[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4512-S4515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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.
                                 ______