Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

114th Congress   }                                    {  Rept. 114-541
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                    {         Part 1

======================================================================



 
                     OPIOID PROGRAM EVALUATION ACT

                                _______
                                

  May 6, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 5052]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 5052) to direct the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to evaluate the 
effectiveness of grant programs that provide grants for the 
primary purpose of providing assistance in addressing problems 
pertaining to opioid abuse, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.












                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Purpose and Summary..............................................     1
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     2
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Committee Votes..................................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     3
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     4
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................     4
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     4
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     5
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     5

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of the Opioid Program Evaluation Act (OPEN Act) 
is to improve the evaluation of the opioid-related grant 
programs authorized under the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse 
Reduction Act (H.R. 5046, 114th Congress) and any program 
administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
(HHS) that provides grants for the primary purpose of providing 
assistance in addressing problems pertaining to opioid abuse. 
The OPEN Act requires the Attorney General and Secretary of HHS 
to enter into arrangements with the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) to identify outcomes that are to be achieved by 
the activities funded by Congress to address opioid abuse; 
develop the metrics by which each program's performance will be 
evaluated; complete an interim evaluation assessing the nature 
and extent of opioid abuse and illegal opioid distribution in 
the United States; and carry out an evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the programs. The OPEN Act requires the 
Attorney General and the Secretary of HHS to publish the 
results of such evaluations along with the data collected from 
grantees and used to evaluate the programs' performance.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Congress must demand greater achievement and increased 
transparency and accountability with respect to its Federal 
grant programs. Evaluations such as the ones required by this 
Act can be a valuable illustration of how well a Federal 
program or agency is operating. By first carrying out an 
interim evaluation of the nature and extent of opioid abuse and 
illegal opioid distribution in the United States, NAS can 
establish a baseline by which to evaluate the programs' true 
performance. Following that, an assessment of whether the 
programs represent an effective use of taxpayers' dollars in 
the effort to combat opioid abuse can be made.
    The lack of transparency with respect to some Federal grant 
programs will be addressed by the Act's requirement that the 
Attorney General and Secretary of HHS compel grantees to 
collect and annually report data on their use of grant funding 
and the subsequent requirement that all such data be published 
along with the required report.
    The Committee expects the Attorney General and Secretary of 
HHS to carry out the OPEN Act using existing resources. 
Specifically, the Committee directs the Attorney General to use 
funds made available to the National Institute of Justice, 
including funds made available through the discretionary set-
aside from Office of Justice Programs-administered grant 
programs,\1\ to support the activities required by this Act. 
Similarly, the Secretary of HHS shall use amounts otherwise 
available to execute its duties under this Act. Importantly, 
the OPEN Act instructs the Attorney General and Secretary of 
HHS to enter into arrangements with NAS because each agency's 
existing relationship with NAS' Division of Behavioral and 
Social Sciences and Education represents an opportunity to 
leverage its Federal research resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\In recent years, beginning with the appropriations provided to 
the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2012, Congress has permitted 
the Attorney General to transfer up to 2 percent of funds made 
available to the Office of Justice Programs to the National Institute 
of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to be used by them for 
research, evaluation, or statistical purposes. The Committee assumes 
this practice will continue with respect to Department of Justice 
appropriations during the period of fiscal years 2017 through 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 
5052.

                        Committee Consideration

    On April 27, 2016, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R. 5052 favorably reported, without 
amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there 
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of 
H.R. 5052.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 5052, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 5, 2016.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5052, the ``Opioid 
Program Evaluation Act.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member




               H.R. 5052--Opioid Program Evaluation Act.

      As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 
                           on April 27, 2016.




