Overview

Title

An Act To amend the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act to reauthorize such Office, and for other purposes.

ELI5 AI

H.R. 9598 is a plan to help fight drugs by giving money to programs that help stop drug trafficking and make sure people have medicine to save lives during an overdose. It also wants to make rules and collect information to better understand and solve the problem of dangerous drugs like fentanyl.

Summary AI

H.R. 9598 aims to reauthorize and update the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998. This bill makes various amendments such as redefining terms related to drug threats, expanding the definition of participating entities, and updating federal responsibilities in combating drug trafficking and ensuring access to life-saving overdose medications like naloxone. It also enhances data collection and establishes strategic plans for addressing drug trafficking, especially fentanyl, through increased funding and resources for law enforcement and community programs.

Published

2024-12-05
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: HOUSE
Status: Engrossed in House
Date: 2024-12-05
Package ID: BILLS-118hr9598eh

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
3
Words:
6,293
Pages:
34
Sentences:
57

Language

Nouns: 1,677
Verbs: 457
Adjectives: 256
Adverbs: 31
Numbers: 235
Entities: 235

Complexity

Average Token Length:
3.90
Average Sentence Length:
110.40
Token Entropy:
5.15
Readability (ARI):
55.22

AnalysisAI

Summary of the Bill

The proposed legislation seeks to amend and reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Reauthorization Act of 1998. The primary aim is to strengthen and modernize the United States' approach to drug control and policy coordination. Key elements include provisions to improve access to opioid overdose reversal drugs like naloxone, enhance the coordination and resources for drug trafficking crackdown, particularly focusing on fentanyl, and impose stricter reporting and accountability measures. The bill also extends financial allocations for various drug enforcement and public health initiatives through 2031.

Significant Issues

One major issue with the bill is the complexity of its amendments, which might be hard to interpret without legal expertise, potentially reducing general public understanding. Financial allocations and authorizations are significant, raising concerns about favoritism without clear justifications and cost-benefit analyses. The bill also imposes numerous new reporting and planning requirements on various federal agencies, which could increase administrative burdens and divert resources from direct drug control initiatives.

The section mandating a study into opioid overdose reversal drugs lacks clear metrics for measuring success, raising potential accountability concerns. Similarly, broad language about required federal and state policies creates room for varied interpretations, complicating effective implementation.

Impact on the Public

Overall, this bill intends to enhance public safety and health by strengthening drug policy and its implementation across the nation. By focusing on increasing the availability of life-saving opioid reversal agents and improving coordination in drug trafficking enforcement, it seeks to create a safer environment. However, the administrative burden imposed by frequent reporting and planning could slow down the implementation of critical measures, potentially delaying benefits to the public.

From an economic perspective, the reauthorization of financial grants and allocations for extended periods signifies a continued national investment in fighting drug misuse and trafficking. While this can have positive impacts by providing resources to communities and agencies involved in drug enforcement, it also risks inefficient usage of funds if not properly monitored.

Stakeholder Impact

Various stakeholders, including federal agencies, state authorities, and public health organizations, will be directly affected. Agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration are anticipated to experience increased workload due to new reporting and strategic planning demands. This could strain their resources and hinder their operational effectiveness if not managed adequately.

Local communities, particularly those hit hardest by the opioid crisis, stand to benefit from enhanced access to naloxone and increased support for drug prevention initiatives. Yet, without clear accountability and efficiently deployed resources, these communities might not receive the full intended benefits of the bill.

Conversely, organizations and individuals involved in drug trafficking and misuse will likely encounter heightened enforcement and scrutiny, potentially reducing illegal activities but also requiring significant coordination and enforcement efforts from relevant agencies.

In summary, while the bill aims to strengthen drug control and reauthorize funding for critical initiatives, its complex amendments, financial implications, and administrative requirements pose challenges that must be addressed to maximize positive outcomes for all stakeholders involved.

Financial Assessment

The bill H.R. 9598 allocates significant financial resources to various programs and initiatives aimed at combating drug use and trafficking. Here's a breakdown and analysis of the financial references within the bill:

Financial Allocations and Authorizations

The bill makes several key financial commitments:

  1. Annual Allocations:
  2. The bill specifies $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2025 through 2031 for unspecified drug-related activities.
  3. It also allocates $298,579,000 each year from 2025 through 2031 for particular initiatives related to drug enforcement and control.

