[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4509-S4516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. McConnell):
S. 840. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to provide standards and procedures to guide both
State and local law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers
during internal investigations, interrogation of law enforcement
officers, and administrative disciplinary hearings, to ensure
accountability of law enforcement officers, to guarantee the due
process rights of law enforcement officers, and to require States to
enact law enforcement discipline, accountability, and due process laws;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in ``The Federalist No. 3,'' John Jay
wrote that ``[a]mong the many objects to which a wise and free people
find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for
their safety seems to be the first.'' Such is the importance that our
nation historically has placed on the maintenance of law and order. And
our law enforcement officers, whom our country has charged with
carrying out this primary responsibility, shoulder a weighty, and often
times dangerous, burden. In 1999 alone, one hundred and thirty-four law
enforcement officers fell in the line of
[[Page S4510]]
duty, making the ultimate sacrifice to protect our communities.
While most Americans are aware that their police officers work in a
dangerous environment, many Americans do not know that in enforcing the
laws that exist to protect us all, these officers, themselves, often
are denied basic legal protections in internal investigations and
administrative hearings and are penalized for exercising their free
speech and associational rights. They live in fear of being
investigated without notice, interrogated without an attorney, and
dismissed without a hearing, often times at the behest of some recently
arrested criminal looking for a payback. In short, many officers do not
enjoy the same basic due process and First Amendment rights as does the
criminal element from which they are trying to protect us.
According to the National Association of Police Organizations, Inc.,
NAPO, ``[i]n roughly half of the states in this country, officers enjoy
some legal protections against false accusations and abusive conduct,
but hundreds of thousands of officers have very limited due process and
First Amendment rights and confront limitations on their exercise of
those and other rights.'' And according to the Fraternal Order of
Police, FOP, ``[i]n a startling number of jurisdictions throughout this
country, law enforcement officers have no procedural or administrative
protections whatsoever; in fact, they can be, and frequently are,
summarily dismissed from their jobs without explanation. Officers who
lose their careers due to administrative or political expediency almost
always find it impossible to find new employment in public safety. An
officer's reputation, once tarnished by accusation, is almost
impossible to restore.'' In short, a trumped-up charge against a police
officer can result in a lifetime sentence of a damaged career and
reputation.
It is time for our Nation to end this sorry situation. We must make
sure that every member of law enforcement, in every jurisdiction in the
country, is able to participate in the political process without fear
of retaliation and is able to do his or her job without wondering
whether they can defend themselves if their performance is scrutinized.
To this end, I am proud to rise today with Senator Biden to introduce
the ``Law Enforcement Discipline, Accountability, and Due Process Act
of 2001.'' This bill would guarantee due process rights to every police
officer who is subject to investigation for non-criminal disciplinary
action, and it would protect them from retribution on the job for
participating in the political process while off the job. Some of these
protections are: the right to be informed of administrative charges
prior to being questioned; the right to be advised of the results of an
investigation; the right to a hearing, as well as an opportunity to
respond; and the right to be represented by counsel or another
representative.
While this bill would protect the men and women who serve on the
front lines of our nation's war against crime, it would not do so at
the cost of citizen accountability. Just the opposite. It would
strengthen the ability of individual citizens to hold accountable those
few officers who misuse their authority. Specifically, as NAPO notes,
``[o]ften police departments lack any guidelines and procedures for
handling and investigating complaints, thus raising doubts about
officer accountability.'' This bill will fill that void and thereby go
a long way to dispelling such doubts. By establishing, as the FOP
observes, ``an effective means for the receipt, review and
investigation of public complaints against law enforcement officers
that is fair and equitable to all parties,'' this bill ensures that
legitimate citizen complaints against police officers will be actively
investigated and that citizens will be informed of the progress and
outcome of those investigations. It thus strikes an appropriate
balance: the bill makes sure that every police officer has basic
fundamental procedural rights, while at the same time ensuring that
citizens have the opportunity to raise legitimate complaints and
concerns about police officer conduct.
This legislation is the product of much hard work and continual
refinements by leading law enforcement groups, most notably the FOP and
the NAPO. They have both strongly endorsed it, and, like Senator Biden
and me, will work hard for its enactment. Over the years, Senator Biden
and I, in conjunction with these groups, have made similar efforts to
protect the men and women who protect us. While we have not yet been
successful, we remain undeterred and will continue working toward our
goal. The time has come to give our law enforcement officers the basic
and fundamental rights that they desperately deserve. We urge our
colleagues to join us in this very worthy effort.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 841. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
eliminate discriminatory copayment rates for outpatient psychiatric
services under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare
Mental Illness Non-Discrimination Act with my colleague on the Finance
Committee, Senator John Kerry.
In brief, my bill would a correct a serious disparity in payment for
treatment of mental disorders under Medicare law. Medicare
beneficiaries typically pay 20 percent coinsurance for most outpatient
services, including doctor's visits. Medicare pays the remaining 80
percent. But for treatment of mental disorders, Medicare law requires
patients pay 50-percent coinsurance. Under my bill, patients seeking
outpatient treatment for mental illness would pay the same 20 percent
coinsurance required of Medicare patients seeking treatment for any
other illnesses.
