98-149 GOV Drug Control CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESSNUMBER: 98-149 GOVTITLE: Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control PolicyAUTHOR: David TeasleyDIVISION: Government DivisionDATE: Updated June 29, 1998TEXT:Summary The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) wasscheduled to sunset on September 30, 1997, but Congress approved ONDCP funding under the Treasury, Postal Appropriations Act, FY1998 (P.L. 105-61). Several measures have been introduced in the 105th Congress to reauthorize ONDCP. On October 21, 1997, the House passed H.R. 2610, as amended, the National Narcotics Leadership Act. On November 6, 1997, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 2610, striking the language of the House-passed version, and replacing it with a markedly different version, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act. The Senate may come to terms on a unanimous consent agreement to consider the bill during the week of July 6th. Introduction The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was createdand authorized through FY1993 by the National Narcotics LeadershipAct of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1506), under Title I of the Anti-Drug AbuseAct of 1988 (P.L. 100-690). The National Narcotics Leadership ActAmendments, under Title IX of the Violent Crime Control and LawEnforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322), reauthorized ONDCP throughFY1997. Although ONDCP's authorization technically expired onSeptember 30, 1997, Congress approved ONDCP funding for FY1998 underthe Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government AppropriationsAct (P.L. 105-61), signed into law on October 10, 1997. The 105thCongress is expected to reauthorize ONDCP in its second session. ONDCP Reauthorization and the 105th CongressThe Administration's Draft Bill Early in 1997, the Clinton Administration submitted draftlegislation to Congress to reauthorize ONDCP, though it was notintroduced in either chamber. At the May 1, 1997, hearing on theAdministration's ONDCP reauthorization proposal, held by the HouseGovernment Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on National Security,International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, ONDCP Director BarryMcCaffrey discussed the major provisions of the administration'sdraft measure: (1) reauthorize ONDCP through September 30, 2009, with a 10-year drug control strategy and a five-year budget; (2) require the director to assess drug use indicators and set performance measures based on the 1997 National Drug Control Strategy's five goals and 32 objectives; (3) explicitly establish ONDCP's responsibility to coordinate efforts to reduce underage use of alcohol and tobacco; (4) create a new Office of Intergovernmental Relations that would replace ONDCP's current Bureau of State and Local Affairs (BSLA); (5) make the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program a separate program within ONDCP and give the director the authority, in consultation with HIDTA program agencies, to issue regulations for the management of the program; and (6) clarify the current authority of the Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC) to conduct research on demand-reduction activities.Recent Congressional Initiatives to Reauthorize ONDCP Several measures introduced in the 105th Congress wouldreauthorize ONDCP, including A Bill to Amend the National NarcoticsLeadership Act of 1988 to Extend the Authorization for the Office ofNational Drug Control Policy until September 30, 2000 (S.2028/Ashcroft); the Office of National Drug Control PolicyReauthorization Act of 1997 (S. 1053/Biden; H.R. 2407/Levin), theJuvenile Offender Control and Prevention Grant Act of 1997 (H.R.1699/Stupak), and the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1997(S. 3/Hatch). The National Narcotics Leadership Act (H.R.2610/Hastert), which was introduced on October 6, 1997, and referredto the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, hasemerged as the primary vehicle for ONDCP reauthorization. It passedthe House, amended, on October 21, 1997, and was reported (withoutwritten report) by the Senate Judiciary Committee, with an amendmentin the nature of a substitute, on November 6, 1997.House Consideration of H.R. 2610 As approved by the House, H.R. 2610, the National NarcoticsLeadership Act, includes provisions that would: (1) reauthorize ONDCP until September 30, 1999; (2) create two new deputy directors in the areas of state and local affairs, and intelligence; (3) require ONDCP's director to reach hard targets for drug reduction, as established in the proposed bill, by 2001, and hold him responsible for their achievement; (4) establish specific performance measures within the National Drug Control Strategy, and require the director to submit a four-year plan to Congress to reduce drug use in the United State to 3% of the total population by 2001; (5) augment the powers of the director to coordinate efforts among all National Drug Control Program Agencies (NDCPAs) and receive information from them; (6) expand the director's transfer authority, (a) except as limited in an annual appropriations act, (b) with the agreement of the head of the affected agency, and (c) upon advance approval by Congress, to provide for transfer of appropriated funds not to exceed 5% of an NDCPA's account where funds originate or terminate; and (7) establish a new Drug Policy Council, chaired by the President and composed of the members of the President's Cabinet, which would make decisions regarding national drug policy. A significant provision of the bill is the proposedestablishment by law of hard targets on a nationwide basis thatONDCP must meet by 2001, including not only a drop in drug use to 3%of the population, but also: (a) an 80% reduction in theavailability of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine; (b)a 