    H.R. 5052 would direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to enter into 
agreements with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate 
the effectiveness of a proposed grant program to be 
administered by DOJ to combat opioid abuse. (Separate 
legislation would establish and authorize appropriations for 
those grants.) The bill would require the evaluations to be 
completed not later than five years after enactment.
    Based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, 
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5052 would cost about $4 
million over the 2016-2021 period, assuming enactment--through 
separate legislation--of a grant program to combat opioid 
abuse. Such spending would be subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds. For grant programs administered by DOJ, the 
department sets aside a portion of the funds appropriated for 
the grants to cover the cost of certain administrative 
activities including the evaluation of grantees.
    Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply because enacting the 
bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 5052 would not increase net direct 
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 
10-year periods beginning in 2027.
    H.R. 5052 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Any 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result from 
complying with conditions of assistance.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz 
(for DOJ costs) and Andrea Noda (for HHS costs). The estimate 
was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director 
for Budget Analysis.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 5052 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that H.R. 5052 specifically directs 
to be completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of 
5 U.S.C. Sec. 551.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
5052 will require the Attorney General and the Secretary of HHS 
to evaluate the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Grant 
Program authorized by the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction 
Act (H.R. 5046, 114th Congress) and any program administered by 
the Secretary of HHS that provides grants for the primary 
purpose of providing assistance in addressing problems 
pertaining to opioid abuse, respectively, through arrangements 
with the NAS.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 5052 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Sec. 1. Short Title. This section cites the short title of 
the bill as the ``Opioid Program Evaluation Act'' or ``OPEN 
Act.''

    Sec. 2. Evaluation of Performance of Department of Justice 
Program. Section 2 does the following things:

    L  (a) Requires the Attorney General to complete an 
evaluation of the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Opioid 
Abuse Grant Program, based upon the information reported by 
grantees, not later than 5 years after the enactment of the 
Act.

    L  (b) Requires the Attorney General to complete an interim 
evaluation assessing the nature and extent of opioid abuse and 
illegal opioid distribution in the United States.

    L  (c) Requires the Attorney General to identify outcomes 
to be achieved under the Comprehensive Opioid Grant Abuse 
Program, and the metrics by which the achievement of such 
outcomes shall be determined, not later than 180 days after the 
enactment of the Act.

    L  (d) Provides that the Attorney General must require 
grantees and those receiving subawards to collect and annually 
report data on the activities conducted using their grant 
funding.

    L  (e) Requires the Attorney General to publish the 
outcomes and metrics identified under subsection (c) not later 
than 30 days after identifying such outcomes and metrics. 
Requires the National Academy of Sciences to publish the 
results of the evaluations required under subsections (a) and 
(b) and issue a report on such evaluations to the Committee on 
the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on the Judiciary of the Senate not later than 90 days after 
completion of each evaluation. Requires the data collected from 
grantees to be published along with the report.

    L  (f) Requires the Attorney General to enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to identify 
the outcomes to be achieved, develop the metrics by which 
performance will be evaluated, complete the interim evaluation 
assessing the nature and extent of opioid abuse and illegal 
opioid distribution, and carry out an evaluation of the 
Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program.

    Sec. 3. Evaluation of Performance of Department of Health 
and Human Services Programs. Section 3 does the following 
things (which parallel the requirements under section 2):

    L  (a) Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to complete an evaluation of the effectiveness of the programs 
administered by the Secretary that provide grants to address 
problems pertaining to opioid abuse, based upon the information 
reported by grantees, not later than 5 years after the 
enactment of the Act.

    L  (b) Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to complete an interim evaluation assessing the nature and 
extent of opioid abuse and illegal opioid distribution in the 
United States.

    L  (c) Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to identify outcomes to be achieved under the programs 
described in subsection (a), and the metrics by which the 
achievement of such outcomes shall be determined, not later 
than 180 days after the enactment of the Act.

    L  (d) Provides that the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services must require grantees to collect and annually report 
data on the activities conducted using their grant funding.

    L  (e) Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to publish the outcomes and metrics identified under subsection 
(c) not later than 30 days after identifying such outcomes and 
metrics. Requires the National Academy of Sciences to publish 
the results of the evaluations required under subsections (a) 
and (b) and issue a report on such evaluations to the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
Senate not later than 90 days after completion of each 
evaluation. Requires the data collected from grantees to be 
published along with the report.

    L  (f) Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of 
Sciences to identify the outcomes to be achieved, develop the 
metrics by which performance will be evaluated, complete the 
interim evaluation assessing the nature and extent of opioid 
abuse and illegal opioid distribution, and carry out the 
evaluation of the programs administered by the Secretary that 
provide grants to address problems pertaining to opioid abuse.

    Sec. 4. Definition. This section provides a definition of 
the term ``opioid'' for the purposes of the Act.

    Sec. 5. No Additional Funds Authorized. This section 
provides that no funds are authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out the OPEN Act.

                                 [all]