area
from designation as a HIDTA, and no HIDTAs or parts of HIDTAs have ever been
removed from the program. The House reauthorization bill in the 108th Congress
(sec. 6(a)) would have authorized the Director to remove all or part of a HIDTA from
the program if it no longer met the required criteria — or, presumably, if it had
accomplished its mission. No such provision existed in any of the reauthorization
bills in the 109th Congress. The Director can, however, under the new
reauthorization act, achieve the same effect by requesting no funding for an area
under the more detailed HIDTA budget submission process required by the new act,
as described above.
Review of Current Areas. Likewise, the House reauthorization bill in the
within one year of the bill’s date of enactment, to determine if the area still warranted
designation as a HIDTA. Any area or portion of an area that no longer warranted
designation would be removed from the program. No such provision existed in any
of the 109th Congress’s reauthorization bills. The new reauthorization act, therefore,
does not require such a review.
Emerging Threat Response Fund. Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the new reauthorization act permits the Director to expend up to 10%
of appropriated HIDTA funds to respond to any emerging drug trafficking threat in
an existing HIDTA, establish a new HIDTA, or expand an existing HIDTA. In doing
so, the Director must consider the impact of the funded activities on reducing overall
drug traffic in the United States or on minimizing the probability that an emerging
drug trafficking threat would spread to other areas of the country.
Evaluation of HIDTA Performance. Within 90 days of enactment and after
consulting with each of the HIDTA Executive Boards, the new reauthorization act
requires the Director to submit to Congress a preliminary report that describes, for
every HIDTA,
!the specific purposes of the HIDTA;
!the specific long- and short-term goals and objectives for the
HIDTA; and
!the measurements that will be used, and the reporting requirements
needed, to evaluate the performance of the HIDTA in achieving its
long- and short-term goals.
After the preliminary report, the Director must submit, as part of the annual
National Drug Control Strategy, a report on the HIDTA Program that describes the
specific purposes and long- and short-term goals and objectives of each HIDTA, and
that includes an evaluation of the performance of each HIDTA in accomplishing its
specific goals and objectives.
This provision responds to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s)
finding, under its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review of the HIDTA
Program, that the program failed to demonstrate results. The Government Reform
Committee believes that ONDCP did not provide OMB with sufficient data on35
HIDTA accomplishments and that this annual report will do so.
Assessment of Drug Enforcement Task Forces.36 Within one year of
enactment, and as part of each subsequent annual National Drug Control Strategy
report, the new reauthorization act requires the Director to submit to Congress a
report that assesses the number and operation of all federally funded drug
enforcement task forces within each HIDTA. The report must describe
!each federal, state, local, and tribal drug enforcement task force
operating in the HIDTA;
!how the task forces coordinate with each other, with any HIDTA
task force, and with investigations funded by the Organized Crime
and Drug Enforcement Task Force Program (OCDETF);
!what steps, if any, each task force takes to share information
regarding drug trafficking and drug production with other federally
funded drug enforcement task forces in the HIDTA;
!the HIDTA’s role in coordinating the sharing of such information
among task forces;
!the nature and extent of cooperation by each federal, state, local, and
tribal participant in ensuring that such information is shared among
law enforcement agencies and with the HIDTA;
35 House Government Reform Committee Report, p. 58.
36 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 as the result of an amendment offered by
Chairman Sensenbrenner at the House Judiciary markup.
!the nature and extent to which information sharing and enforcement
activities are coordinated with joint terrorism task forces in the
HIDTA; and
!any recommendations for ways to ensure that task force resources
are used efficiently and effectively to reduce the availability of
illegal drugs in the HIDTA.
Assessment of Intelligence Sharing in HIDTAs. Within 180 days of
enactment, and as part of each subsequent annual National Drug Control Strategy, the
new reauthorization act requires the Director, in consultation with the Director of
National Intelligence, to submit to Congress a report that evaluates existing and
planned law enforcement intelligence systems that are supported by each HIDTA or
used by task forces receiving any funding under the program, including the extent to
which such systems ensure access and availability of intelligence to federal, state,
local, and tribal law enforcement agencies within and outside the HIDTA. The report
must also describe the extent to which federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement
agencies participating in each HIDTA are sharing law enforcement intelligence
information to assess current drug trafficking threats and design appropriate
enforcement strategies, and the measures needed to improve effective sharing of
information and intelligence regarding drug trafficking and drug production among
federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies that are participating in the
HIDTA and between such agencies and similar agencies outside the HIDTA.
Coordination of Intelligence Sharing With OCDETF. The new
reauthorization act requires the Director, in consultation with the Attorney General,
to ensure that any drug enforcement intelligence obtained by a HIDTA Intelligence
Support Center is shared, on a timely basis, with the OCDETF’s new drug
intelligence fusion center.
Use of Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking.37 The new
reauthorization act requires the Director to submit to Congress, as part of the annual
budget justification for ONDCP, a report on the use of HIDTA funds in the prior
calendar year to investigate and prosecute organizations and individuals trafficking
in methamphetamine. The report must include
!the number of methamphetamine manufacturing facilities discovered
in the previous fiscal year through HIDTA-funded activities;
!the amounts of methamphetamine or listed chemicals seized by
HIDTA-funded initiatives during the previous year; and
!law enforcement intelligence and predictive data from the Drug
Enforcement Administration showing patterns and trends in abuse,
trafficking, and transportation in methamphetamine and listed
chemicals.
37 This subsection was added at the House Judiciary markup of H.R. 2829 by adoption of an
amendment offered by Chairman Sensenbrenner. Some provisions of the original
amendment were modified or dropped before inclusion in H.R. 6344.
Before awarding any funds to a HIDTA, the Director must certify that the law
enforcement entities participating in that HIDTA are providing laboratory seizure
data to the national clandestine laboratory database at the El Paso Intelligence Center.
Authorization of Appropriations. To fund the HIDTA Program, the new
reauthorization act authorizes appropriations to ONDCP in the amounts of $240
million for FY2007, $250 million for FY2008, $260 million for FY2009, $270
million for FY2010, and $280 million for FY2011. (In FY2006, the HIDTA Program
was appropriated $227 million, down from $228.4 million in FY2005.)
Funding for Certain HIDTAs (Sec. 302)
The Dawson Family Community Protection Act. This section of the
new reauthorization act incorporates the Dawson Family Community Protection Act
(H.R. 812), introduced in the 109th Congress by Representative Cummings.38 The
Director is required to use at least $7 million of HIDTA funds each fiscal year in
HIDTAs with severe neighborhood safety and illegal drug distribution problems.
(This amount represents a $2 million increase over the $5 million amount specified
in H.R. 812.)39 The funds must be used to ensure the safety of neighborhoods and the
protection of communities, including the prevention of witness intimidation in drug
cases, and to combat illegal drug trafficking through methods such as establishing
and operating toll-free telephone hotlines for the public to provide information about
illegal drug-related activities.