Let's look at this issue in another way. If a Medicare patient has an
office visit for treatment for cancer or heart disease, the patient is
responsible for 20 percent of the doctor's fee. But if a Medicare
patient has an office visit with a psychiatrist, psychologist, social
worker, or other professional for treatment for depression,
schizophrenia, or any other condition diagnosed as a mental illness,
the co-insurance for the outpatient visit for treatment of the mental
illness is 50 percent. What sense does this make?
Indeed, my bill has a larger purpose, to help end an outdated
distinction between physical and mental disorders, and ensure that
Medicare beneficiaries have equal access to treatment for all
conditions.
Perhaps this disparity would matter less if mental disorders were not
so prevalent. But the Surgeon General has told us otherwise. The
importance of access to treatment for mental disorders is emphasized in
a landmark report on mental health released by the Surgeon General in
1999. The Surgeon General reported mental illness was second only to
cardiovascular diseases in years of healthy life lost to either
premature death or disability. And the occurrence of mental illness
among older adults is widespread. Upwards of 20 percent of older adults
in the community and an even higher percentage in primary care settings
experience symptoms of depression. Older Americans have the highest
rate of suicide in the country, and the risk of suicide increases will
age. Untreated depression among the elderly substantially increases the
risk of death by suicide.
There is another sad irony. While Medicare is often viewed as health
insurance for people over age 65, Medicare also provides health
insurance coverage for people with severe disabilities. The single most
frequent cause of disability for Social Security and Medicare benefits
is mental disorders--affecting almost 1.4 million of 6 million
Americans who receive Social Security disability benefits. Yet, at the
same time, Medicare pays less for critical mental health services
needed by these beneficiaries than if they had a non-mental disorder.
But there is also the very good news that there are increasingly
effective treatments for mental illnesses. With proper treatment, the
majority of people with a mental illness can lead productive lives. Yet
because of fears of stigma and a lack of understanding of mental
disorders, too often mental disorders go untreated. Our payment
policies should not provide another barrier to access to care.
I urge my colleagues to join with me to bring Medicare payment policy
for mental disorders into the 21st century.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator
[[Page S4511]]
Snowe in introducing the Medicare Mental Illness Non-Discrimination
Act. This legislation will establish mental health care parity in the
Medicare program.
Medicare currently requires patients to pay a 20 percent co-payment
for all Part B services except mental health care services, for which
patients are assessed a 50 percent co-payment. Thus, under the current
system, if a Medicare patient sees an endocrinologist for diabetes
treatment, an oncologist for cancer treatment, a cardiologist for heart
disease treatment or an internist for treatment of the flu, the co-
payment is 20 percent of the cost of the visit. If, however, a Medicare
patient visits a psychiatrist for treatment of mental illness, the co-
payment is 50 percent of the cost of the visit. This disparity in
outpatient co-payment represents blatant discrimination against
Medicare beneficiaries with mental illness.
The prevalence of mental illness in older adults is considerable.
According to the U.S. Surgeon General, 20 percent of older adults in
the community and 40 percent of older adults in primary care settings
experience symptoms of depression, while as many as one out of every
two residents in nursing homes are at risk of depression. The elderly
have the highest rate of suicide in the United States, and there is a
clear correlation between major depression and suicide: 60 to 70
percent of suicides among patients 75 and older have diagnosable
depression. In addition to our seniors, 400,000 non-elderly disabled
Medicare beneficiaries become Medicare-eligible by virtue of severe and
persistent mental disorders. To subject the mentally disabled to
discriminatory costs in coverage for the very conditions for which they
became Medicare eligible is illogical and unfair.
There is ample evidence that mental illness can be treated.
Unfortunately, among the general population, those in need for
treatment often do not seek it because they are ashamed of their
condition. Among our Medicare population, the mentally ill face a
double burden: not only must they overcome the stigma about their
illness, but once they seek treatment they must pay one-half of the
cost of care out of their own pocket. The Medicare Mental Illness Non-
Discrimination Act will eliminate the 50 percent co-payment for mental
health care services. By applying the same 20 percent co-payment rate
to mental health services to which all other outpatient services are
subjected, the Medicare Mental Illness Non-Discrimination Act will
bring parity to the Medicare program and improve access to care for our
senior and disabled beneficiaries who are living with mental illness.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 842. Bill to ensure that the incarceration of inmates is not
provided by private contractors or vendors and that persons charged or
convicted of an offense against the United States shall be housed in
facilities managed and maintained by Federal, State, or local
governments; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public
Safety Act. This bill will prohibit the placement of Federal prisoners
in facilities run by private companies and deny specified Federal funds
to State and local governments that contract with private companies to
manage their prisons. Incarceration, or the deprivation of a person's
liberty, is the penultimate control a State exercises over its
citizens. That authority should not be delegated to any private, for-
profit entity. We must restore responsibility for public safety and
security to our Federal, state and local governments.
As our nation has confronted prison overcrowding in recent years,
private companies have stepped in to help communities address this
issue by claiming they could alleviate bed shortages and manage prisons
more cost effectively than governments. But private companies and
governments do not share the same goals with respect to corrections.
