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 make our ways of fighting drug problems stronger by making some rules clearer, giving extra money so that people can get help if they take too many drugs, and making sure everyone works together better to solve these problems.
Summary AI
H.R. 9598 aims to update a previous law regarding the Office of National Drug Control Policy by continuing its operations and making several changes to improve its effectiveness. It involves altering definitions, enhancing drug prevention and treatment strategies, and promoting cooperation across various government entities. Additionally, the bill addresses new drug threats and the need for better access to life-saving medications like naloxone to combat opioid overdoses. The legislation also ensures the allocation of funds for these initiatives through fiscal year 2031.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill in question is designed to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) by amending existing laws to foster better management in dealing with the drug crisis, notably around opioid use and drug trafficking. It introduces updates to the definitions of terms like "precursor chemical" and "emerging drug threat" and mandates collaboration among various government branches to handle these challenges more effectively. The bill extends several drug-related programs until 2031 and calls for annual funding allocations for diverse activities, including the distribution of life-saving drugs such as naloxone which is crucial for opioid overdose reversal. Additionally, it requires the ONDCP to produce reports on drug interdiction efforts and regulate certain drug-related equipment.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several significant issues arise from the provisions included in the bill:
Resource Allocation: Introducing new terms such as "precursor chemical" and "emerging drug threat" demands resources for effective implementation. This could lead to budget overruns without a clear plan on how these terms will be monitored and enforced.
Ambiguity and Spending: The allocation of substantial funds annually for activities that are not well-defined risks inefficient use of public money. The lack of specificity in execution and measurement criteria could lead to expenditures that don't necessarily address critical needs.
Legal Definitions: Changes to the definitions surrounding "evidence" could create legal uncertainties. Such ambiguities need careful consideration to avoid potential compliance and enforcement issues.
Fentanyl Focus: Redirecting legal resources to prioritize fentanyl-related cases might leave other judicial areas underserved. This specialized focus could impact overall judicial efficiency.
Strategies for Drug Reversal: The lack of concrete success metrics for strategies surrounding opioid overdose reversal drugs is troubling. Without clear benchmarks, efforts may not yield the intended reduction in opioid-related fatalities.
Impact on the Public
The bill aims to address pressing public health concerns, particularly regarding the opioid crisis. If effectively implemented, the measures could lead to a better-coordinated national strategy for drug control, resulting in enhanced public safety and reduced incidences of drug misuse. However, the implementation of vague initiatives may dissipate resources that could otherwise target more critical or well-documented drug-related issues.
For specific groups like healthcare providers and local law enforcement, the reauthorization offers potential support in addressing drug crises. Access to overdose reversal agents such as naloxone can empower front-line responders to save lives. Yet, the broad language used might complicate the way policies are enacted across different states, which could lead to a patchwork of effectiveness nationally.
Impact on Stakeholders
Positive Impact
Law Enforcement and Public Health Agencies: They might benefit from increased funding and clearer mandates around prevention and emergency responses.
Communities Affected by Drug Abuse: Enhanced coordination and emergency preparedness could offer immediate life-saving benefits, particularly in communities hardest hit by the opioid crisis.
Negative Impact
Judicial System: Focusing primarily on fentanyl may skew resource availability, potentially stretching other legal needs thin and causing broader systemic imbalances.
Federal and State Agencies: Ambiguous implementation responsibilities could lead to overlaps and inefficiencies, hampering the comprehensive execution of drug policies.
In conclusion, while the bill holds promise for advancing drug policy reformation, its effectiveness will largely depend on precise implementation and monitoring frameworks, alongside careful fiscal management to avoid unwarranted expenditures.
Financial Assessment
The bill, H.R. 9598, outlines several financial allocations as part of its amendments to the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act. These allocations are designed to bolster the office's efforts in addressing drug-related issues, including the opioid crisis. However, there are potential concerns regarding the specificity and accountability of these financial provisions.