Assessment of the “Balloon Effect” (Sec. 303)
The spread of urban drug traffickers into rural, suburban, and smaller urban
areas to escape intensive law enforcement efforts against them is known as the
“balloon effect.” The new reauthorization act requires the Director to assess the
ability of the HIDTA Program to respond to the balloon effect by conducting a
demonstration project in the New York/New Jersey HIDTA. The New York counties
of Albany, Onondaga, Monroe, and Erie will be added to the New York/New Jersey
HIDTA, and the ability of the HIDTA to deal with the movement of drug traffickers
into these more rural areas will be assessed.
38 The Dawson Family Community Protection Act was first introduced by Rep. Cummings
in the 108th Congress (H.R. 1599) in response to the October 2002 firebombing of the
Baltimore home of the Dawson family, in which the Dawsons and their five children all
died. This crime, called in the bill’s findings “a stark example of domestic narco-terrorism,”
was committed in apparent retaliation for Mrs. Dawson’s efforts to help the police end
persistent drug dealing in her neighborhood. H.R. 1599 would have required that at least
$1 million be used in HIDTAs for the purposes of the bill. The amount was increased to $5th
million in H.R. 812 and to $7 million in the 109 Congress’s reauthorization bills.
39 The increase came about as the result of an amendment offered by Chairman
Sensenbrenner at the House Judiciary markup of H.R. 2829.
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (Sec. 401)
The head of the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC) has held
the title of “Director of Technology.” The new reauthorization act changes this title
to “Chief Scientist.”
The new reauthorization act requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to
render assistance and support, to the maximum extent practicable, to ONDCP in the
conduct of counterdrug technology assessment. (Existing law already requires the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to do so.)
Technology Transfer Program. The new reauthorization act grants
statutory authority to CTAC’s counterdrug technology transfer program for the first
time. The Chief Scientist, with the advice and counsel of experts from state, local,
and tribal law enforcement agencies, is responsible to the Director for coordinating
and implementing CTAC’s technology transfer program. The purpose of the
program is to transfer technology and associated training directly to state, local and
tribal law enforcement agencies.
Technology transfers will be made in priority order based on
!the need of potential recipients for such technology,
!the effectiveness of the technology to enhance current counterdrug
activities of potential recipients, and
!the ability and willingness of potential recipients to evaluate
transferred technology.
Agreement Authority. The new act provides that the Director may enter into
an agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security to transfer technology with
both counterdrug and homeland security applications to state, local, and tribal law
enforcement agencies on a reimbursable basis.
Reporting Requirement. Before July 1 of each year, the Director is required
by the new reauthorization act to submit to the appropriate congressional committees
a report that contains
!the number of technology transfer requests received during the
previous 12 months, including the identity of each requesting agency
and the type of technology requested;
!the number of requests fulfilled during the previous 12 months,
including the identity of each requesting agency and the type of
technology requested;
!a summary of the criteria used to determine which requests were
funded and which were not;
!a general assessment of the future needs of the program, based on
expected changes in threats, expected technologies, and the likely
needs of potential recipients; and
!an assessment of the effectiveness of the technologies transferred,
based in part on the evaluations provided by the recipients, with a
recommendation of whether the technology should continue to be
offered through the program.
Despite these provisions contained in the reauthorization act, the
administration’s FY2008 budget request proposed ending CTAC’s technology
transfer program and devoting all CTAC funding to its research and development
program. Subsequently, CTAC was appropriated $1 million for research activities
in FY2008, a significant reduction from the agency’s $20 million allotment in
FY2007. CTAC no longer accepts technology transfer applications from law
enforcement agencies.
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (Sec. 501)
The Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998,40 less than two pages in length,
is the law that has governed the media campaign since its inception. It instructed the
ONDCP Director to “conduct a national media campaign ... for the purpose of
reducing and preventing drug abuse among young people in the United States.” It
specified uses of campaign funds that were permitted and prohibited, established the
matching requirement, and required the Director to report annually to Congress on
the campaign’s activities. It is repealed by the new reauthorization act, which greatly
expands upon the language of the old act, and adds many new program requirements,
to become sec. 709 (21 U.S.C. 1708) of current law.41
Purpose of the Campaign. The new reauthorization act restates somewhat
the campaign’s purpose — from “reducing and preventing drug abuse among young
people” to “preventing drug abuse among young people.” Dropping the goal of
reducing youth drug abuse seems to emphasize the preventive nature of the media
campaign — “stopping drug use before it starts” as the National Drug Control
Strategy puts it. The new act also adds two additional purposes: “increasing
awareness of adults of the impact of drug abuse on young people” and “encouraging
parents and other interested adults to discuss with young people the dangers of illegal
drug use.” The addition of adults as a key target audience of the campaign brings the
statute into conformance with ONDCP’s practice of directing up to 60% of campaign
advertising to adults who influence youth, such as parents, teachers, clergy, and
mentors.
Requirements for the Use of Campaign Funds. The new
reauthorization act adds to existing law certain requirements regarding the use of
campaign funds. For example, it requires that not more than $1.5 million can be
spent on creative services per fiscal year. This limit can be increased to $2 million
to meet urgent campaign needs with advance approval of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees. Most creative services, however, will continue to be
donated, as at present.
40 P.L. 105-277, Division D, Title I, sec. 102, October 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-752, 21
U.S.C. § 1801, et seq.
41 Sec. 709 of the expired act authorized creation of the President’s Council on Counter-
Narcotics, which was never established.
Testing and Evaluation of Advertising. The new act requires that all ads
be tested for effectiveness before they are aired. This requirement may be waived
under certain circumstances. The act requires that the effectiveness of the campaign
be evaluated by April 20 of each year by an independent entity. The evaluation must
be based on specified survey research measures of drug use and other relevant studies
to be determined by the Director.
Purchase of Advertising Time and Space. The new reauthorization act
requires that at least 77% of appropriated campaign funds be used to purchase
advertising time and space. The act further states that in any fiscal year for which
less than $125 million is appropriated for the campaign, at least 72% must be spent
on advertising time and space. In any fiscal year for which more than $195 million
is appropriated, at least 82% must be spent on advertising time and space.
Division of Responsibilities and Functions. The new reauthorization act
adds to current law a description of the separate duties of the Director, the
Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA), and the media buying contractor as
follows:
Responsibilities of the Director. The Director is responsible for
implementing a media campaign that focuses on the purposes set forth in the act and
for approving (1) the overall campaign strategy, (2) all advertising and promotional
material used in the campaign, and (3) the plan for the purchase of advertising time
and space for the campaign.