Federal, State and local governments are motivated by public safety and
justice, while private companies are motivated by a desire to cut costs
and make a profit. Today, some 120,000 of our nation's 2 million total
jail and prison beds are provided by private for-profit companies. As
reports of escapes, riots, prisoner violence, lack of adequate medical
care and abuse by staff in private prisons abound, many have begun to
question the wisdom and propriety of delegating this essential
government function to private companies.
At a prison in Youngstown, OH run by a private company, 20 inmates
were stabbed, two fatally, within a ten month period shortly after the
prison opened in May 1997. After the company claimed it had addressed
the problem, six inmates, four of them murderers, cut a hole in a fence
during recreation time and escaped in broad daylight. A report released
in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Justice cited inexperienced and
poorly trained officers and resulting excessive use of force at this
Youngstown facility. The Justice Department also noted that the company
failed to recognize its responsibilities as a correctional service
provider and its reluctance to accept blame for the unconstitutional
conditions of confinement at the prison. In 1999, the prison company
paid $1.65 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by inmates
who complained that, among other things, the prison provided inadequate
medical care and that guards were abusive.
Unfortunately, the problems that plague the Youngstown facility are
not unique. A private prison in Whiteville, TN, which houses many
inmates from my home state of Wisconsin, has experienced a hostage
situation, an assault of a guard, and a coverup to hide physical abuse
of inmates by guards. A security inspection found that this facility,
run by a private prison corporation, had unsecured razors, obstructed
views into individual cells, and an unsupervised inmate using a
computer lab labeled ``staff only.''
Proponents of prison privatization claim that private prison
operators save taxpayers money. But this has never been confirmed. In
fact, two government studies raise significant doubt about whether
private prisons save money. One study conducted by the GAO stated that
there is a lack of ``substantial evidence that savings have occurred''
due to prison privatization. A second study completed by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons arrived at the same result: there is no strong
evidence to show that States save money by using private prisons.
Private prison companies are guided by the same business principles
as other corporations. Their goal is to make a profit and, in turn,
please officers and shareholders. This profit motive is inappropriate
when the safety and security of guards and our communities are
threatened by prison violence and escapees.
Unfortunately, we have seen this cost-cutting turn into cutting
corners on public safety. Cutting corners means hiring unqualified and
untrained corrections personnel, as well as understaffing facilities.
Furthermore, when prison riots break out or inmates escape, these costs
are not cut but instead are shifted to the taxpayers, who must foot the
bill for U.S. Marshals, sheriffs or local police or other officials to
step in and clean up the mess.
Private prison corporations make money when they house more inmates
and provide fewer services. The result is that prisoners are deprived
of the rehabilitation, education, and training that make it less likely
that they will commit more crimes after they have served their time.
This drive to keep ``beds filled'' is especially troubling because it
adversely affects our nation's African American community, which is
already over-represented in the prison system.
The legislation I introduce today, The Public Safety Act, addresses
these concerns. It prohibits the Federal government from delegating
responsibility for incarceration of inmates to private entities. The
bill also conditions Federal prison funds to states upon their
agreement to retain responsibility for the incarceration of inmates and
not contract out this solemn responsibility to private companies.
Governments may contract with private vendors to provide auxiliary
services such as food or clothing, but governments would be prohibited
from contracting out the core correctional responsibility of housing,
safeguarding, protecting or disciplining inmates.
Correctional officers have joined together with other government
employee groups and criminal justice activists to support this
legislation. The bill's supporters include the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the
[[Page S4512]]
American Federation of Government Employees, AFGE, the International
Union of Police Associations, the Fraternal Order of Police and the
American Civil Liberties Union.
Let us restore safety and security to the many Americans who work in
prisons. Let us protect the communities that support prisons. And let
us ensure the rehabilitation and safety of the individuals housed there
so that they may return to society as productive law-abiding citizens.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Public Safety Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 842
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 ``Public Safety Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The issues of safety, liability, accountability, and
cost are the paramount issues in running corrections
facilities.
(2) In recent years, the privatization of facilities for
persons previously incarcerated by governmental entities has
resulted in frequent escapes by violent criminals, riots
resulting in extensive damage, prisoner violence, and
incidents of prisoner abuse by staff.
(3) In some instances, the courts have prohibited the
transfer of additional convicts to private prisons because of
the danger to prisoners and the community.
(4) Frequent escapes and riots at private facilities result
in expensive law enforcement costs for State and local
governments.
(5) The need to make profits creates incentives for private
contractors to underfund mechanisms that provide for the
security of the facility and the safety of the inmates,
corrections staff, and neighboring community.
(6) The 1997 Supreme Court ruling in Richardson v. McKnight
that the qualified immunity that shields State and local
correctional officers does not apply to private prison
personnel, and therefore exposes State and local governments
to liability for the actions of private corporations.
(7) Additional liability issues arise when inmates are
transferred outside the jurisdiction of the contracting
State.
(8) Studies on private correctional facilities have been
unable to demonstrate any significant cost savings in the
privatization of corrections facilities.
(9) The imposition of punishment on errant citizens through
incarceration requires State and local governments to
exercise their coercive police powers over individuals. These
powers, including the authority to use force over a private
citizen, should not be delegated to another private party.
SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANTS.
(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subtitle A of title II of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, an applicant shall provide
assurances to the Attorney General that if selected to
receive funds under such subtitle the applicant shall not
contract with a private contractor or vendor to provide core
correctional services related to the incarceration of an
inmate.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply to grant
funds received after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Effect on Existing Contracts.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
subsection (a) shall not apply to a contract in effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act between a grantee and a
private contractor or vendor to provide core correctional
services related to correctional facilities or the
incarceration of inmates.
(2) Renewals and extensions.--Subsection (a) shall apply to
renewals or extensions of an existing contract entered into
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``core correctional service'' means the housing,
safeguarding, protecting, and disciplining of persons charged
or convicted of an offense.
SEC. 4. ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY IN THE DUTIES OF
THE BUREAU OF PRISONS.
Section 4042(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7);
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) provide that any penal or correctional facility or
institution except for nonprofit community correctional
confinement, such as halfway houses, confining any person
convicted of offenses against the United States, shall be
under the direction of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons
and shall be managed and maintained by employees of Federal,
State, or local governments;
``(6) provide that the housing, safeguarding, protection,
and disciplining of any person charged with or convicted of
any offense against the United States, except such persons in
community correctional confinement such as halfway houses,
will be conducted and carried out by individuals who are
employees of Federal, State, or local governments; and''.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 843. A bill to provide assistance to States to expand and
establish drug abuse treatment programs to enable such programs to
provide services to individuals who voluntarily seek treatment for drug
abuse; to the committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Treatment on
Demand Assistance Act to help ensure that substance abuse treatment is
available to all substance abusers who seek it.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, each year
drug and alcohol related abuse kills more than 120,000 Americans. In
1999, an estimated 14.8 million Americans were illicit drug users, with
nearly 5 million of them addicted to drugs.
Drugs and alcohol abuse costs taxpayers nearly $276 billion annually
in preventable health care costs, extra law enforcement, auto crashes,
crime and lost productivity.
Additionally, the detrimental effect of substance abuse manifests
itself in numerous ways. For instance, substance abuse is often the
root behind family violence and other criminal activity.
Even more devastating is that according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, CDC, drug injections are one of the most common
modes of transmission of the AIDS virus.
In an effort to combat this problem, before stepping down as
America's Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey outlined in his final
report that the prescription for solving America's drug problem was:
``prevention coupled with treatment accompanied by research.''
Despite the recognition that substance abuse treatment should be on
the Nation's agenda, there is still a large gap between those in need
of drug treatment and the availability of treatment programs. Thus,
when substance abusers finally do seek treatment, they are often turned
away because of long waiting lists.
The numbers are shocking. While some substance abusers are not
seeking treatment, many are, and are being turned away. In California,
for example, 60 percent of all facilities that maintain a waiting list
have an average of 23 people on their list on any given day.
Nationwide, there are over 5 million substance abusers, yet less than
half are receiving treatment for their drug problems, leaving over 2.8
million people in need of treatment. This is unacceptable.
In order to address this problem, I strongly believe that along with
increased funding for law enforcement, especially those proven programs
run in jails and prisons, it is also necessary to provide additional
funding for treatment programs. Indeed, I believe that enforcement and
treatment are critical elements of an effective comprehensive drug
control policy.
To meet that goal, however, will require additional investment.
Through the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration,
SAMHSA, the Federal Government currently provides over $2 billion to
states and local entities for drug treatment programs, and total
Federal spending in this area is just over $3 billion. Yet, this is not
enough to get people the help they need when they need it.
For this reason, I am introducing the Treatment on Demand Assistance
Act. Congressman Cal Dooley will introduce a companion measure in the
House.
My bill would double the Federal government's funding for drug
treatment over five years, to $6 billion in fiscal year 2006.
Current treatment on demand programs focus on the specific drug abuse
needs of the local community. For instance, in San Francisco and
California's Central Valley, methamphetamine abuse is especially
problematic and continues to be on the rise. In other cities, cocaine
abuse or marijuana is the drug of choice. Treatment programs should be
targeted to address these local epidemics.
That is why the additional funding in this bill is provided through
SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and gives the Center the
flexibility to
[[Page S4513]]
target funds where they are needed most. Of the $3 billion in
additional funding set aside, 50 percent is provided in the form of
formula grants to States, and 50 percent is reserved for direct grants
to treatment centers.
The Treatment on Demand Assistance Act would also reward states that
have instituted a policy of providing substance abuse treatment to non-
violent drug offenders as an alternative to prison, as California
recently did with the enactment of Proposition 36. The bill authorizes
$250 million per year for five years to provide matching grants to
states. These funds could be used to help pay for treatment as well as
to provide other elements of a comprehensive anti-drug abuse program
for non-violent offenders, including drug testing, drug courts and
probation services.
In order to ensure that the funding is being effectively distributed,
the bill would require the General Accounting Office to monitor the
program during the 2nd and 4th year of the grant programs.
