[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13268-S13269]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Biden):
  S. 1808. A bill to reauthorize and improve the drug court grant 
program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


         Drug Court Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1999

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a 
bill to provide federal assistance to States and local governments for 
drug courts to provide treatment rather than expensive imprisonment for 
drug addicted nonviolent offenders.
  This legislation would reauthorize and improve upon a novel program 
by which States and localities may obtain Federal funds to assist in 
the implementation of a ``drug court'' within the State and local 
criminal courts. Drug courts are designed to select from the general 
criminal population nonviolent offenders who test positive for drugs, 
and put them through a program of court supervised drug treatment and 
rehabilitation. In this way, we can both aid first-time drug offenders 
by preventing them from becoming career criminals and provide 
localities the funds to enable them to control the serious backlogs in 
their criminal court caused by the drug crime wave. In the long-term, 
this solution to the drug plague promises to be less expensive than 
incarcerating these nonviolent offenders.
  In 1991, I introduced similar legislation (S. 648), which was 
proposed by a

[[Page S13269]]

1990 study commissioned by the Philadelphia Bar Association entitled, 
``Clearing the Road to Justice.'' This study found that state and local 
courts are overwhelmed by a large number of drug related crimes 
committed by first time offenders. The study concluded that a separate 
drug court division could both speed processing of drug related cases 
and provide mandatory drug screening programs to target first-time 
nonviolent drug offenders, and at the same time free up the rest of the 
court system to focus on violent criminals.
  Congress enacted legislation to authorize a federal drug court grant 
program as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994. However, in an action without any debate and that I believe 
reflected poor judgment, Congress repealed such authority in the 
Omnibus Consolidation Recessional and Appropriations Act of 1996 (PL 
104-134). Although Congress rescinded the authority for this program, 
it has had been good sense to continue to appropriate some funds to the 
program by increasing funding from $11.5 million in 1995 to $40 million 
in 1999.
  As a result of this federal funding, there has been a considerable 
increase in the number of drug courts in the United States. Since 1994, 
the total number of operating drug court program has grown from 42 to 
approximately 300. However, there is still not enough funding to 
adequately support the program despite the increased interest. Last 
year the Department of Justice received 216 grant applications, but was 
able to award only 88 grants. Justice reports that there were at least 
38 additional programs that would have received grants had there been 
funding available.
  During my travels in Pennsylvania, I have confirmed that there is a 
great deal of interest in implementing this program. Currently, there 
are six counties (Allegheny, Chester, Lycoming, Philadelphia, York, 
Erie) that are in various stages of planning and implementing drug 
court programs. I had the opportunity to speak to a number of 
prosecutors, judges and participants of these programs. They are very 
positive about their initial progress and very optimistic about the 
results that they will achieve in the future.
  As a member of the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees, I have 
been an advocate of increasing funds for this program. I am committed 
to a balanced federal budget and realize that we must be careful in how 
we make federal expenditures. With this in mind, I have chosen this 
program carefully as one in which we should invest federal funds. I 
believe that Congress must step up to the plate and commit to this 
program by authorizing it and appropriating sufficient funds to meet 
the growing demand for drug court alternatives. It is necessary that 
the criminal justice system and Congress face up to the fact that 
realistic rehabilitation must be a part of the process of drug 
treatment and crime reduction.

  I believe that the drug courts are extremely effective in breaking 
the cycle of substance abuse and crime and will save large amounts of 
money that otherwise would have been spent on incarceration. With this 
program, first-time drug offenders may be prevented from becoming 
career criminals, and localities will be provided with funds to 
minimize the serious backlogs in criminal courts caused largely by drug 
crimes. The most recent Drug Court Survey Report, published by the 
Office of Justice Programs' Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical 
Assistance Project at American University found that the drug court 
programs reported low recidivism rates between 2% and 20%. The survey 
also found significantly reduced drug use even among those who did not 
graduate from the programs, with as many as 93% of participants testing 
negative for drugs. Further, this alternative promises to be less 
expensive than incarcerating nonviolent offenders. Drug courts offer 
significant cost savings as compared to incarceration. According to the 
Drug Court Survey Report, the average cost for the treatment component 
of a drug court program ranges between $900 and $1,200 per participant, 
and savings in jail bed days have been estimated to be at least $5,000 
per defendant. Additional reported savings include reductions in police 
overtime, witness costs and grand jury expenses.
  While these statistics are very promising, they are not necessarily 
representative of all of the drug court programs. In 1997, GAO issued a 
report entitled ``Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics and 
Results,'' which found that nearly half of the drug court programs do 
not maintain follow-up data regarding recidivism or relapse to drug 
abuse. Accordingly, GAO recommended that the Attorney General require 
drug court programs to collect and maintain follow-up data on 
recidivism and drug use relapse. This legislation includes a 
requirement for such follow-up so Congress can better determine the 
program's efficacy.
  This legislation would authorize up to $200 million per year for this 
innovative program, the original level from the 1994 law. Additionally, 
in order to create greater flexibility for states and local governments 
to fund the drug court programs, this legislation would allow federal 
funds that are received from sources other than the Drug Courts Program 
Office to be counted as a part of the 25% grantee matching contribution 
requirement. The current Justice policy requires the grantee to 
contribute 25% of the total program costs--none of which can come from 
a federal source.
  Additionally, the 1994 law required the Department of Justice to 
consult with HHS concerning administration of the drug court program, 
and although the drug court provision was rescinded, Justice has 
continued to consult with HHS in an informal manner regarding treatment 
programs. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognize the important role 
that HHS can play in improving the treatment aspect of the drug court 
program. Accordingly, this bill would reinstate the requirement that 
Justice consult with HHS regarding administration of the drug court 
program and would authorize $75 million to be appropriated to HHS to be 
used for drug treatment services associated with drug court programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important program which provides 
an effective alternative to imprisonment for drug addicted nonviolent 
offenders.
                                 ______