Responsibilities of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. The
Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) develops and recommends strategies
to achieve the goals of the campaign, including addressing national, regional, and
local drug threats, such as methamphetamine and ecstasy. The PDFA is also
responsible for creating all advertising to be used in the campaign, except
advertisements that are
!provided by other nonprofit entities under the matching requirement;
!intended to respond to high-priority or emergent campaign needs
that cannot timely be obtained at no cost (not including production
costs and talent reuse payments), provided that any such advertising
material is reviewed by the PDFA;
!intended to reach a minority, ethnic, or other special audience that
cannot be obtained at no cost (not including production costs and
talent reuse payments), provided that any such advertising material
is reviewed by the PDFA; or
!any other advertisements that the PDFA is unable to provide or if the
Director determines that another entity is more appropriate, in which
case the Director must notify the House and Senate committees of
jurisdiction, in writing, not less than 30 days prior to letting the
contract.
Responsibilities of the Media Buying Contractor. The Director contracts
with a media buying contractor who plans and purchases advertising time and space
for the campaign. The contractor cannot provide any service or material, or conduct
any function or activity, that the Director determines should be provided by the
PDFA.
Prohibition of Ads for Partisan Political Purposes. The expired act
prohibits the expenditure of campaign funds “for partisan political purposes.” The
new reauthorization act expands this language to read: “For partisan political
purposes, or express advocacy in support of or to defeat any clearly identified
candidate, clearly identified ballot initiative, or clearly identified legislative or
regulatory proposal.” This provision is significant because the Director has been
accused by some of using media campaign ads to oppose medical marijuana and
other drug reform voter initiatives at state and local levels.
The new act also adds a prohibition against funding any advertising containing
a primary message intended to promote support for the media campaign or to solicit
private sector contributions to the campaign. All campaign ads must contain primary
messages intended to reduce or prevent illicit drug use.
No-Cost Matching Requirement. The new reauthorization act continues
the campaign’s matching requirement under which media companies paid by the
campaign to run antidrug ads are required to donate an equal amount of advertising
time or space or other in-kind contributions to the antidrug effort, thereby doubling
the campaign’s “firepower.”
The new act requires that at least 70% of such no-cost match advertising directly
relates to the substance abuse prevention message of the media campaign. The
required percentage increases to 85% in any fiscal year in which less than $125
million is appropriated to the campaign.42 The remaining ads still have to include a
clear antidrug message, although it does not have to be the primary message of the
match advertising.
Sponsorship Identification. S. 2560 (sec. 504(3)) would have exempted
ads that are donated to the campaign under the matching requirement from the
sponsorship identification provisions contained in section 317 of the
Communications Act of 1934.43 The Advertising Council’s request for a waiver of
this requirement was denied by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
November 2002.44 This provision, which provoked controversy, would have nullified
the FCC order. (H.R. 2829, as introduced, had a similar provision (sec. 10(e)(4)), but
42 The campaign was appropriated less than $125 million in both FY2005 ($119 million) and
FY2006 ($100 million). For a table showing detailed funding information since the
campaign’s inception in 1998, see CRS Report RS21490, War on Drugs: The National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, by Mark Eddy.
43 Sec. 317 states that all matter broadcast by a station in exchange for consideration from
any person shall, at the time the matter is broadcast, be announced as paid for or furnished
by that person. 47 U.S.C. 317
44 Federal Communications Commission, Order FCC 02-268, released November 7, 2002.
it was dropped at markup by the full Government Reform Committee.) The new
reauthorization act contains no such provision.
Financial and Performance Accountability. The new reauthorization act
requires the Director to implement audits and reviews of the costs incurred by
campaign contractors and subcontractors pursuant to sec. 304C of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. § 254d). An audit must
also be conducted to determine whether these campaign costs are allowable under
sec. 306 of the same act. Employees of Ogilvy & Mather, the firm that previously
held the contract for purchasing advertising time and space for the media campaign,45
were charged with over-billing the government for its services. This audit
requirement attempts to prevent overcharges in the future.
Report to Congress.46 The Director must submit annually a report to
Congress that describes
!the campaign strategy and whether specific objectives of the
campaign were accomplished;
!steps taken to ensure that the campaign operates in an effective and
efficient manner consistent with the campaign’s overall strategy and
focus;
!plans for the purchase of advertising time and space;
!policies and practices implemented to ensure that federal funds are
used responsibly to purchase advertising time and space and
eliminate the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse; and
!all contracts entered into with a corporation, partnership, or
individual working on behalf of the campaign.
Prevention of Marijuana Use. The act contains congressional findings on
the harmfulness of marijuana and authorizes the Director to emphasize the prevention
of youth marijuana use in the campaign’s advertisements and other activities. This
provision brings the media campaign’s statutory language in line with what the
campaign has been doing in recent years.
Prevention of Methamphetamine Abuse.47 The new reauthorization act
requires the Director to expend not less than 10% of funds appropriated for the
campaign in a fiscal year on advertisements and grants specifically intended to reduce
the use of methamphetamine. After FY2007, if the Director certifies in writing to
Congress that domestic methamphetamine laboratory seizures (as reported to DEA’s
45 U.S. General Accounting Office, Anti-Drug Media Campaign: Aspects of Advertising
Contract Mismanaged by the Government; Contractor Improperly Charged Some Costs,
GAO-01-623, June 2001.
46 Due to a drafting error, this reporting requirement is repeated from sec. 203 of the new
reauthorization act. In this instance, however, it is missing three reporting elements that are
contained in the earlier version.
47 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Reps. Rehberg,
Boozman, Steve King, Capito, Souder, and Graves.
El Paso Intelligence Center) have decreased by at least 75% from the 2006 level, the
Director may apply the anti-methamphetamine funds to advertisements specifically
intended to reduce the use of other drugs, as the Director considers appropriate.
Authorization of Appropriations. The new reauthorization act authorizes
appropriations for the media campaign in the amounts of $195 million each for
FY2007 and FY2008 and $210 million each for FY2009 through FY2011.
Authorization of Appropriations for ONDCP (Sec. 601)
The new reauthorization act amends current law to authorize, except where the
bill authorizes specific amounts, the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary
for FY2006 through FY2010.
Termination Date for ONDCP (Sec. 602)
During consideration of ONDCP reauthorization in the 109th Congress, the
agency’s sunset provision proved controversial. H.R. 2829 (sec. 3) would have
repealed the sunset provision contained in law (sec. 715) (21 U.S.C. § 1712), which
technically terminated ONDCP on September 30, 2003.48 The House bill contained
no new termination provision, thereby authorizing ONDCP indefinitely. During
floor consideration of H.R. 2829, Representative Paul offered an amendment to add
a five-year sunset provision to H.R. 2829, but the amendment was defeated 85-322.
All three of the previous ONDCP authorizing acts contained five-year sunset
provisions. S. 2560 (sec. 602) would have stuck to custom and extended ONDCP
for five years, terminating the agency on September 30, 2010. It was the Senate’s
approach that prevailed and was carried over into H.R. 6344. The new
reauthorization act, therefore, extends the life of ONDCP through the end of FY2010.