  4. Funding for Reauthorization and Community Programs:

  5. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 is amended to authorize $109,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2025 through 2031.
  6. The National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute is reauthorized with $2,500,000 annually from 2025 through 2031.
  7. Community-based coalition enhancement grants are renewed with $5,200,000 each year within the same timeframe.

  8. Fentanyl Interdiction Activities:

  9. A minimum of $5,000,000 is specifically earmarked for grants focusing on fentanyl interdiction activities.

Issues Related to Financial Allocations

Several issues arise from these financial references:

  • Justification and Transparency: The bill includes multiple financial authorizations for grants and community programs, such as the annual allocation of $298,579,000. However, the bill does not provide a detailed justification or cost-benefit analysis for these amounts, leading to concerns about transparency and potential favoritism (Issues 2 and 7).

  • Potential for Bureaucratic Overhead:

  • The focus on monitoring, reporting, and data collection—while important—could necessitate additional funding and administrative resources, potentially diverting money away from direct program activities (Issue 6).
  • The financial allocations for frequent updates and strategic planning might increase administrative burdens, affecting the efficient use of resources (Issue 3).

  • Vague Spending Priorities:

  • The recurring financial authorizations throughout the bill lack precision regarding the specific allocation of funds. This ambiguity may result in undefined spending priorities or financial waste, as highlighted by the need for careful scrutiny (Issue 9).

Broader Financial Impact

The financial components of H.R. 9598 demonstrate a substantial commitment to addressing drug control, particularly with the focus on life-saving medications and fentanyl interdiction. However, ensuring these funds are used effectively requires transparency, clear justification for spending, and minimized bureaucratic delays to swiftly implement urgent measures like opioid antagonist availability.

Overall, while the financial dimensions form a substantial backbone of the bill's strategy, there is a clear need for enhanced clarity regarding the use and oversight of these funds to avoid waste and ensure positive outcomes.

Issues

  • The language in Section 2, particularly the amendments, is complex and requires legal expertise to interpret, potentially limiting understanding and transparency for the general public.

  • In Section 2, there are several financial authorizations and allocations, particularly for grants, which could benefit from clearer justification to avoid perceptions of favoritism.

  • Section 2 also deals with frequent updates, planning, and reporting requirements which could impose an administrative burden, detracting from direct action programs.

  • The high specificity in terminology and descriptions of roles in Section 2 might lead to overlap or conflict between multiple agencies, affecting implementation and accountability.

  • Section 1121 does not include clear metrics for evaluating the strategy's success or effectiveness, leading to potential accountability issues.

  • The significant focus on reporting and monitoring in Sections 2 and 1121 may require additional resources, possibly diverting funds from direct program activities.

  • Financial allocations in Section 2, such as for Fentanyl Interdiction Activities, lack a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, necessary for ensuring transparency in spending.

  • Section 1121’s broad language regarding 'Federal and State policies and actions necessary' could lead to varying interpretations, complicating implementation.

  • The recurring financial authorizations, especially in Sections 2 and 1121, should be scrutinized to prevent undefined spending priorities or waste.

  • The reporting requirements related to life-saving opioid antagonist availability and pill press regulation in Section 1121 imply bureaucratic processes that may delay urgent measures.

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section provides the short title for the act, which can be referred to as the “Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2024”.

2. Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

This section makes various amendments to the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 and other related laws to enhance drug prevention, control, and treatment strategies. It includes provisions for improving access to life-saving opioid reversal agents, reinforces coordination among federal agencies, and expands resources for tackling drug trafficking and misuse, especially focusing on fentanyl-related activities and ensuring that drug policy efforts are aligned with legal and public safety standards.