Financial Allocations
Annual Allocation of $3,000,000 Section 705 of the bill specifies an annual allocation of $3,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2025 through 2031. However, the bill lacks detail on how this money should be spent. This ambiguity raises concerns about potential wasteful spending and the need for clearer spending priorities to ensure financial responsibility.
Increased Funding to $20,000,000 Annually In Section 714, there is an automatic increase in funding to $20,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2025 through 2031. This provision, lacking performance metrics or accountability measures, could be seen as arbitrary and may not be justified if not tied to clear objectives.
Allocation for Fentanyl Interdiction Activities Section 707 highlights a minimum allocation of $5,000,000 specifically for Fentanyl interdiction activities. While targeting a critical issue, there is no detailed framework for measuring the effectiveness of this spending, which might lead to inefficient allocation of resources.
Disbursements under Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 Amendments to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 involve disbursements such as $109,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2025 through 2031 and adjustments to grant amounts from $125,000 to $150,000. These amendments suggest increased financial support, but without precise implementation strategies, there is a risk of inadequate monitoring of how these funds achieve desired outcomes.
National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute Disbursement Section 4(d) allows for the disbursement of $2,500,000 annually to the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute from 2025 to 2031. This ongoing funding aims to enhance community efforts against drug crises but requires accountability to ensure effective use.
Relationship to Identified Issues
Vague Financial Allocations: The lack of specificity in financial references such as the $3,000,000 annually seems to echo concerns over potential waste due to undefined or ambiguous priorities. Without detailed spending directives, the risk of inefficient use of taxpayer dollars increases.
Automatic Funding Increases without Metrics: The automatic increase to $20,000,000 annually raises concerns highlighted in the issues section regarding arbitrary increments without performance accountability measures. Such provisions may not guarantee improved outcomes and might lead to questions about financial efficiency.
Potential Resource Imbalance: The focus on fentanyl interdiction, with a $5,000,000 allocation, while significant, requires a balance to ensure other areas aren't under-resourced. This supports the issue raised about resource allocation, potentially diverting resources from other necessary legal proceedings.
Overall, while the bill aims to address significant drug-related challenges, it is essential that financial allocations are backed by well-defined goals and accountability measures to ensure funds are used effectively and responsibly.
Issues
The amendment in Section 2 introduces terms such as 'precursor chemical' and 'emerging drug threat', which may require significant resources to implement and monitor. This could lead to increased expenditure without clearly defined implementation measures or outcomes, raising concerns about fiscal responsibility and efficiency.
The allocation of $3,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2025 through 2031 in Section 705 (21 U.S.C. 1704) for unspecified activities lacks specificity and could lead to wasteful spending due to undefined or ambiguous spending priorities.
Section 714 includes an automatic increase in funding to $20,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2025 through 2031 without specific performance metrics or accountability measures, which could be perceived as arbitrary and unjustified.
The expanded definition of 'evidence' in Section 702 and its use in data formatting and storage could introduce ambiguity, leading to potential legal and compliance issues regarding what qualifies as 'evidence'.
Section 1121's lack of clear metrics or benchmarks for evaluating the success of life-saving opioid overdose reversal strategies could lead to ineffective policy implementation, wasting resources and failing to address the opioid crisis promptly.
The broad language used in Section 1121 regarding 'Federal and State policies and actions necessary' for life-saving drug availability could lead to inconsistent implementation and interpretation across states, complicating efforts to address the opioid crisis.
The reassignment of assistant United States attorneys to focus on fentanyl cases in subsection (u) might divert crucial legal resources away from other necessary proceedings, potentially creating an imbalance in resource allocation and impacting judicial efficiency.
Section 2's requirement for a Caribbean Border Counternarcotics Strategy could necessitate substantial resources without clear guidelines on measuring effectiveness, potentially leading to resource misallocation and inefficiencies.
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
The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act updates laws to better address drug issues like opioid use and drug trafficking. It includes provisions for funding, drug prevention strategies, access to life-saving medications like naloxone, and extends certain programs until 2031. The act also calls for reports on drug interdiction efforts and strategies, as well as the regulation of pill press machines.
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.