Designation of U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (Secs. 701-703)
The new reauthorization act designates the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency as the
U.S. representative responsible for coordinating with other anti-doping organizations
involved in the coordination of amateur athletic competitions that are recognized by
the U.S. Olympic Committee to ensure the integrity of amateur athletic competitions,
the health of the athletes, and the prevention of use of performance-enhancing drugs,
or performance-enhancing genetic modifications accomplished through gene-doping,
by U.S. amateur athletes. This provision was taken from S. 2560 (Title VII), which
incorporated the language of S. 529.49 The act also authorizes appropriations for the
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.50
48 Despite this sunset provision, Congress continued to fund the agency through annual
appropriations.
49 Only the proposed authorizations differed between the two bills.
50 For more on this subject, which is not directly related to ONDCP, see CRS Report
(continued...)
Drug-Free Communities Act Reauthorization (Secs. 801-805)
The new act reauthorizes the Drug-Free Communities Support Program,51 a
grant program funded by ONDCP and administered by the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), an agency of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. It amends the Drug-Free Communities
Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 1524(a)) to reauthorize the program through FY2012. It
authorizes appropriations for the program in the amounts of $109 million for
FY2008, $114 million for FY2009, $119 million for FY2010, $124 million for
FY2011, and $129 million for FY2012.
The new act requires that not more than 3% of the funds appropriated for the
program may be used by ONDCP to pay for administrative costs. The agency
delegated to carry out the program may use up to 5% of the funds allocated for grants
for administrative costs.
The new act states that a grantee cannot be suspended or terminated from the
program without first being afforded a fair, timely, and independent appeal. This
provision arose out of a controversy in 2005 when a number of community anti-drug
coalitions unexpectedly lost their funding. The Director must submit a report to
Congress, within 60 days of enactment, that details the appeals process required by
this provision.
The new act increases the maximum value of individual grants that can be
awarded under this program in a fiscal year from $100,000 to $125,000 and states
that the Director cannot impose any eligibility criteria on new applicants or renewal
grantees that are not provided for in statute.
The Director must grant $2 million for each fiscal year from 2008 through 2012
to the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America to provide for the continuation
of the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute.
National Guard Counterdrug Schools (Sec. 901)
The new reauthorization act statutorily authorizes, for the first time, the
operations of five counterdrug schools operated by the National Guard, requires an
annual report to Congress on their activities, and authorizes appropriations to the52
Department of Defense of $30 million for each fiscal year from 2006 through 2010.
50 (...continued)
RL32894, Anti-Doping Policies: The Olympics and Selected Professional Sports, by L.
Elaine Halchin.
51 Reauthorization of this program was included in S. 2560, as introduced.
52 These provisions, which are not directly related to ONDCP, were introduced as S. 1785
in the 109th Congress and were subsequently incorporated into the text of S. 2560, from
which they made their way into H.R. 6344.
National Methamphetamine Clearinghouse (Sec. 1001)53
The new reauthorization act contains the National Methamphetamine
Information Clearinghouse Act of 2006, which establishes, within the Department
of Justice (DOJ),54 an information clearinghouse to be known as the National
Methamphetamine Information Clearinghouse (NMIC). The act also creates a
National Methamphetamine Advisory Council, consisting of 10 members appointed
by the Attorney General to three-year terms. At least three of the members must
represent law enforcement agencies, at least four must be from nonprofit
organizations that provide services related to methamphetamine, and one must
represent the Department of Health and Human Services. Advisory council members
will not be compensated for their council duties, but they will receive travel and per
diem expenses.
Clearinghouse Requirements and Review. The NMIC is created to
promote information sharing of successful law enforcement, treatment,
environmental, social service, and other programs related to the production, use, or
effects of methamphetamine and of grants available for such programs. It will
provide a toll-free number and a website for information on the short- and long-term
effects of methamphetamine use, methamphetamine treatment programs and
programs for drug endangered children, and grants for methamphetamine-related
programs. It will allow a qualified entity to submit items to be posted on the website
regarding successful public or private programs or other useful information related
to the production, use, or effects of methamphetamine. (A “qualified entity” is
defined as a state or local government, school board, or public health, law
enforcement, nonprofit, or other nongovernmental organization that provides services
related to methamphetamine.) The website will include a restricted section,
accessible only by law enforcement organizations, that contains successful strategies,
training techniques, and other information that the advisory council determines
helpful to law enforcement agency efforts to combat the production, use, or effects
of methamphetamine.
Within 30 days of submission of an item by a qualified entity, the advisory
council must review an item submitted for posting on the website to evaluate and
determine whether the item meets the requirements for posting and, in consultation
with the Attorney General, to determine whether the item should be posted in a
restricted section of the website. Within 45 days of submission of an item, the
Council will post the item on the website or notify the entity that submitted the item
of the reason for not posting it and of any modifications that could be made that
would allow it to be posted.
53 This provision was added by a floor amendment to H.R. 2829 offered by Reps. Chabot,
Boswell, Calvert, Cannon, and Larsen. The language was somewhat modified for inclusion
in H.R. 6344.
54 H.R. 2829 would have created the clearinghouse within ONDCP. S. 2560 placed it in
DOJ.
Authorization of Appropriations. The act authorizes to be appropriated
$500,000 for FY2007 to establish the clearinghouse and council and such sums as are
necessary for the operation of the clearinghouse and council for each of fiscal years
Repeals (Sec. 1101)
The new reauthorization act repeals section 710 of the expired act, which
provided for the establishment of a Parents Advisory Council on Youth Drug Abuse,
which is no longer active. It also repeals section 6073 of the Forfeiture Amendments
Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1509), establishing the Treasury Department’s Special
Forfeiture Fund, which once provided funds to ONDCP but no longer exists.
Controlled Substances Act Amendments (Sec. 1102)
The new reauthorization act amends section 303(g)(2) (21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)) of
the Controlled Substances Act relating to registration requirements of practitioners
who dispense narcotic drugs to individuals for maintenance or detoxification
treatment. This provision is unrelated to ONDCP and its drug-control programs.
Report on Intelligence Sharing (Sec. 1103)56
The new reauthorization act requires the Director to submit to Congress, within
180 days of enactment, a report evaluating existing and planned law enforcement
intelligence systems used by federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies
responsible for drug trafficking and drug production enforcement. The report must
address
!the current law enforcement intelligence systems used by federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies;
!the compatibility of such systems in ensuring access and availability
of law enforcement intelligence to federal, state, local, and tribal law
enforcement agencies;
!the extent to which federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement
agencies are sharing law enforcement intelligence information
needed to assess current threats and to design appropriate
enforcement strategies; and
!the measures needed to ensure and promote effective information
sharing among law enforcement intelligence systems operated by
55 H.R. 2829 would have authorized an appropriation of $1 million for FY2007 to establish
the clearinghouse and the advisory council, and would have authorized funding necessary
for their operation for each fiscal year through FY2011. S. 2560, on the other hand, would
have authorized $2 million to establish the clearinghouse and the advisory council and
funding necessary for their operation through FY2010.