Money References

  • (iii) in subparagraph (D)— (I) by inserting after “the preceding year” the following: “, along with historical comparisons over the prior 20 years,”; and (II) in clause (iii), by inserting after “seizing drugs,” the following: “including precursor chemicals,”; (B) in subsection (e)(2), by inserting before the period at the end the following: “and $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2031”; and (C) in subsection (f)— (i) in paragraph (2), by inserting after “agency shall” the following: “, in accordance with guidelines issued by the Director for standard definitions, identification, and review procedures,”; and (ii) by striking paragraph (4); (5) in section 706 (21 U.S.C. 1705)— (A) in subsection (c)— (i) in paragraph (1)— (I) by striking subparagraph (D); (II) in subparagraph (H)— (aa) by inserting after “identifying existing” the following: “evidence,”; and (bb) by striking “will obtain such data” and inserting “will ensure such data is obtained”; (III) in subparagraph (J)(ii), by inserting “evidence,” before “data”; (IV) in subparagraph (L), by inserting “evidence” after “Such other”; and (V) in subparagraph (M)(iv), by inserting “storing and retrieving,” after “collecting,”; (ii) in paragraph (2)— (I) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively; and (II) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraphs: “(E) The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “(F) The Chief Data Officers Council.”; (iii) in paragraph (3)— (I) in subparagraph (B)(ii)— (aa) in subclause (I), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon; (bb) in subclause (II), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and (cc) by inserting at the end the following new subclause: “(III) an analysis of the effects of trends of encounters of inadmissible aliens at and between the ports of entry, and the effect of any increases or changes in the level of trade and travel, on the capacity and ability of the Department of Homeland Security to interdict and prevent the unlawful entry of illicit drugs into the United States by any means.”; and (II) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: “(D) REQUIREMENT FOR CARIBBEAN BORDER COUNTERNARCOTICS STRATEGY.— “(i) PURPOSES.—The Caribbean Border Counternarcotics Strategy shall— “(I) set forth the strategy of the Federal Government for preventing the illegal trafficking of drugs through the Caribbean region into the United States, including through ports of entry, between ports of entry, and across air and maritime approaches; “(II) state the specific roles and responsibilities of each relevant National Drug Control Program agency for implementing the strategy; “(III) identify the specific resources required to enable the relevant National Drug Control Program agencies to implement the strategy, to the extent practicable; and “(IV) be designed to promote, and not hinder, legitimate trade and travel. “(ii) SPECIFIC CONTENT RELATED TO PUERTO RICO AND THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.—The Caribbean Border Counternarcotics Strategy shall include— “(I) a strategy to prevent the illegal trafficking of drugs to or through Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, including measures to substantially reduce drug-related violent crime on such islands; and “(II) recommendations for additional assistance or authorities, if any, needed by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies relating to the strategy, including an evaluation of Federal technical and financial assistance, infrastructure capacity building, and interoperability deficiencies.”; and (iv) in paragraph (5), by striking “data” each place it appears and inserting “evidence, data,”; (B) in subsection (f)— (i) in paragraph (1), by striking “publicly available in a machine-readable format” and inserting the following: “publicly available as an open Government data asset (as such term is defined in section 3502 of title 44, United States Code)”; (ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting after “searchable format” the following: “available for bulk download to the extent practicable”; and (iii) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows: “(3) DATA.—The data included in the Drug Control Data Dashboard shall be updated annually with final data, and to the extent practicable, updated quarterly with provisional data, that aligns with the goals of the performance measurement system required under subsection (h) and include, at a minimum, the following: “(A) For each substance identified by the Director as having a significant impact on illicit drug use in the United States, data sufficient to— “(i) assess supply reduction efforts, including, to the extent practicable, the total amount of substances seized; “(ii) assess drug use behaviors; “(iii) estimate the prevalence of substance use disorders; “(iv) show the number of fatal and non-fatal overdoses; and “(v) assess the provision of substance use disorder treatment. “(B) Any quantifiable measures the Director determines to be appropriate to detail progress toward the achievement of the goals of the National Drug Control Strategy, including, to the extent practicable, data disaggregated by specific geographic areas or sub-populations of interest. “(C) Data sufficient to assess the effectiveness of such substance use disorder treatments.