Already, there is a groundswell of interest in this bill, with over
100 organizations from both the treatment and law enforcement community
actively supporting it. If groups as diverse as the California
Sheriff's Association, the California Public Defenders Association and
the National Association of Social Workers can come together, then
surely we can find the funding necessary to invest in substance abuse
treatment. Recent studies indicate that for every additional dollar
invested in substance abuse treatment taxpayers would save $7.46 in
societal costs. Clearly, such an investment is worthwhile, and I urge
my colleagues to support treatment on demand.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the list of
endorsers be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 843
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 ``Treatment on Demand
Assistance Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) According to the Department of Health and Human
Services, each year drug and alcohol related abuse kills more
than 120,000 Americans.
(2) In 1999, an estimated 14,800,000 Americans were current
illicit drug users.
(3) States across the country are faced with increasing
demands for drug treatment programs.
(4) In addition, methamphetamine abuse continues to be on
the rise. Methamphetamine abuse accounts for 5.1 percent of
all treatment admissions, which was the fourth highest
percentage after cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.
(5) Current statistics show that methamphetamine use is
increasing rapidly especially among the nation's youth.
(6) There are over 2,800,000 substance abusers in America
in need of treatment.
(7) This number exceeds the 2,137,100 persons receiving
treatment.
(8) Recent reports indicate that every additional dollar
invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46
in societal costs.
(9) In California, the average cost to taxpayers per
inmate, per year, is $23,406 versus the national average cost
of $4,300 for a full treatment program.
(10) Drugs and alcohol cost taxpayers nearly
$276,000,000,000 annually in preventable health care costs,
extra law enforcement, auto crashes, crime and lost
productivity versus $3,100,000,000 appropriated for substance
abuse-related activities in fiscal year 2000.
(11) Nationwide, 59 percent of police chiefs believe that
drug offenders are served better by participation in
treatment programs versus prisons only.
(12) Current treatment on demand programs such as those in
San Francisco and Baltimore focus on the specific drug abuse
needs of the local community and should be encouraged.
(13) Many States have developed programs designed to treat
non-violent drug offenders and this should be encouraged.
(14) Drug treatment prevention programs must be increased
in order to effectively address the needs of those actively
seeking treatment before they commit a crime.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) assist individuals who seek the services of drug abuse
treatment programs by providing them with treatment on
demand;
(2) provide assistance to help eliminate the backlog of
individuals on waiting lists to obtain drug treatment for
their addictions;
(3) enhance public safety by reducing drug-related crimes
and preserving jails and prison cells for serious and violent
criminal offenders;
(4) complement the efforts of law enforcement by providing
additional funding to expand current community-based
treatment efforts and prevent the recidivism of those
currently in the correctional system; and
(5) assist States in the implementation of alternative drug
treatment programs that divert non-violent drug offenders to
treatment programs that are more suited for the
rehabilitation of drug offenders.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Non-violent.--The term ``non-violent'' with respect to
a criminal offense means an offense that is not a crime of
violence as defined under the applicable State law.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
SEC. 5. GRANTS FOR THE EXPANSION OF CAPACITY FOR PROVIDING
TREATMENT.
Subpart 1 of part B of title V of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb et seq.), as amended by sections 3104
and 3632 of the Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act
(Public Law 106-310), is amended--
(1) by redesignating the section 514 relating to the
methamphetamine and amphetamine treatment initiative as
section 514B and inserting such section after section 514A;
and
(2) and by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 514C. TREATMENT ON DEMAND.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, shall--
``(1) award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to
public and private nonprofit entities, including Native
Alaskan entities and Indian tribes and tribal organizations;
and
``(2) award block grants to States;
for the purpose of providing substance abuse treatment
services.
``(b) Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under subsection (a) an
entity or a State shall provide assurances to the Secretary
that amounts received under such grant, contract, or
agreement will only be used for substance abuse treatment
programs that have been certified by the State as using
licensed or certified providers.
``(2) Application.--An entity or State desiring a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement under subsection (a) shall
submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such
manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary
may reasonably require.
``(3) Priority.--In awarding grants, contracts, or
cooperative agreements to entities under subsection (a)(1),
the Secretary shall give priority to applicants who propose
to eliminate the waiting lists for substance abuse treatment
on demand programs in local communities with high incidences
of drug use.
``(c) Amount.--
``(1) Public and private nonprofit entities.--The amount of
each grant, contract, or cooperative agreement awarded to a
public or private nonprofit entity under subsection (a)(1)
shall be determined by the Secretary based on the application
submitted by such an entity.
``(2) States.--The amount of a block grant awarded to a
State under subsection (a)(2) shall be determined by the
Secretary based on the formula contained in section 1933.
``(d) Duration of Grants.--The Secretary shall award
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements under subsection
(a) for periods not to exceed 5 fiscal years.
``(e) Requirement of Matching Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the Director
may not make a grant, contract or cooperative agreement under
subsection (a) unless the entity or State involved agrees,
with respect to the costs of the program to be carried out by
the entity or State pursuant to such subsection, to make
available (directly or through donations from public or
private entities) non-Federal contributions toward such costs
in an amount that is--
``(A) for the first fiscal year for which the entity or
State receives such a grant, contract or cooperative
agreement, not less than $1 for each $9 of Federal funds
provided in the grant, contract or cooperative agreement;
``(B) for any second or third such fiscal year, not less
than $1 for each $5 of Federal funds provided in the grant,
contract or cooperative agreement; and
``(C) for any subsequent such fiscal year, not less than $1
for each $3 of Federal funds provided in the grant, contract
or cooperative agreement.