60% decrease in the average street purity levels of these drugs;(c) a 50% reduction in drug-related crime; and (d) a 50% decline indrug-related emergency room incidents. Also, the measure containsprovisions to require ONDCP to ensure that no federal drug controlfunds are used for any study or contract relating to marijuanalegalization (including medical use) or for the expansion of drugtreatment programs within the HIDTA program. The House Debate on the Measure. (See Endnote 1.) During theHouse debate on H.R. 2610, proponents argued several main points. Representative Hastert, sponsor of the bill, argued that the measureis, in many ways, "the most significant anti-drug bill since theoriginal authorization of the drug czar in 1988, with the possibleexception of the Drug-Free Communities Act...." He emphasized thatthe bill is built around one basic goal of attaining "a virtualdrug-free America by the year 2001," by empowering the ONDCPdirector to improve interagency coordination, while adding accountability mechanisms to ensure that "the American taxpayer isgetting maximum results" from federal drug control efforts. Representative Hastert recognized that "there are certain to bedifferences of opinion about how high or how low the bar should beset in this fundamentally re-engineered approach to our nationaldrug control policy, but the important point about this bill is thatfor the first time ever Congress is actually setting a standard, abar, and empowering the drug czar's office to promulgate aggressiveperformance measures for the agencies which will provide results." Representative McCollum, chairman of the House Judiciary CrimeSubcommittee, argued for the bill: "I think it is a tremendousimprovement over current law.... [W]e are not only not winning thewar on drugs, we do not even have a war on drugs, not in the sensethat most Americans would believe. We have not set up the kind ofgoals and missions and objectives that the military would fight ifthey were fighting a war." Representative Shaw maintained that themeasure "sets accountability and responsibility" with GeneralMcCaffrey. "But if he cannot do it," Representative Shaw stated,"then step aside and let somebody in that can do it." Representative Gilman stated his support for the measure, inpart because it meets his concerns about ONDCP's authority toreprogram and transfer funds. "The transfer authority," he noted,"has long created fear that substantial funds from law enforcementor interdiction could not be moved and later be used by thisadministration for treatment or media campaigns to the detriment ofthese equally important enforcement efforts." The bill wouldprovide controls on the ONDCP director's transfer authority "byproviding the authorizing committees' as well as the appropriationscommittees' approval for any such reprogramming...." Representative Barr noted that the General Accounting Office"has told us that long study has indicated ... that the current drugpolicy under the leadership of the ONDCP is not clear, it is notcoordinated, it is not comprehensive, and it is not consistent.... "This legislation, on the other hand, is clear, it is coordinated,it is comprehensive, and it is consistent; in short, a recipe forsuccess where we have had failure in the past." Opponents of the measure argued several points. For example,Representative Barrett held that the measure "would be moreappropriately called the Drug Control Failure Act for the Year 2000. I say failure because this bill has never been designed to give theOffice of National Drug Control Policy the tools and direction tosucceed..." Instead, he pointed out that "the bill establishesunattainable drug control targets, requires the administration toreport twice yearly on its failure to meet those targets, andprovides for only a 2-year authorization requiring reauthorizationduring a Presidential campaign." Representative Barrett criticized the hard targets in the bill: "there is not a single study or report from any source, governmentor private sector, that recommends or even directly supports thetargets set forth in this bill. In view of ONDCP, which has spentthousands of hours developing performance measures and drug controlobjectives, these targets are arbitrary and flatly unattainable bythe year 2001." He illustrated this point by noting that the targetset for a reduction in overall drug use would require ONDCP toreduce drug use to a rate 60% lower than at any time in the lastthree decades. Along with Representatives Hoyer, Levin, and Waxman,Representative Barrett found the measure to reflect a partisaneffort on the part of its sponsors: "Judging by its majorprovisions, the bill appears designed to achieve political advantagein the 1998 and 2000 elections, all at a cost to ONDCP and itsefforts to fight drugs at the Federal level." Representative Hoyeropposed the "simplistic choices" proposed by the bill's proponents,based on "the hypothesis if you are not for this bill, you are notfor the drug fight." Representative Davis of Illinois argued that the bill does notinclude "in a real way" three of the basic components of anyeffective drug policy: treatment, education, and prevention. Regarding treatment, he maintained that "this bill prohibits the useof HIDTA funds for treatment of people who are chemically dependent... [and] provides no real ideas for treatment strategies." Similarly, he held that the measure lacks significant education andprevention strategies, "other than the old 'lock them up, throw awaythe key,' which we already know does not, will not, and cannotwork." ONDCP Response to the House Version. Prior to House approvalof H.R. 2610, ONDCP Director McCaffrey stated his strong support for reauthorization legislation, but noted his opposition to the Houseversion of the measure, arguing that it would: (1) establish numerical statutory targets for reducing drug use by the year 2001 that are unrealistic