56 This report requirement originated in the Senate Reauthorization bill in the 108th
Congress (S. 1860, sec. 307) and reappeared in S. 2560 (sec. 1103) in the 109th Congress.
federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies responsible
for drug trafficking and drug production enforcement.
South American Heroin Strategy (Sec. 1104)57
The new reauthorization act requires the Director, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, to submit to Congress, not more than 90 days after enactment, a
comprehensive strategy that addresses the increased threat from South American
heroin, especially Colombian heroin and the emerging threat from opium poppy
cultivation in Peru. The act requires that the strategy include efforts to eliminate the
problem at the source. They would also require interdiction and precursor chemical
controls, demand reduction and treatment, alternative development programs, efforts
to inform and involve local citizens, and assessment of the specific level of funding
and resources necessary to simultaneously address the threats from South American
heroin and from Colombian and Peruvian coca. Classified or sensitive information
would be presented to Congress separately from the rest of the strategy.
Model State Drug Laws (Sec. 1105)58
The new reauthorization act authorizes an appropriation of $1.5 million for each
fiscal year 2007 through 2011 to provide for a 501(c)(3) corporation to advise states
on establishing laws and policies to address alcohol and other drug issues, based on
the model state drug laws developed by the President’s Commission on Model State
Drug Laws in 1993, and to revise such model state drug laws and draft
supplementary model state laws to take into consideration changes in the alcohol and
drug abuse problems in the state involved.
Study of Iatrogenic Addiction (Sec. 1106)59
The new reauthorization act requires the Director to request the Institute of
Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study examining certain
aspects of iatrogenic addiction to opioid analgesic drugs in Schedules II and III of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812). The act defines iatrogenic addiction as
an addiction developed from the use of an opioid analgesic by an individual with
no previous history of any addiction, who has lawfully obtained and used the
drug for a legitimate medical purpose by administration from, or pursuant to the
prescription or order of, an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of
professional practice.
The study shall assess the current scientific literature to determine, if possible,
57 This provision originated as an amendment proposed by Rep. Mica to H.R. 2086, the
House reauthorization bill in the 108th Congress.
58 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Rep. Lungren.
59 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Rep. Lynch.
!the rate of iatrogenic addiction associated with the appropriate use
of prescription opioid analgesics;
!the impact of iatrogenic addiction associated with these drugs on the
individual, the prescriber, other patients, and society in general;
!the comparative abuse liability of these prescription drugs when used
properly by the ultimate user for a legitimate medical purpose;
!the types of prospective or retrospective studies that should be
undertaken to determine the rate of iatrogenic addiction associated
with the appropriate use of opioid analgesics; and
!a feasible timeline for conducting and reporting such studies, should
the current state of the scientific literature be insufficient to
determine the rate, impact, and comparative abuse liability of these
drugs.
A report on the status of the study must be submitted to Congress within one
year of the date of enactment of the act.
Strategy to Stop Internet Drug Advertising (Sec. 1107)
The new reauthorization act requires the Director, within 120 days of enactment,
to submit to Congress a strategy to stop advertisements that provide information
about obtaining scheduled prescription drugs over the Internet without a lawful
prescription.
Report on Diversion of Prescription Drugs (Sec. 1108)
The new reauthorization act requires the Director, in consultation with the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, to submit to Congress, within 90 days of
enactment, a report that includes a plan to conduct a study on the illegal diversion
and inappropriate uses of prescription drugs. The report would include
!methods to utilize surveys to provide appropriate baseline data on
the diversion and abuse of scheduled prescription drugs to evaluate
the extent and nature of potential problems associated with
inappropriate uses of prescription drugs in order to guide corrective
actions to reduce such problems, without unintentionally hindering
access to these drugs for legitimate medical purposes; and
!a scientifically based analysis of the relative contribution of both
innate and acquired genetic factors, environmental factors,
psychological factors, and drug characteristics that contribute to
addiction to prescription drugs.
Afghan Heroin Strategy (Sec. 1109)
The new reauthorization act requires the Director to submit to Congress, within
90 days of enactment, a comprehensive strategy that addresses the increased threat
from Afghan heroin. The strategy must include opium crop eradication efforts; the
destruction of heroin and raw opium stockpiles and of heroin production and storage
facilities; interdiction and precursor chemical controls; demand reduction and
treatment; alternative development programs; measures to improve cooperation and
coordination between relevant federal, foreign, and international agencies; and an
assessment of the amount of funding and resources necessary to reduce the
production and trafficking of heroin. Classified or sensitive information would be
presented to Congress separately from the rest of the strategy.
Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy (Sec. 1110)
Within 120 days of enactment and every two years thereafter, the new
reauthorization act requires the Director to submit to Congress a Southwest Border
Counternarcotics Strategy. This report would set forth the government’s strategy for
preventing the illegal trafficking of drugs across the international border between the
United States and Mexico, state the specific roles and responsibilities of the relevant
National Drug Control Program agencies for implementing the strategy, identify the
specific resources required to enable the relevant drug control agencies to implement
the strategy, and include a strategy to end the construction of tunnels under the
border.60 The Director shall issue the strategy in consultation with the heads of the
relevant National Drug Control Program agencies. The strategy cannot change
existing agency authorities or the laws governing interagency relationships, but it
may include recommendations about changes to such authorities or laws. Classified
or sensitive information will be submitted to Congress separately from the rest of the
strategy.
Mycoherbicide Study (Sec. 1111)
The new reauthorization act requires the Director to submit to Congress, within
a scientific study of the use of mycoherbicides as a means of illicit drug crop
elimination. The report will be prepared by an appropriate government scientific
research entity and must include a complete and thorough scientific peer review. The
study must contain an evaluation of the likely human health and environmental61
impacts of mycoherbicides derived from fungus naturally existing in the soil.
H.R. 2829 would have required the report to include a plan to conduct
controlled scientific testing in a major drug-producing nation of a mycoherbicide
naturally existing in the producing nation. This was changed in H.R. 6344 to require
that the study be conducted in U.S. territory and not in any foreign country. The
60 The provision on tunnels was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Rep.
Filner. It also requires the Director to recommend criminal penalties for persons who
construct or use such tunnels.
61 The requirement that the report look at the effects of mycoherbicides on human health and
the environment was added to H.R. 2829 by the adoption of an amendment offered by Rep.
Cummings at the Government Reform Committee markup of H.R. 2829 on June 16, 2005.
The overall provision was originally proposed by Rep. Burton.
change was prompted by public opposition to this provision, which proved to be
controversial.62
State Precursor Chemical Control Law Study (Sec. 1112)
The new reauthorization act requires the Director to conduct, in consultation
with the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws, a study of state laws with
respect to precursor chemical controls. The Director must submit to Congress, not
later than six months after the date of enactment, a report on the results of the study.