  • and (C) in subsection (g)(2)— (i) in subparagraph (D), by striking “narcotics” and inserting “drugs”; (ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking “drug use” and inserting “illicit drug use and misuse”; and (iii) in subparagraph (F), by striking “drug use” and inserting “illicit drug use and misuse”; (6) in section 707 (21 U.S.C. 1706)— (A) in subsection (l)(2)(F), by inserting “and authorities enforcing illicit drug trafficking laws” after “task forces”; (B) in subsection (m)(2), by inserting “, authorities enforcing illicit drug trafficking laws,” after “agencies”; (C) in subsection (p)— (i) in paragraph (5). by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon; (ii) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and (iii) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph: “(7) $298,579,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2031.”; (D) in subsection (r)(3), by striking “addiction”; (E) in subsection (s)— (i) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking “The Director” and inserting “Except as provided in subsection (t)(2), the Director”; (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon; (iii) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and (iv) by adding at the end the following: “(4) enhancing fentanyl seizure and interdiction activities.”; and (F) by adding at the end the following: “(t) Supplemental grants for Fentanyl Interdiction Activities.— “(1) MINIMUM ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR FENTANYL INTERDICTION ACTIVITIES.—Of the amounts allocated for grants under subsection (s), not less than $5,000,000 shall be allocated for the purpose of making grants under subsection (s)(4).
  • (7) in section 709(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 1708(f)(1))— (A) by striking “shall” and inserting “may”; (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking “abuse” and inserting “use or misuse”; and (C) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking “addiction issues” and inserting “substance use disorders”; (8) in section 709 (21 U.S.C. 1708)— (A) in subsection (f)(2)(B)(iii), by inserting after “professionals” the following: “including experts in evidence-based media campaigns, education, and evaluation”; and (B) in subsection (g), by striking “2023” and inserting “2031”; (9) in section 711 (21 U.S.C. 1710), including the headings, by striking “Command and Control Plan” each place it appears and inserting “Strategic Plan”; and (10) in section 714 (21 U.S.C. 1711), by inserting before the period at the end the following: “and $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2031”. (b) Amendments to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.—The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–690) is amended— (1) in section 1024 (21 U.S.C. 1524)— (A) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period at the end the following: “and $109,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2031”; and (B) in subsection (b), by striking “8 percent” and inserting “10 percent”; and (2) in section 1032(b) (21 U.S.C. 1532(b))— (A) by striking “$125,000” each place the term appears and inserting “$150,000”; and (B) in paragraph (3)— (i) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following: “(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (F), the Administrator may award up to 2 additional grants under this paragraph to an eligible coalition awarded a grant under paragraph (1) or (2) for any first fiscal year after the end of the 4-year or 9-year period following the period of the initial or subsequent grant under paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be.”; (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking “a renewal grant” and inserting “up to 2 renewal grants”; (iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking “an additional grant” and inserting “the additional grants”; and (iv) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the following: “(D) RENEWAL GRANTS.—Subject to subparagraph (F), the Administrator may award a renewal grant to a grant recipient under this paragraph for each fiscal year of the 4-fiscal-year period following the first fiscal year for which an additional grant under this paragraph is awarded in an amount not to exceed the amount of non-Federal funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind contributions, for that fiscal year.
  • (c) Reauthorization of the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute.—Section 4(d) of Public Law 107–82 (21 U.S.C. 1521 note) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: “(2) DISBURSEMENT.—The Director shall, using amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 1024 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1524), disburse $2,500,000 made available under subsection (a), for each of the fiscal years 2025 through 2031.”. (d) Reauthorization of community-based coalition enhancement grants to address local drug crises.—Section 103 of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (21 U.S.C. 1536) is amended— (1) in subsection (a)— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) in the heading, by striking “Administrator” and inserting Assistant Secretary; and (ii) by striking “Administrator” each place it appears and inserting “Assistant Secretary”; (B) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking “abuse” and inserting “use or misuse”; and (C) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking “abuse” and inserting “use or misuse”; (2) in subsection (b), by striking “Administrator” and inserting “Assistant Secretary”; (3) in subsection (h), by striking “Administrator” and inserting “Assistant Secretary”; and (4) in subsection (i), by inserting before the period at the end the following: “and $5,200,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2031”. (e) Report regarding life-saving opioid antagonists or reversal agents.

1121. Requirement for life saving opioid overdose reversal study Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Congress mandates a study on the availability of opioid overdose reversal drugs, like naloxone, involving a report to be submitted in 180 days. The report will outline responsibilities of various agencies, propose strategies for making these medications readily available, review past policies and actions, and require updates to be included in future strategies.