1 So in original.
fiscal year 2011; and
Editorial Notes
References in TextDecember 29, 2006, referred to in subsecs. (k)(1), (l), and (m) was in the original “the date of the enactment of this section”, which was translated as meaning the date of enactment of Puspan. L. 109–469, which amended this section generally, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Amendments2019—Subsec. (o)(2)(B). Puspan. L. 116–74 substituted “802(33) of this title)” for “802(33) of this title”.
2018—Puspan. L. 115–271, § 8202(span)(2), repealed Puspan. L. 105–277, § 715. See 1998 Amendment note below.
Puspan. L. 115–271, § 8202(a), revived and restored this section as in effect on Sept. 29, 2003, and as amended by Puspan. L. 109–469 and Puspan. L. 112–166. See Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy note set out under section 1701 of this title.
Subsec. (f). Puspan. L. 115–271, § 8205(1), substituted “not more than a total of 5 percent of Federal funds appropriated for the Program are expended for substance use disorder treatment programs and drug prevention programs.” for “no Federal funds appropriated for the Program are expended for the establishment or expansion of drug treatment programs, and shall ensure that not more than 5 percent of the Federal funds appropriated for the Program are expended for the establishment of drug prevention programs.”
Subsec. (p)(6). Puspan. L. 115–271, § 8205(2), added par. (6).
Subsec. (q)(2). Puspan. L. 115–271, § 8205(3)(A), added par. (2) and struck out former par. (2). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The funds used under paragraph (1) shall be used—
“(A) to ensure the safety of neighborhoods and the protection of communities, including the prevention of the intimidation of potential witnesses of illegal drug distribution and related activities; and
“(B) to combat illegal drug trafficking through such methods as the Director considers appropriate, such as establishing or operating (or both) a toll-free telephone hotline for use by the public to provide information about illegal drug-related activities.”
Subsec. (q)(3). Puspan. L. 115–271, § 8205(3)(B), added par. (3).
Subsec. (r). Puspan. L. 115–271, § 8208, added subsec. (r).
Subsec. (s). Puspan. L. 115–271, § 8209, added subsec. (s).
2006—Puspan. L. 109–469, § 602, amended Puspan. L. 105–277, § 715, which provided for the repeal of this section. See 1998 Amendment note below.
Puspan. L. 109–469, § 301, amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program.
Subsec. (q). Puspan. L. 109–469, § 302(c), added subsec. (q).
1998—Puspan. L. 105–277, § 715, as amended by Puspan. L. 109–469, § 602, which provided for the repeal of this section effective Sept. 30, 2010, was repealed by Puspan. L. 115–271, § 8202(span)(2). See former section 1712 of this title.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
FindingsPuspan. L. 109–469, title III, § 302(span), Dec. 29, 2006, 120 Stat. 3524, provided that: “Congress finds the following:“(1) In the early morning hours of October 16, 2002, the home of Carnell and Angela Dawson was firebombed in apparent retaliation for Mrs. Dawson’s notification to police about persistent drug distribution activity in their East Baltimore City neighborhood.
“(2) The arson claimed the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Dawson and their 5 young children, aged 9 to 14.
“(3) The horrific murder of the Dawson family is a stark example of domestic narco-terrorism.
“(4) In all phases of counternarcotics law enforcement—from prevention to investigation to prosecution to reentry—the voluntary cooperation of ordinary citizens is a critical component.
“(5) Voluntary cooperation is difficult for law enforcement officials to obtain when citizens feel that cooperation carries the risk of violent retaliation by illegal drug trafficking organizations and their affiliates.
“(6) Public confidence that law enforcement is doing all it can to make communities safe is a prerequisite for voluntary cooperation among people who may be subject to intimidation or reprisal (or both).
“(7) Witness protection programs are insufficient on their own to provide security because many individuals and families who strive every day to make distressed neighborhoods livable for their children, other relatives, and neighbors will resist or refuse offers of relocation by local, State, and Federal prosecutorial agencies and because, moreover, the continued presence of strong individuals and families is critical to preserving and strengthening the social fabric in such communities.
“(8) Where (as in certain sections of Baltimore City) interstate trafficking of illegal drugs has severe ancillary local consequences within areas designated as high intensity drug trafficking areas, it is important that supplementary High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program funds be committed to support initiatives aimed at making the affected communities safe for the residents of those communities and encouraging their cooperation with tribal, local, State, and Federal law enforcement efforts to combat illegal drug trafficking.”
Combating Methamphetamine and Amphetamine in High Intensity Drug Trafficking AreasPuspan. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXVI, § 3624, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1232, provided that:“(a)In General.—“(1)In general.—The Director of National Drug Control Policy shall use amounts available under this section to combat the trafficking of methamphetamine and amphetamine in areas designated by the Director as high intensity drug trafficking areas.
“(2)Activities.—In meeting the requirement in paragraph (1), the Director shall transfer funds to appropriate Federal, State, and local governmental agencies for employing additional Federal law enforcement personnel, or facilitating the employment of additional State and local law enforcement personnel, including agents, investigators, prosecutors, laboratory technicians, chemists, investigative assistants, and drug-prevention specialists.
“(span)Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section—“(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
“(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.
“(c)Apportionment of Funds.—“(1)Factors in apportionment.—The Director shall apportion amounts appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (span) for activities under subsection (a) among and within areas designated by the Director as high intensity drug trafficking areas based on the following factors:“(A) The number of methamphetamine manufacturing facilities and amphetamine manufacturing facilities discovered by Federal, State, or local law enforcement officials in the previous fiscal year.
“(B) The number of methamphetamine prosecutions and amphetamine prosecutions in Federal, State, or local courts in the previous fiscal year.
“(C) The number of methamphetamine arrests and amphetamine arrests by Federal, State, or local law enforcement officials in the previous fiscal year.
“(D) The amounts of methamphetamine, amphetamine, or listed chemicals (as that term is defined in section 102(33) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(33)) seized by Federal, State, or local law enforcement officials in the previous fiscal year. “(E) Intelligence and predictive data from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services showing patterns and trends in abuse, trafficking, and transportation in methamphetamine, amphetamine, and listed chemicals (as that term is so defined).
“(2)Certification.—Before the Director apportions any funds under this subsection to a high intensity drug trafficking area, the Director shall certify that the law enforcement entities responsible for clandestine methamphetamine and amphetamine laboratory seizures in that area are providing laboratory seizure data to the national clandestine laboratory database at the El Paso Intelligence Center.
“(d)Limitation on Administrative Costs.—Not more than 5 percent of the amount appropriated in a fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations for that fiscal year in subsection (span) may be available in that fiscal year for administrative costs associated with activities under subsection (a).”
Funding for High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas ProgramPuspan. L. 106–58, title III, Sept. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 448, provided in part: “That, hereafter, of the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000 or any succeeding fiscal year for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, the funds to be obligated or expended during such fiscal year for programs addressing the treatment or prevention of drug use as part of the approved strategy for a designated High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) shall not be less than the funds obligated or expended for such programs during fiscal year 1999 for each designated HIDTA without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations”.