and unattainable in such a short time period; (2) reauthorize ONDCP for only two years; (3) raise constitutional questions, since the bill would authorize the director to transfer funds among National Drug Control Program (NDCP) agencies only with the advance approval of specified congressional committees, even though the committee approval mechanism is a violation of the Supreme Court's INS v. Chadha decision; (4) provide excessively burdensome reporting requirements; (5) prohibit or create substantial obstacles to federal funding for legitimate scientific research into potential beneficial uses of controlled substances; (6) raise conflicts between the proposed responsibilities of the director of ONDCP and the directors of other agencies, including the fact that H.R. 2610 creates a new Deputy Director for Intelligence, but neither delineates the responsibilities of this new position nor distinguishes them from those of the Director of Central Intelligence, thus creating the potential for confusion and duplication of effort; and (7) involve the ONDCP Director in the internal management of other agencies, since H.R. 2610 requires the heads of NDCP agencies to provide the director with unspecified 'information' about any vacancy in National Drug Control Program offices or any vacancy at or above the level of Deputy Assistant Secretary. (See Endnote 2.) The Senate Judiciary Committee Version of H.R. 2610 On November 6, 1997, the Senate Judiciary Committee reportedH.R. 2610, striking the language of the House-passed version, andreplacing it with a significantly different version. The "Office ofNational Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act" would: (1) reauthorize ONDCP through September 30, 2001, and authorize appropriations of such sums as may be necessary for FY 1998 through FY2001; (2) create a Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs who would replace ONDCP's current position for the head of Bureau of State and Local Affairs (BSLA); (3) set forth and modify ONDCP's responsibilities in the areas of the development of national drug control policy, the coordination and oversight of the implementation of such policy, the assessment and certification of the adequacy of national drug control programs and the budget for those programs, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of such programs; (4) establish a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program within ONDCP; (5) revise provisions regarding the Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center and provide that its Director of Technology would be empowered to identify demand reduction needs and initiatives regarding basic and applied research; (6) establish in the Treasury a fund for the receipt of gifts to aid or facilitate the work of the ONDCP; (7) revise provisions regarding the National Drug Control Strategy to require: (a) the President to submit to the Congress by February 1, 1997, a strategy that sets forth a comprehensive plan, covering a period of not more than 10 years, for reducing drug abuse and the consequences of drug abuse in the United States, by limiting the availability of and reducing the demand for illegal drugs; and (b) annual reports on progress in implementing the strategy (permits the President to submit a revised strategy that meets the requirements of this act under specified conditions); (8) require the director to submit annually to Congress a description of the national drug control performance measurement system, including any modifications made during the preceding year; (9) require the director to work in conjunction with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; (10) establish a President's Council on Counter-Narcotics to advise and assist the President in: (a) providing direction and oversight for the strategy, including relating drug control policy to other national security interests; and (b) ensuring coordination among federal agencies concerning the implementation of the Strategy (the Director would serve as the Executive Director of the Council, the senior drug control policy official in the executive branch, and the chief drug control policy spokesman for the President); (11) establish a Parents Advisory Council on Youth Drug Abuse to advise the President and the Cabinet, including the director, on drug prevention, education, and treatment and to issue reports and recommendations; and (12) express the sense of the Congress that the President should discuss with the democratically elected governments of the western hemisphere the prospect of forming a multilateral alliance to address problems relating to international drug trafficking in the western hemisphere. Basically, the Senate version shares with the House version manyof the reporting requirements and the provision to create a positionfor a new deputy director of state and local affairs. Unlike theHouse version, the Senate version does not include the hard targetsfor drug reduction, nor would it create the new position for adeputy director for intelligence. Also, the Senate version wouldnot prohibit the use of HIDTA funds for the expansion of drugtreatment programs. (See Endnote 3.) ENDNOTES1. House Debate on the National Narcotics Leadership ActAmendments, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, Oct. 21,1997, pp. H8874-H8882.2. For a copy of ONDCP Director McCaffrey's letter of October 21,1997, to House Democratic Leader Gephardt concerning H.R. 2610, seeStatement of Representative Thomas M. Barrett on the NationalNarcotics Leadership Act Amendments of 1997, Congressional Record,daily edition, vol. 143, Oct. 29, 1997, pp. E2122-E2123. 3. For additional discussion of the House and Senate versions, see:"Clinton Commits an Additional $73 Million to Anti-Drug Efforts;ONDCP Reauthorization Unresolved in Congress," National CriminalJustice Association Bulletin, vol. 17, Dec. 1997, pp. 14-15. END OF FILE