The report must include a comparison of the state laws studied, the effectiveness of
each such law, and a list of best practices observed with respect to such laws.
Study of Drug-Endangered Children Programs (Sec. 1113)
The new reauthorization act requires the Director to submit to Congress, no later
than six months after the date of enactment, a report on methamphetamine-related
activities conducted by state drug-endangered children programs. The study must
include an analysis of the best practices of the activities studied and
recommendations for establishing a national policy to address the problems of
children whose physical, mental, or emotional health are at risk because of the
production, use, or effects of methamphetamine by another person.
Drug Court Hearings at Alternative Sites Study (Sec. 1114)63
The new reauthorization act require the Director to conduct a study on drug
court programs that conduct hearings in nontraditional public places, such as schools,
so that students see the consequences of drug abuse by nonviolent offenders, thereby
serving as a strong deterrent and promoting demand reduction. The Director must
include a report on this study with the Drug Control Strategy that is due to Congress
on February 1, 2007. The report must include an evaluation of the results of the
study and such recommendations as the President considers appropriate.
Report on Tribal Participation in HIDTAs (Sec. 1115)64
Within one year of the bill’s enactment, the new reauthorization act requires the
Director to submit a report to Congress on the representation of tribal governments
in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program. The report must
include
!a list of tribal governments represented in the program and a
description of their participation,
62 See, for example, “Repeating Mistakes of the Past: Another Mycoherbicide Research
Bill,” a report by the Drug Policy Alliance, available at [http://www.drugpolicy.org].
63 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Rep. Boozman.
64 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Rep. Renzi.
!an explanation of the rationale for the level of representation by
tribal governments, and
!recommendations by the Director on methods for increasing the
number of tribal governments represented in the HIDTA Program.
Report on School Drug Testing (Sec. 1116)
The new reauthorization act requires the Director, within 120 days of enactment,
to submit a report to Congress on drug testing in schools. The report must include
a list of secondary schools that have initiated drug testing after attending a conference
on school drug testing sponsored by ONDCP.
Report on ONDCP Performance Bonuses (Sec. 1117)
The new act requires the Director, within 120 days of enactment, to submit a
report to Congress on performance bonuses awarded at ONDCP. The report must
include a list of employees who received performance bonuses, and the amount of
such bonuses, for the period beginning on October 1, 2004, and ending on the date
of submission of the report.
Sponsorship Identification in Advertisements (Sec. 1118)65
The new reauthorization act requires that every advertisement or other
communication that ONDCP pays for, either directly or through a contract, shall
include a prominent notice stating that it was paid for by ONDCP. This requirement
includes advertisements disseminated in any form and includes communications by
individuals in any form, including speech, print, or any electronic means. This
provision prevents, among other things, the distribution of so-called “video news66
releases” by ONDCP — a practice that ONDCP says it has stopped.
Identification of sponsorship of broadcast matter is required by sec. 317 of the
Communications Act of 1934.67 The Advertising Council had earlier requested a
waiver of this requirement so that advertisements donated to ONDCP’s media
campaign under the matching requirement would not have to be identified as having
been sponsored by ONDCP. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
denied the request in November 2002.68
In the 108th Congress, there was a legislative attempt to nullify the 2002 FCC
order. The ONDCP reauthorization bills in both the Senate (S. 1860, sec. 404(3))
65 This section was added to H.R. 2829 by an amendment offered by Ranking Member
Waxman at the Government Reform Committee markup on June 16, 2005.
66 House Government Reform Committee Report, p. 69.
67 Sec. 317 (47 U.S.C. § 317) states that all matter broadcast by a station in exchange for
consideration from any person shall, at the time the matter is broadcast, be announced as
paid for or furnished by that person.
68 Federal Communications Commission, Order FCC 02-268, released November 7, 2002.
and the House (H.R. 2086, sec. 10(e)(4)) contained provisions to exempt
advertisements donated to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign under the
matching requirement from being identified as sponsored by ONDCP. (The
provision in the House bill was dropped at markup by the full Government Reform
Committee.) This provision in the new reauthorization act will have broader
applicability, extending beyond the media campaign to all public announcements by
ONDCP.
Awards for Coerced Abstinence Programs (Sec. 1119)69
The new reauthorization act require the Director to make competitive awards
to fund demonstration programs by eligible local partnerships to coerce abstinence,
through the use of drug testing and sanctions, of chronic hard-drug users living in the
community under the supervision of the criminal justice system.
Use of Award Amounts. The amounts awarded to eligible partnerships will
be used to
!support the efforts of the agencies, organizations, and researchers
included in the eligible partnership;
!develop and field a drug testing and graduated sanctions program for
chronic hard-drug users living in the community under criminal
justice supervision; and
!assist chronic hard-drug users by strengthening rehabilitation efforts
through job training, drug treatment, or other services.
Definition of Eligible Partnership. The term “eligible partnership” is
defined as a working group whose application to the Director
!identifies the roles played, and certifies the involvement of, three or
more agencies or organizations, which can include state or local
agencies (such as those carrying out police, probation, prosecution,
courts, corrections, parole, or treatment functions), federal drug
control agencies, and community-based organizations;
!includes a qualified researcher;
!includes a plan to administer drug tests at least twice a week to
recovering addicts living in the community while under the
supervision of the criminal justice system, and to swiftly and
certainly impose a known set of graduated sanctions for
noncompliance with community-release provisions relating to drug
69 This section was added to H.R. 2829 at the House Judiciary Committee markup by
adoption of an amendment offered by Rep. Schiff. “Coerced abstinence” is an idea
propounded by Mark A.R. Kleiman, Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public
Affairs, University of California at Los Angeles, and a constituent of Rep. Schiff. See his
“Controlling Drug Use and Crime Among California’s Drug-Involved Offenders: Testing,
Sanctions, and Treatment,” available at [http://www.spa.ucla.edu/faculty/kleiman/
Controlling_Dr ug_Use.pdf]
abstinence (whether imposed as a pretrial, probation, or parole
condition or otherwise);
!includes a strategy for responding to a range of substance use and
abuse problems and a range of criminal histories;
!includes a plan for integrating data infrastructure among the agencies
and organizations included in the eligible partnership to enable
seamless, real-time tracking of hard-drug users under criminal
justice supervision; and
!includes a plan to monitor and measure the progress toward reducing
the percentage of the population of hard-drug users under criminal
justice supervision who, upon being summoned for a drug test, either
fail to show up or test positive for drugs.
Reports to Congress. Not later than June 1, 2009, the Director must submit
to Congress an interim report identifying the best practices in coercing abstinence in
chronic hard-drug users, including the best practices identified through the activities
funded under this section. Not later than June 1, 2010, the Director must submit to
Congress a final report on the best practices in coercing abstinence in hard-drug users
as identified by the demonstration programs.
