Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

98-149 GOV
Updated August 26, 1998
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy
David Teasley
Specialist in American National Government
Government Division
Summary
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was scheduled 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 105 Congress to reauthorize ONDCP. On October 21, 1997, the House passe
th
d
H.R. 2610, as amended, the National Narcotics Leadership Act. On November 6, 1997,
the Senate Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 2610, replacing the language of the
House-passed version with a new version, the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act. On July 29, 1998, the Senate approved an amendment (S. Amdt.
3367/Hatch and Biden) to the Treasury, Postal Appropriations Act, FY1999 (S.
2312/Campbell) that differs from the House-passed version of H.R. 2610.
ONDCP Reauthorization and the 105 Congress
th
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was created and authorized
through FY1993 by the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1506),
under Title I of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690). The National Narcotics
Leadership Act Amendments, under Title IX of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322), reauthorized ONDCP through FY1997.
Although ONDCP’s authorization technically expired on September 30, 1997, Congress
approved ONDCP funding for FY1998 under the Treasury, Postal Service, and General
Government Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-61), signed into law on October 10, 1997. The
105 Congress is expected to reauthorize ONDCP in its second session.
th
The Administration’s Draft Bill
Early in 1997, the Clinton Administration submitted draft legislation to Congress to
reauthorize ONDCP, though it was not introduced in either chamber. At the May 1, 1997,
hearing on the Administration’s ONDCP reauthorization proposal, held by the House
Government Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on National Security, International
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
Affairs, and Criminal Justice, ONDCP Director Barry McCaffrey discussed the major
provisions of the administration’s draft 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 105 Congress would reauthorize ONDCP
th
,
including A Bill to Amend the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (S.
2028/Ashcroft); the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1997
(S. 1053/Biden; H.R. 2407/Levin), the Juvenile 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 referred to the House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, has emerged as the primary vehicle for ONDCP reauthorization.
It passed the House, amended, on October 21, 1997, and was reported (without written
report) by the Senate Judiciary Committee, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, on November 6, 1997. On July 29, 1998, the Senate approved an amendment
(S. Amdt. 3367/Hatch and Biden) to the Treasury, Postal Appropriations Act, FY1999 (S.
2312/Campbell) that also differs from the House-passed version of H.R. 2610.
House Consideration of H.R. 2610
As approved by the House, H.R. 2610, the National Narcotics Leadership 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;

CRS-3
(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 proposed establishment by law of hard
targets on a nationwide basis that ONDCP must meet by 2001, including not only a drop
in drug use to 3% of the population, but also: (a) an 80% reduction in the availability 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 in drug-related emergency room incidents. Also, the measure contains
provisions to require ONDCP to ensure that no federal drug control funds are used for any
study or contract relating to marijuana legalization (including medical use) or for the
expansion of drug treatment programs within the HIDTA program.
The House Debate on the Measure. During the House debate on H.R. 2610
1
,
proponents argued several main points. Representative Hastert, the bill’s sponsor, argued
that the measure is “the most significant anti-drug bill since the original authorization of
the drug czar in 1988, with the possible exception of the Drug-Free Communities Act....”
He emphasized that the bill is built around one basic goal of attaining “a virtual drug-free
America by the year 2001,” by empowering the ONDCP director to improve interagency
coordination, while adding accountability mechanisms to ensure that “the American
taxpayer is getting maximum results” from federal drug control efforts.
Representative Hastert recognized that “there are certain to be differences of opinion
about how high or how low the bar should be set in this fundamentally re-engineered
approach to our national drug control policy, but the important point about this bill is that
for the first time ever Congress is actually setting a standard, a bar, and empowering the
drug czar's office to promulgate aggressive performance measures for the agencies which
will provide results.”
Representative McCollum, chairman of the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee,
argued for the bill: “I think it is a tremendous improvement over current law.... [W]e are
not only not winning the war on drugs, we do not even have a war on drugs, not in the
sense that most Americans would believe. We have not set up the kind of goals and
missions and objectives that the military would fight if they were fighting a war.”

1 House Debate on the National Narcotics Leadership Act Amendments, Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 143, Oct. 21, 1997, pp. H8874-H8882.

