PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 348.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Apr 15, 2010
Drug Free Communities Enhancement Act of 2010 - Authorizes the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to make enhancement grants to eligible entities to implement comprehensive community-wide strategies that address emerging local drug issues or local drug crises within the areas served by such entities. Defines "eligible entity" as an organization that is a recipient of a grant under the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 and that, using local data, has documented rates of use and abuse for such an issue or crisis that are above the national average and that continue over a sustained period. Requires enhancement grants to be used to implement comprehensive, community-wide prevention strategies to address such an issue or crisis and to obtain specialized training and technical assistance. Limits such grants to a four-year period and to a maximum annual amount of $75,000.
Requires the Director to: (1) rescind such grants for intentional violations of grant conditions or for fraud; and (2) report to the Judiciary Committees of Congress by December 31 of each year on grants awarded. Requires eligible entities to report annually to the Director on multi-sector plans for addressing an emerging local drug issue or local drug crisis and on grants they have received under this Act.
Requires the Comptroller General to conduct annual audits, beginning in FY2011, of at least 10% of grant recipients.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2011-FY2015.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 348.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S744-745)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S744)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.3031 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.3031 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.3031 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.3031 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.