Authorization of Appropriations. The act authorizes an appropriation for
this awards program in the amount of $4.9 million each for FY2007 through
FY2009.70
Policy Relating to Syringe Exchange Programs (Sec. 1120)71
The new reauthorization act amends current law (sec. 703(a)) (21 U.S.C.
§1702(a)) by adding at the end the following statement:
When developing the national drug control policy, any policy of the Director
relating to syringe exchange programs for intravenous drug users shall be based
on the best available medical and scientific evidence regarding their effectiveness
in promoting individual health and preventing the spread of infectious disease,
and their impact on drug addiction and use. In making any policy relating to
syringe exchange programs, the Director shall consult with the National Institutes
of Health and the National Academy of Sciences.
While Representative Souder, the act’s sponsor, has often stated that he does not
advocate needle exchange programs, he supported this amendment at the
Government Reform Committee markup because he does believe that policy relating
to the issue should be backed by the results of scientific studies. This was reiterated
in the Government Reform Committee report on H.R. 2829, which plainly states that
“in adopting this amendment the Committee in no way endorses the use of such
programs”(p. 70).
70 The annual authorization is reduced from the $10 million amount proposed in H.R. 2829,
as amended.
71 This section was added to H.R. 2829 by an amendment offered by Ranking Member
Waxman and modified by the Government Reform Committee at markup on June 16, 2005.
Provisions of H.R. 2829 Not Included in H.R. 6344
General Counterdrug Intelligence Plan
Not later than 120 days after enactment and every two years thereafter, H.R.
2829 (sec. 6(l)) would have required the Director, with the concurrence of the
Director of National Intelligence, to submit to congress a General Counterdrug
Intelligence Plan to improve coordination and eliminate unnecessary duplication
among the federal counterdrug intelligence centers, activities, and agencies. The
report would have to articulate clear and specific mission statements for each
counterdrug intelligence center, system, and activity; specify each federal, state, and
local entity that participates in each counterdrug center, system, and activity; specify
the means by which proper oversight of such centers, systems, and activities would
be assured; specify the means by which counterdrug intelligence and information
would be forwarded effectively to all levels of officials responsible for U.S.
counterdrug policy; and specify mechanisms to ensure that state and local law
enforcement agencies would be apprised of counterdrug intelligence and information
acquired by federal law enforcement agencies. (The last counterdrug intelligence
plan was prepared in 2000 and is considered outdated.)
Southwest Border Violence Study72
H.R. 2829 (sec. 6(o)) would have required the Director to submit to Congress,
within 180 days of enactment and annually thereafter, a study of persons kidnaped,
killed, or missing along the border between the United States and Mexico. The study
would have reported on the specific impact on U.S. citizens of border violence
related to drug trafficking and included recommendations on methods to solve the
offenses and reduce their occurrence. To conduct this study, the bill would have
authorized an appropriation of $1 million for each fiscal year from 2007 through
Assessment of Youth Drug Use73
Not later than one year after enactment, H.R. 2829 (sec. 6(p)) would have
required the Director to complete an assessment of report materials, studies, and
statistics to determine the extent to which children aged 12 to 17 experiment with and
regularly use alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs without a prescription, marijuana,
and other illicit drugs; and the extent to which they have access to intervention
services or programs, including drug testing, counseling, rehabilitation, legal
representation, and other services or programs associated with prevention, treatment,
and punishment of substance abuse. The period studied would have been the five-
year period before enactment.
72 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Rep. Cuellar.
73 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Rep. Jackson-
Lee.
Synthetic Drugs Strategy
The House bill (sec. 6(r)) would have required the Director to submit to
Congress, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment, the National Synthetic
Drugs Action Strategy outlined in the National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan
submitted by the Director in October 2004.
Methamphetamine Strategy74
No later than 90 days after the date of the enactment, the Director would have
been required by the House bill (sec. 6(u)) to submit to Congress a comprehensive
strategy that addressed the increased threat from methamphetamine. The strategy
would have included interdiction and precursor chemical controls, demand reduction
and treatment, alternative development programs, efforts to prevent the diversion of
precursor chemicals on an international level, and an assessment of the level of
funding and resources necessary to reduce significantly the production and trafficking
of methamphetamine.
Awards for Shutting Down Illicit Drug Markets75
H.R. 2829 (sec. 14) would have required the Director to make competitive
awards to fund demonstration programs by eligible local partnerships for the purpose
of shutting down local illicit drug market hot-spots and reducing drug-related crime
through evidence-based, strategic, problem-solving interventions that deter drug
dealers or alter the dynamic of drug sales. The amounts awarded to eligible
partnerships would have been used to support the efforts of the agencies,
organizations, and researchers included in the eligible partnership; develop and field
a directed and credible deterrent threat; and strengthen rehabilitation efforts through
job training, drug treatment, or other services. Not later than June 1, 2009, the
Director would have been required to submit to Congress an interim report
identifying the best practices in drug market eradication. Not later than June 1, 2010,
the Director would have submitted to Congress a final report on the best practices in
drug market eradication as identified by the demonstration programs. The bill would
have authorized appropriations for this awards program in the amount of $10 million
each for FY2007 through FY2009.
International Summit on Methamphetamine Threat76
The House bill (sec. 20) would have required the Director, in consultation with
the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the United States Trade Representative,
74 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Rep. Hooley.
75 This section was added to H.R. 2829 at the House Judiciary Committee markup by
adoption of an amendment offered by Rep. Schiff.
76 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Reps. Baird,
Cardoza, and Hooley.
to convene, within 12 months of enactment, an international summit on the threat of
methamphetamine and synthetic drug precursor chemicals. The Director would seek
the participation and involvement of government leaders at the highest level from all
countries that are direct sources of precursor chemicals and from all countries that are
affected by methamphetamine production, trafficking, and use. The purpose of the
summit would have been to intensify and coordinate an effective international
response to prevent methamphetamine production and precursor diversion. The
Director would have been required to encourage the negotiation, drafting, and
ratification of multilateral or bilateral agreements that contain information-sharing
treaties concerning provisions for precursor importation and exportation and
additional provisions for annual assessments of the medical and scientific needs of
each signatory country. The bill would have authorized an appropriation of $1
million for this purpose.
Report on HHS Sponsorship of Harm Reduction Conference77
The Director would have been required by H.R. 2829 (sec. 22) to submit to
Congress, no later than 30 days after enactment, a report explaining the rationale and
circumstances that led to the sponsorship by the Department of Health and Human
Services of, and the participation by HHS employees in, the First National
Conference on Methamphetamine, HIV, and Hepatitis Science and Response,
conducted by the Harm Reduction Coalition and the Harm Reduction Project in
August 2005 in Salt Lake City. The report would have included a description of
ONDCP management and reporting systems that are in place, or that would be put
in place, to ensure that the policy of the federal government is consistently supportive
of efforts to prevent the use of methamphetamine. This provision reflected the
position of some Members of Congress that the harm reduction approach to drug use,
which has been widely implemented in Europe and elsewhere, is an evil to be
stamped out, not an alternative policy worthy of consideration.
