[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5774-H5776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          MANDATORY FEDERAL PRISON DRUG TREATMENT ACT OF 1996

  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill

[[Page H5775]]

(H.R. 2650) to amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate certain 
sentencing inequities for drug offenders, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2650

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mandatory Federal Prison 
     Drug Treatment Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF SENTENCING INEQUITIES FOR DRUG 
                   OFFENDERS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 3621(e)(2) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Administration of treatment programs.--The Attorney 
     General shall ensure through the use of all appropriate and 
     available incentives and sanctions that eligible prisoners 
     undergo a program of substance abuse treatment.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for paragraph (2) of 
     section 3621(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``Incentive for Prisoners' Successful Completion 
     of Treatment Program'' and inserting ``Treatment 
     Requirement''.
       (c) Eligibility.--Clause (ii) of section 3621(e)(5)(B) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) within 24 months of the date of release, or is 
     otherwise designated by the Bureau of Prisons for 
     participation in a residential substance abuse treatment 
     program; and''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Heineman] and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. 
Schroeder] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Heineman].


                             general leave

  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 
2650, the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on November 16, 1995, I introduced H.R. 2650, the 
Mandatory Federal Prison Drug Treatment Act, to restore equity in the 
way the Federal Bureau of Prisons [BOP] administers its very successful 
drug treatment program.
  This legislation is simple, yet intuitive. Instead of rewarding 
addicted inmates at the expense of clean inmates, the Mandatory Federal 
Prison Drug Treatment Act provides a proper incentive to recovering 
addicts to get treatment without providing them with advantage over 
other inmates who have not been addicted to narcotics.
  On June 8, 1995 the Crime Subcommittee held a hearing concerning the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons. At that hearing, Kathleen Hawk, the Director 
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons testified that currently, the BOP can 
allow drug abusers to get out of prison a year earlier than their clean 
counterparts simply by completing a drug treatment program. This 
inequity is not based on past criminal history. Rather, these unequal 
sentences are the result of one inmate's drug addiction.
  Unfortunately, as now constituted, the BOP can reward a drug addict 
by taking a year off his sentence after completion of a drug treatment 
program. This is poor policy as well as simply unfair.
  H.R. 2650 eliminates the ability of BOP to release an addicted inmate 
a year early if he completes a drug treatment program. To provide an 
incentive to get addicted prisoners into treatment, H.R. 2650 requires 
the Attorney General to ensure that BOP utilizes all positive 
incentives and sanctions available to get prisoners into an appropriate 
drug treatment program.
  Thus, the Mandatory Federal Prison Drug Treatment Act preserves drug 
treatment programs in Federal prisons while providing incentives for 
addicts to get clean. H.R. 2650 provides BOP with the flexibility it 
needs to utilize a variety of incentives and sanctions for inmates at 
different security levels.
  During the past few weeks, I have worked closely with the Bureau of 
Prisons and Department of Justice to ensure that the individuals who 
implement this legislation are in favor of it. While everyone agrees 
that Congress should eliminate the sentencing inequity which allows BOP 
to, in effect, reward an addicted inmate for being an addict, BOP was 
concerned that the original version of H.R. 2650 would unduly tie their 
hands in the administration of their drug treatment programs.
  After extensive consultation, I incorporated DOJ's suggestions and 
the legislation now requires the Attorney General to ensure that BOP 
use all available sanctions and incentives to persuade eligible 
prisoners to participate in a drug treatment program. The bill provides 
BOP the needed flexibility to utilize a variety of sanctions for 
inmates at differing security levels. What are they? Preferred housing, 
half way house placement, employment in jail.
  I am pleased to report that DOJ and BOP support enactment of H.R. 
2650 and would like to submit the DOJ letter of support for H.R. 2650. 
Mr. Speaker, this is reasonable, bipartisan legislation which fixes a 
mistake enacted in the 1994 crime bill. This legislation strengthens 
the BOP's ability to get an addicted inmate in treatment and at the 
same time eliminates the sentencing disparity which allowed addicted 
inmates to get out a year early. I urge my colleagues to support this 
simple and important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, could not be here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record his statement in support of the 
bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill which requires 
prisoners eligible for drug treatment to successfully complete drug 
treatment programs and remain drug free after the program's completion 
to receive good time credit.
  Current law unfairly favors drug-abusing offenders--who may receive 
up to a year off their prison terms by undergoing treatment--in 
comparison with nondrug abusing offenders who have no comparable 
opportunity for early release.
  This bill provides that good time credit would not vest for an 
eligible prisoner unless the prisoner successfully completes a 
substance abuse treatment program and remains drug-free thereafter. 
Good time credit would accumulate, as it would for any prisoner, but it 
would not vest and could be revoked at any time prior to release if the 
prisoner did not receive treatment for drug abuse or if the offender 
failed to remain drug-free.
  The incentives in the current law are misguided. Current law actually 
allows prisoners with drug problems to reduce their sentences more than 
prisoners who have no substance abuse problems. I support this bill 
because it rectifies this incentive problem while still encouraging 
prisoners with substance abuse problems to receive treatment.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Heineman has pretty accurately portrayed what this bill will do. 
Under current law, as he pointed out, the Bureau of Prisons may grant a 
nonviolent addicted prisoner as much as a 1-year early release if that 
inmate completes a residential drug treatment program. In other words, 
I think an argument could be made that the law discriminates in favor 
of criminals who enter prison with a drug habit.
  Representative Heineman's bill corrects this problem by eliminating 
the bureau's discretionary authority to act in this manner. In 
addition, H.R. 2650 requires the Attorney General to ensure that the 
Bureau of Prisons uses necessary incentives and sanctions to compel 
inmate participation in drug treatment programs.
  Examples would include reduction in good time credits and preferred 
housing or job assignments. Representative Heineman's bill enables the 
Bureau of Prisons to use a variety of these sanctions and incentives at 
varying and differing security levels.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, present law restricts drug rehabilitation 
assistance to those inmates who request such help. H.R. 2650 changes 
this requirement or alters it by confining treatment to inmates who are 
within 24 months of release, thereby hopefully maximizing each 
program's effects.