CRS-4
Representative Shaw maintained that the measure “sets accountability and responsibility”
with General McCaffrey. “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, in part because it meets
his concerns about ONDCP’s authority to reprogram and transfer funds. “The transfer
authority,” he noted, “has long created fear that substantial funds from law enforcement
or interdiction could not be moved and later be used by this administration for treatment
or media campaigns to the detriment of these equally important enforcement efforts.” The
bill would provide controls on the ONDCP director's transfer authority by requiring
approval for reprogramming from both the authorizing and appropriations committees.
Opponents of the measure argued several points. For example, Representative
Barrett held that the measure “would be more appropriately called the Drug Control
Failure Act for the Year 2000. I say failure because this bill has never been designed to
give the Office of National Drug Control Policy the tools and direction to succeed...”
Instead, he pointed out that “the bill establishes unattainable drug control targets, requires
the administration to report twice yearly on its failure to meet those targets, and provides
for only a 2-year authorization requiring reauthorization during a Presidential campaign.”
Representative Barrett criticized the hard targets in the bill: “there is not a single
study or report from any source, government or private sector, that recommends or even
directly supports the targets set forth in this bill. ... these targets are arbitrary and flatly
unattainable by the year 2001.” He illustrated this point by noting that the target set for
a reduction in overall drug use would require ONDCP to reduce drug use to a rate 60%
lower than at any time in the last three decades.
Along with Representatives Hoyer, Levin, and Waxman, Representative Barrett
found the measure to reflect a partisan effort on the part of its sponsors: “Judging by its
major provisions, the bill appears designed to achieve political advantage in the 1998 and
2000 elections, all at a cost to ONDCP and its efforts to fight drugs at the Federal level.”
Representative Hoyer opposed the “simplistic choices” proposed by the bill’s proponents,
based on “the hypothesis if you are not for this bill, you are not for the drug fight.”
Representative Davis of Illinois argued that the bill does not include “in a real way”
three of the basic components of any effective drug policy: treatment, education, and
prevention. Regarding treatment, he maintained that “this bill prohibits the use of 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 and prevention strategies, “other than the old 'lock them up, throw away the
key,' which we already know does not, will not, and cannot work.”
ONDCP Response to the House Version. Prior to House approval of H.R. 2610,
ONDCP Director McCaffrey stated his strong support for reauthorization legislation, but
noted his opposition to the House version 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;

CRS-5
(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.2
The Senate Judiciary Committee Version of H.R. 2610
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 significantly different
version. The “Office of National 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;
2 For a copy of ONDCP Director McCaffrey's letter of October 21, 1997, to House Democratic
Leader Gephardt concerning H.R. 2610, see Statement of Representative Thomas M. Barrett on
the National Narcotics Leadership Act Amendments of 1997, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 143, Oct. 29, 1997, pp. E2122-E2123.

CRS-6
(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;
(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 many of the reporting
requirements and the provision to create a position for a new deputy director of state and
local affairs. Unlike the House version, the Senate version does not include the hard
targets for drug reduction, nor would it create the new position for a deputy director for
intelligence. Also, the Senate version would not prohibit the use of HIDTA funds for the
expansion of drug treatment programs.3
On July 29, 1998, the Senate approved a bipartisan amendment (S. Amdt.
3367/Hatch and Biden) to the Treasury, Postal Appropriations Act, FY1999 (S.
2312/Campbell) that would reauthorize ONDCP through September 30, 2002, and expand
the responsibilities and powers of its Director. Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary and a cosponsor of the amendment, stated, “This substitute
differs principally from the House bill [H.R. 2610] in that it calls for a 4-year period
versus a 2-year reauthorization period; and, in that it does not statutorily mandate ‘hard
targets’ that must be achieved by 2001.... it requires that ONDCP establish measurable
objectives and long term goals.” Also, the amendment authorizes ONDCP’
4
s
Performance Measurement System and requires an annual report on the successes and
failures of the strategy during the previous year.
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 Criminal Justice Association Bulletin, vol. 17, Dec. 1997, pp. 14-15.
4 Statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 144, July 29, 1998,
p. S9185.