``(2) Determination of amount of non-federal
contribution.--Non-Federal contributions required in
paragraph (1) may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated,
including plant, equipment, or services. Amounts provided by
the Federal Government, or services assisted or subsidized to
any significant extent by the Federal Government, may not be
included in determining the amount of such non-Federal
contributions.
``(3) Waiver.--The Director may waive the requirement
established in paragraph (1) if the Director determines--
``(A) that extraordinary economic conditions in the area to
be served by the entity or State involved justify the waiver;
or
[[Page S4514]]
``(B) that other circumstances exist with respect to the
entity or State that justify the waiver, including the
limited size of the entity or State or the ability of the
entity or State to raise funds.
``(f) Evaluation.--An entity or State that receives a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under subsection
(a) shall submit, in the application for such grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement, a plan for the evaluation
of any project undertaken with funds provided under this
section. Such entity or State shall provide the Secretary
with periodic evaluations of the progress of such project and
such evaluation at the completion of such project as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(g) Use for Construction.--A grantee under this section
may use up to 25 percent of the amount awarded under the
grant, contract or cooperative agreement under this section
for the costs of construction or major renovation of
facilities to be used to provide substance abuse treatment
services and for facility maintenance.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section--
``(A) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(B) $1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(C) $1,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(D) $2,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(E) $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
``(2) Allocation of funds.--From the amount appropriated
under paragraph (1) for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
allocate--
``(A) 50 percent of such amount to award grants, contracts,
or cooperative agreements to public or nonprofit private
entities under subsection (a)(1); and
``(B) 50 percent of such amount to award grants to States
under subsection (a)(2).''.
SEC. 6. ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROGRAMS.
(a) Grants.--The Attorney General, in consultation with the
Secretary, shall award grants to eligible States to enable
such States, either directly or through the provision of
assistance to counties or local municipalities, to provide
drug treatment services to individuals who have been
convicted of non-violent drug possession offenses and
diverted from incarceration because of the enrollment of such
individuals into community-based drug treatment programs.
(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section a State shall--
(1) be implementing an alternative drug treatment program
under which any individual in the State who has been
convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense may be
enrolled in an appropriate drug treatment program as an
alternative to incarceration; and
(2) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may require.
(c) Use of Funds.--Amounts provided to a State under a
grant under this section may be used by the State (or by
State or local entities that receive funding from the State
under this section) to pay expenses associated with--
(1) the construction of treatment facilities;
(2) payments to related drug treatment services providers
that are necessary for the effectiveness of the program,
including aftercare supervision, vocational training,
education, and job placement;
(3) drug testing;
(4) probation services;
(5) counseling, including mental health services; and
(6) the operation of drug courts.
(d) Matching Requirement.--Funds may not be provided to a
State under this section unless the State agrees that, with
respect to the costs to be incurred by the State in carrying
out the drug treatment program involved, the State will make
available (directly or through donations from public or
private entities) non-Federal contributions toward such costs
in an amount that is at least equal to the amount of Federal
funds provided to the State under this section.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to carry out this section, $250,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2006.
SEC. 7. STUDY BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.
(a) In General.--The General Accounting Office shall
conduct a study of the use of funds under this Act and the
amendments made by this Act. In conducting such study, the
Office shall make determinations as to whether such funding
meets, exceeds, or falls short of the level of funding needed
to provide substance abuse treatment to those in need.
(b) Reports.--The General Accounting Office shall prepare
and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress an
interim and final report concerning the study conducted under
subsection (a). The reports required under this subsection
shall be submitted--
(1) with respect to the interim report, not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) with respect to the final report, not later than 4
years after the date of enactment of this Act.
____
Supporters of the Treatment on Demand Assistance Act
CHIEFS OF POLICE
Ron Ace, Chief of Police, Concord.
Robert J. Brennan, Chief of Police, Atherton.
Kenneth L. Becknell, Chief of Police, Barstow.
James T. Butts, Jr., Chief of Police, Santa Monica.
Craig H. Calhoun, Chief of Police, Hayward.
William E. Eldridge, Chief of Police, Livingston.
Robert S. Gonzales, Chief of Police, Santa Paula.
Tim Grimmond, Chief of Police, El Segundo.
Thomas R. Hitchock, Chief of Police, Brisbane.
J. Michael Klein, Chief of Police, Sand City.
Fred H. Lau, Chief of Police, San Francisco.
Joseph A. Santoro, Chief of Police, Fontana.
Frank J. Scialdone, Chief of Police, Fontana.
Tom Tunson, Chief of Police, Calexico.
Arturo Venegas, Jr., Chief of Police, Sacramento.
Paul M. Walters, Chief of Police, Santa Ana.
Roy W. Wasden, Chief of Police, Modesto.
Richard L. Word, Chief of Police, Oakland.
John Zapalac, Chief of Police, Woodlake.
SHERIFFS
California State Sheriff's Association.
Lee Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County.
Harold D. Carter, Sheriff, Imperial County.