Report on the Methamphetamine Epidemic
H.R. 2829 (sec. 27) would have required the Director to prepare, within 120
days of enactment, a report on methamphetamine usage in the United States. The
report would have described methamphetamine usage by zip code based on
information obtained from industrial and school drug testing and on seizures of
clandestine laboratories.
Reauthorization Bills in the 108th Congress
The agency’s authorization expired on September 30, 2003,78 putting its
reauthorization on the agenda of the 108th Congress. Bills were introduced in both
77 This provision was added to H.R. 2829 by a floor amendment offered by Rep. Graves.
78 Since the expiration of its authorization, activities of ONDCP were carried out under
authority provided by appropriations.
the House of Representatives (H.R. 2086) and the Senate (S. 1860) to extend
ONDCP for another five years.
The House Bill, H.R. 2086
House Government Reform Subcommittee Hearings. To prepare for
its consideration of the House ONDCP reauthorization bill, the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources held a series of three hearings
on ONDCP and its programs early in the first session of the 108th Congress. At the
first hearing, on March 5, 2003, ONDCP Director Walters testified on his agency’s
recently released National Drug Control Strategy for 2003.79
The subcommittee’s second hearing, held on March 27, 2003, focused on the80
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The media campaign was originally
created and authorized separately from ONDCP’s reauthorizing statute by the Drug-81
Free Media Campaign Act of 1998. The media campaign’s authorization expired
at the end of FY2002, but it continued to be funded through appropriations82
measures.
Two of ONDCP’s other programs, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program and the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, were the subjects of
the subcommittee’s third and final hearing on April 8, 2003. ONDCP Deputy
Director for State and Local Affairs Scott Burns and Drug Enforcement
Administration Chief of Operations Roger Guevara, along with several state and
local law enforcement officials, testified at this hearing.83
Introduction of H.R. 2086 and Subcommittee Markup. On May 14,
2003, Subcommittee Chairman Souder introduced H.R. 2086, the Office of National
Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003. At markup the next day, the bill
was ordered reported, as amended, to the full Government Reform Committee.
79 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, ONDCP Reauthorization and the Nationalthst
Drug Control Strategy for 2003, hearing, 108 Cong., 1 sess., March 5, 2003 (Washington:
GPO, 2003).
80 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, ONDCP Reauthorization: The National Youththst
Anti-Drug Media Campaign, hearing, 108 Cong., 1 sess., March 27, 2003 (Washington:
GPO, 2003).
81 P.L. 105-277, Division D, Title I, Sec. 102, October 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-752, 21
U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.
82 Further information on the media campaign and analysis of its impact on youth drug use
in the United States can be found in CRS Report RS21490, War on Drugs: The National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, by Mark Eddy.
83 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, ONDCP Reauthorization: The High Intensitythst
Drug Trafficking Areas Program and CTAC, hearing, 108 Cong., 1 sess., April 8, 2003
(Washington: GPO, 2003).
Committee Hearing and Markup. The full Government Reform
Committee held a hearing and scheduled a markup for May 22, 2003. Director84
Walters testified at the hearing portion of the committee meeting. The markup
scheduled to follow the Director’s testimony was postponed, however, due to
disagreements between the committee’s majority and minority Members over certain
provisions in the bill. These disagreements were later resolved and a rescheduled
markup was held on June 5, 2003, when the full committee approved an amendment
in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative Souder.85
One point of disagreement concerned a provision that would have allowed the
ONDCP Director to use funds appropriated for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign to oppose efforts in the states, including referenda and legislative
proposals, to legalize the use of any controlled substance. Instead, the amended
version of H.R. 2086 would have forbidden any media campaign funds from being
used for “partisan political purposes or advocacy in support of or to defeat any clearly
identified candidate, clearly identified ballot initiative, or clearly identified legislative
or regulatory proposal.” This was an expansion of the language in current law that
simply prohibits use of media campaign funds “for partisan political purposes.” This
wording was expanded in an attempt to stop the Director and other ONDCP officials
from publicly campaigning against medical marijuana ballot initiatives in the states
and to curtail ONDCP’s alleged use of media campaign ads to persuade voters to
oppose such initiatives.
At markup, Representative Waxman, the committee’s ranking Member, offered
an amendment to eliminate the requirement in current law (sec. 704(b)(12)) that the
Director “take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of
a substance (in any form) that is listed in schedule I ... and has not been approved for
use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration.” Arguing against
the amendment, Representative Souder stated his belief in the importance of the
Director speaking out against any efforts that would violate federal law,
notwithstanding that the issue under debate involved efforts to change federal law,
not break federal law. The amendment was rejected by voice vote and the provision
remains in current law, unchanged by the new reauthorization act.
House Judiciary Committee Actions. The House Judiciary Committee,
to which H.R. 2086 was also referred, considered the bill on July 9, 2003, and
ordered it reported, as amended, on July 14, 2003.
84 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, H.R. 2086, The Office of
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003, hearing on H.R. 2086, 108thst
Cong., 1 sess., May 22, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003).
85 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003, report to accompany H.R. 2086, 108th Cong.,st
H.R. 2086 Passes the House. The House passed the measure, without
amendment, by voice vote under suspension of the rules, on September 30, 2003.86
The following day, the measure was received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 2086 received no further consideration and diedth
at the close of the 108 Congress. It laid the groundwork, however, for the ONDCP
reauthorization bills that would be introduced in the 109th Congress.
The Senate Bill, S. 1860
The Senate’s ONDCP reauthorization bill was introduced on November 14,
Committee.
Structure and Major Provisions of S. 1860. The part of the Senate bill
that would have reauthorized ONDCP and the media campaign (Titles I through V)
followed the structure of the House proposal, although it differed from H.R. 2086 in
many of its details. Like the House bill, S. 1860 would have amended ONDCP’s
Reauthorization Act of 1998. It also would have amended the Drug-Free Media
Campaign Act of 1998; however, unlike the House bill, it would have left it as a
separate statute. The remaining titles of S. 1860 contained additional drug-control
measures, including treatment provisions, that were unrelated to ONDCP and that
were not found in H.R. 2086. S. 1860 saw no action beyond introduction and
committee referral, and the bill died at the close of the 108th Congress. Many of its
provisions, however, were incorporated into both H.R. 2829 and S. 2560, the House
reauthorization bills in the 109th Congress.
86 “Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003,” Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 149 (September 30, 2003), pp. H8962-H8972.
87 Sen. Hatch, et al., introductory remarks, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149
(November 14, 2003), pp. S14811-S14815.