[[Page H5776]]

  I applaud Representative Heineman's work on this issue. His 
legislation serves the interest not only of society, it seems to me, 
but the inmate as well. In many instances, rewarding inmates for 
activity they should have avoided in the first place appears to perhaps 
be a misplaced priority.
  I think Representative Heineman's bill is pursuing the proper course, 
and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for having yielded the 
time to me.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2650, the Mandatory Federal Prison Drug Treatment 
Act, restores equity in the way the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
administers its very successful drug treatment program. H.R. 2650 is an 
example of bipartisan legislation at its best. I have worked closely 
with the Department of Justice, and the Democrats on the Judiciary 
Committee, including the ranking minority member of the Crime 
Subcommittee, Charles Schumer, who enthusiastically supports this 
legislation.
  As a 38-year law enforcement veteran, I know the importance of tough 
and effective drug treatment for nonviolent offenders and the dangerous 
precedent set by rewarding drug addicts for simply being drug addicts.
  H.R. 2650 does away with a loophole in the 1994 crime bill which 
allowed the Bureau of Prisons to release drug addicts a year earlier 
than their clean counterparts. The Mandatory Federal Prison Drug 
Treatment Act also strengthens the ability of the Bureau of Prisons to 
get addicted prisoners into treatment.
  Thus, the Mandatory Federal Prison Drug Treatment Act preserves drug 
treatment programs in Federal prisons while providing a better policy 
for addicts to get clean. H.R. 2650 provides the Bureau of Prisons with 
the flexibility it needs to utilize a variety of sanctions for inmates 
at different security levels.
  H.R. 2650 strengthens the Bureau of Prison's ability to employ a 
variety of incentives and sanctions to motivate inmates to participate 
in drug treatment programs and thus will maximize the effect of the 
program and the number of inmates receiving treatment. H.R. 2650 is 
emblematic of how tough law enforcement can be combined with effective 
treatment programs for nonviolent offenders to provide maximum results.
  Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank my colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle for their support of this sensible legislation. I 
also want to thank our leadership and the staff of the Judiciary 
Committee for expediting consideration of this important and bipartisan 
measure.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2650 and as a 
member of the committee that heard testimony on it, I rise in strong 
support of the legislation.
  This bill eliminates the sentencing inequity which now allows the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons to reward a convicted felon simply for being 
a drug addict. The current state of our prison policy on this issue is 
downright appalling. Many of our constituents probably do not realize 
that drug addicts are eligible for early release from prison if they 
complete drug treatment programs while serving time. In other words, if 
a drug addict abides by the law while serving his sentence by forgoing 
illegal drug use, he will receive preferential treatment over other 
prisoners who are drug-free and serving the same sentence.
  What signal are we sending to our young people by giving such 
preferential treatment to drug abusers? Our society has not done a very 
good job instilling basic moral values in our future generations, in 
large measure because we have ignored the real-life consequences of our 
activity here in Washington. Despite the tremendous amount of money 
that has been spent on drug prevention programs, substance abuse is on 
the rise. And what kind of role models do drug-addicted athletes make? 
It is time for Congress to take a stand, and use its bully pulpit to 
discourage drug use. While this legislation is narrowly drawn to 
address one aspect of our drug control strategy, it is a good first 
step.
  Supporters of the current system argue that the early release 
mechanism is used as an incentive for addicts to seek help. But there 
are other ``carrots'' and ``sticks'' that may be used to achieve this 
same goal. For example, inmates might be granted preferred housing or 
job assignments. The bill requires the Bureau of Prisons to use all 
such incentives and sanctions to get prisoners into drug treatment 
programs.
  This legislation recognizes that incentives can be powerful tools, 
but does not sacrifice the integrity of the prison sentence in the 
process. I commend the gentleman from North Carolina for introducing 
this bill and I am proud to support it.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2650, 
the Mandatory Federal Prison Drug Treatment Act which was introduced by 
the gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman Fred Heineman.
  H.R. 2650 is a commonsense bill that would eliminate the sentencing 
inequity which currently allows the Federal Bureau of Prisons to in 
practice reward a drug addicted inmate for being a drug addict.
  Under the 1994 crime bill, a disparity in sentencing was created that 
favors prisoners who attend drug treatment by giving them a 1-year 
credit toward the term of their sentence. Thus, those individuals who 
enter prison with a drug problem can currently be released earlier than 
a similarly sentenced individual who has no drug addition. Mr. Speaker, 
I believe that this provision of the 1994 crime bill is just another 
example of a well intentioned Federal law that has unintended practical 
consequences.
  Congressman Heineman's legislation does not modify the Bureau of 
Prisons successful drug treatment program currently in place. The bill 
would retain all incentives for completing drug treatment besides the 
credit toward early release. These incentives include giving inmates 
preferred jobs and housing assignments.
  Instead, H.R. 2650 requires the Bureau of Prisons to provide proper 
incentives for addicted inmates to get treatment. Mr. Speaker, there is 
no reason why an inmate convicted for a crime should get 1 year taken 
off his sentence just because he is a drug addict, while a similarly 
convicted inmate who is not an addict must serve a full sentence.
  Therefore, I urge the House to support this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2650, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________