Michael Hennessey, Sheriff, City and County of San
Francisco.
Don Horsley, Sheriff, San Mateo County.
Dennis Lewis, Sheriff, Humboldt County.
Gary S. Penrod, Sheriff, San Bernardino County.
Charles C. Plummer, Sheriff, Alameda County.
E.G. Prieto, Sheriff-Coroner, Yolo County.
Tom Sawyer, Sheriff-Corner, Merced County.
Larry D. Smith, Sheriff, Riverside County.
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
Terry R. Farmer, District Attorney, Humboldt County.
Terence Hallinan, District Attorney, City and County of San
Francisco.
George W. Kennedy, District Attorney, Santa Clara County.
Pete Knoll, District Attorney, Siskiyou County.
ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS
Jane Brunner, Vice Mayor, Oakland.
Patricia A. Campbell, Chair, Mendocino County Board of
Supervisors.
Ann K. Capela, County Executive Officer, Imperial County.
Illa Collin, Supervisor, Sacramento County.
Rosemary Corbin, Mayor, Richmond.
Kelly F. Cox, Administrative Officer, Lake County.
Shirley Dean, Mayor, Berkeley.
Heather Fargo, Mayor, Sacramento.
Donna Gerber, Supervisor, Contra Costa County.
Steven Gutierrez, Supervisor, San Joaquin County.
James H. Harmon, Presiding Judge, Imperial County Superior
Court, Drug Court.
Anthony J. Intintoli, Jr., Mayor, Vallejo.
Dave Jones, Councilmember, City of Sacramento.
Sandra Kellams, Mayor, City of Colfax.
Marin County Board of Supervisors, Marin County.
Bonnie Pannell, Vice-Mayor, City of Sacramento.
Bill Simmons, Supervisor, County of Yuba.
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Sonoma County.
John Woolley, Chair, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.
Christopher W. Yeager, Presiding Judge, Imperial County
Superior Court.
HEALTH AGENCIES
Beverly K. Abbott, Director, Mental Health Services, San
Mateo Health Services.
Gene Coleman, Chairperson, City-Wide Alcoholism Advisory
Board, San Francisco.
Beverly R. Craig, R.N., J.D., Deputy Director of Community
Health Services, Yuba County.
Cheryl S. Davis, Director, Sacramento County Department of
Human Assistance.
Ed Fisher, Assistant Director, Sutter County Human Services
Department.
Yvonne Frazier, Director, Alcohol and Drug Services, San
Mateo Health Services.
Patricia Harrison, Community Chair, Treatment on Demand
Planning Council, San Francisco.
John Hoss, Assistant Director of Human Services, Sutter-
Yuba Mental Health Services.
James W. Hunt, Director, Sacramento County Department of
Health and Human Services.
Dr. Mitchell Katz, Director of Health, City and County of
San Francisco.
Terry Longoria, Director, Napa County Health and Human
Services.
Donald R. Rowe, Director, Solano County Health and Social
Services Department.
Warren T. Sherlock, Deputy Director, Alcohol & Drug
Services, Imperial County.
Randy F. Snowden, Alcohol and Drug Program Administrator,
Health & Human Services, Napa.
William B. Walker, Director, Contra Costa Health Services,
Martinez.
Matonia Williams, President, Drug Abuse Advisory Board, San
Francisco.
Donald L. Williamson, Vice Chair to the Board, Indian
Valley Services District, Greenville.
[[Page S4515]]
PUBLIC DEFENDERS
Shane A. Gusman, Legislative Advocate, California Public
Defenders Association.
Barry Melton, Public Defender, Yolo County.
Eluid M. Romero, Supervising Assistant Public Defender,
Sacramento County.
PROBATION OFFICERS
David L. Lehman, Chief Probation Officer, Humboldt County.
Steven H. Lyman, Chief Probation Officer, Siskiyou County
Probation Department.
Christine Odom, Chief Probation Officer, Sutter County
Probation Department.
Joseph S. Warchol II, Chief Probation Officer, El Dorado
County Probation Department.
ORGANIZATIONS AND CLINICS
Another Choice, Another Chance (ACAC), Sacramento.
Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc., Los Angeles.
Asian Pacific Community Counseling, Sacramento.
Associated Students, Los Rios Community College District.
Associated Student Government, Sacramento City College.
Associated Students of UC Davis, University of California,
Davis.
Boyle Heights Recovery Center, Behavioral Health Services,
Los Angeles.
Building & Construction Trades Council, Humboldt & Del
Norte Counties.
California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program
Executives, Sacramento.
Central Valley Health Network, Sacramento.
Community Coalition, Los Angeles.
Community Service Programs, Santa Ana.
County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators Association
of California, Sacramento.
Detention Ministry and Inside Out Network, Napa.
The Effort, Inc., Sacramento.
Fair Oaks Recovery Center, Fair Oaks.
FamiliesFirst, Davis.
First A.M.E. Church (FAME), Los Angeles.
Galt Community Concilio, Inc., Galt.
Gay & Lesbian Center, Los Angeles.
Korean Youth & Community Center, Los Angeles.
Lambda Letters Project, Carmichael.
Lincoln Heights Recovery Center, Los Angeles.
Los Angeles Centers for Alcohol & Drug Abuse, Santa Fe
Springs.
Mental Health Association in California, Sacramento.
Morrisania West, San Francisco.
Napa Valley Coalition of Non-profit Agencies, Napa.
National Advocacy on Addictions, Los Angeles.
National Asian Women's Health Organization, San Francisco.
National Association of Social Workers, Washington, D.C.
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence,
Sacramento Affiliate.
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, San
Fernando Valley Affiliate.
New Dawn Recovery Center, Sacramento.
Ohlhoff Recovery Programs, San Francisco.
Organization of Chinese Americans, Inc., Sacramento.
People in Progress, Los Angeles.
Phoenix House, Lake View Terrace.
Ready Willing & Able, New York.
Recovery Theatre, San Francisco.
SHIELDS for Families, Los Angeles.
Southeast Asian Assistance Center, Sacramento.
Swords to Plowshares, San Francisco.
Tarzana Treatment Centers, Tarzana.
______
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Helms):
S. 845. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include
agricultural and animal waste sources as a renewable energy resource;
to the committee on Finance.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will
encourage the expansion of an often overlooked domestic energy resource
that offers a source of revenue for our rural communities and an avenue
for cleanup of agricultural waste. I am pleased to be joined by co-
sponsors Senator Hutchinson and Senator Helms.
It has been well-publicized that our country faces mounting
uncertainty in meeting our energy demands. After years of getting
little attention, we are now in a period where the development of
domestic energy resources has reached a crucial point. I support our
efforts to diversify our energy supply resources to ensure our nation's
energy security, support our business and agricultural economies, and
protect our individual consumers. This time of challenge also offers
great opportunities. One of those is the opportunity to encourage a
largely untapped resource to provide domestic energy, while also
promoting the protection of the environment and rural development. I am
speaking about energy derived from agricultural and animal waste
sources.
Electricity from biomass and waste sources using modern technology is
a renewable resource that can add to our domestic energy supply. The
process uses manure and waste products that are heated and converted
into biogas that is burned to generate electricity, which is sold into
the power grid. This technology is widely accepted in Europe where over
600 systems are in operation today. In this country, the technology is
gaining acceptance following numerous successful case studies. This
process offers farmers an option for cleaning agricultural waste that
is a known source of groundwater contamination and air pollution. The
revenue generated from the sale of electricity provides a source of
income to offset the cleanup costs, while providing important kilowatts
to the power grid.
The bill I am introducing today would extend the 1.5 cent per
kilowatt hour production tax credit that is currently available to
wind, closed-loop biomass, and poultry waste by making it available to
all agricultural and animal waste sources.
There have been other bills introduced that would extend the tax
credit to additional renewable sources such as solar energy. I
encourage efforts to broaden the definition of renewable sources and,
for that reason, I am also proposing an amendment to S. 388, the
comprehensive national energy bill introduced by Senator Murkowski. The
amendment would add agricultural and animal waste as a renewable energy
resource listed under that bill.
The use of modern technology to generate electricity from waste
should not be overlooked. The tax credit is a important incentive to
encourage its wider use. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this
important initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill
and the amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 845
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS TO CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED
FROM RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND EXTENSION TO WASTE
ENERGY.
(a) Expansion of Qualified Energy Resources.--
(1) In general.--Section 45(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining qualified energy resources) is amended
by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:
``(C) agricultural and animal waste sources.''.
(2) Definitions.--Section 45(c) of such Code (relating to
definitions) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) Agricultural and animal waste sources.--The term
`agricultural and animal waste sources' means all waste heat,
steam, and fuels produced from the conversion of agricultural
and animal wastes, including by-products, packaging, and any
materials associated with the processing, feeding, selling,
transporting, and disposal of agricultural and animal
products or wastes (such as wood shavings, straw, rice hulls,
and other bedding material for the disposition of manure).''.
(b) Extension and Modification of Placed-In-Service
Rules.--Section 45(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(defining qualified facility) is amended by striking
subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:
``(C) Agricultural and animal waste facility.--In the case
of a facility using agricultural and animal waste to produce
electricity, the term `qualified facility' means any facility
of the taxpayer which is originally placed in service--
``(i) in the case of a facility using poultry waste, after
December 31, 1999, and before January 1, 2002, and
``(ii) in the case of any other facility, after the date of
the enactment of this subparagraph and before July 1, 2011.
``(D) Combined production facilities included.--For
purposes of this paragraph, the term `qualified facility'
shall include a facility using agricultural and animal waste
to produce electricity and other biobased products such as
chemicals and fuels from renewable resources.
``(E) Special rules.--In the case of a qualified facility
described in subparagraph (C)--
``(i) the 10-year period referred to in subsection (a)
shall be treated as beginning no earlier than the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, and
``(ii) subsection (b)(3) shall not apply to any such
facility originally placed in service before January 1,
1997.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The heading for section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by inserting ``and waste energy'' after
``renewable''.
(2) The item relating to section 45 in the table of
sections subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of
such Code is
[[Page S4516]]
amended by inserting ``and waste energy'' after
``renewable''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to electricity produced after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
____________________