[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22926-22928]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      PROSECUTION DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON ACT OF 2000

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 4493) to establish grants for drug treatment 
alternative to prison programs administered by State or local 
prosecutors.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4493

       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 ``Prosecution Drug Treatment 
     Alternative to Prison Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAMS 
                   ADMINISTERED BY STATE OR LOCAL PROSECUTORS.

       (a) Prosecution Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison 
     Programs.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new part:

  ``PART AA--PROSECUTION DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAMS

     ``SEC. 2701. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--The Attorney General may make grants to 
     State or local prosecutors for the purpose of developing, 
     implementing, or expanding drug treatment alternative to 
     prison programs that comply with the requirements of this 
     part.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--A State or local prosecutor who 
     receives a grant under this part shall use amounts provided 
     under the grant to develop, implement, or expand the drug 
     treatment alternative to prison program for which the grant 
     was made, which may include payment of the following 
     expenses:
       ``(1) Salaries, personnel costs, equipment costs, and other 
     costs directly related to the operation of the program, 
     including the enforcement unit.
       ``(2) Payments to licensed substance abuse treatment 
     providers for providing treatment to offenders participating 
     in the program for which the grant was made, including 
     aftercare supervision, vocational training, education, and 
     job placement.
       ``(3) Payments to public and nonprofit private entities for 
     providing treatment to offenders participating in the program 
     for which the grant was made.
       ``(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of a grant under 
     this part shall not exceed 75 percent of the cost of the 
     program.
       ``(d) Supplement and Not Supplant.--Grant amounts received 
     under this part shall be used to supplement, and not 
     supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available 
     for activities funded under this part.

     ``SEC. 2702. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       ``A drug treatment alternative to prison program with 
     respect to which a grant is made under this part shall comply 
     with the following requirements:
       ``(1) A State or local prosecutor shall administer the 
     program.
       ``(2) An eligible offender may participate in the program 
     only with the consent of the State or local prosecutor.
       ``(3) Each eligible offender who participates in the 
     program shall, as an alternative to incarceration, be 
     sentenced to or placed with a long term, drug free 
     residential substance abuse treatment provider that is 
     licensed under State or local law.
       ``(4) Each eligible offender who participates in the 
     program shall serve a sentence of imprisonment with respect 
     to the underlying crime if that offender does not 
     successfully complete treatment with the residential 
     substance abuse provider.
       ``(5) Each residential substance abuse provider treating an 
     offender under the program shall--
       ``(A) make periodic reports of the progress of treatment of 
     that offender to the State or local prosecutor carrying out 
     the program and to the appropriate court in which the 
     defendant was convicted; and
       ``(B) notify that prosecutor and that court if that 
     offender absconds from the facility of the treatment provider 
     or otherwise violates the terms and conditions of the 
     program.
       ``(6) The program shall have an enforcement unit comprised 
     of law enforcement officers under the supervision of the 
     State or local prosecutor carrying out the program, the 
     duties of which shall include verifying an offender's 
     addresses and other contacts, and, if necessary, locating, 
     apprehending, and arresting an offender who has absconded 
     from the facility of a residential substance abuse treatment 
     provider or otherwise violated the terms and conditions of 
     the program, and returning such offender to court for 
     sentence on the underlying crime.

     ``SEC. 2703. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--To request a grant under this part, a 
     State or local prosecutor shall submit an application to the 
     Attorney General in such form and containing such information 
     as the Attorney General may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Certifications.--Each such application shall contain 
     the certification of the State or local prosecutor that the 
     program for which the grant is requested shall meet each of 
     the requirements of this part.

     ``SEC. 2704. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

       ``The Attorney General shall ensure that, to the extent 
     practicable, the distribution of grant awards is equitable 
     and includes State or local prosecutors--
       ``(1) in each State; and
       ``(2) in rural, suburban, and urban jurisdictions.

     ``SEC. 2705. REPORTS AND EVALUATIONS.

       ``For each fiscal year, each recipient of a grant under 
     this part during that fiscal year shall submit to the 
     Attorney General a report regarding the effectiveness of 
     activities carried out using that grant. Each report shall 
     include an evaluation in such form and containing such 
     information as the Attorney General may reasonably require. 
     The Attorney General shall specify the dates on which such 
     reports shall be submitted.

     ``SEC. 2706. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) The term `State or local prosecutor' means any 
     district attorney, State attorney general, county attorney, 
     or corporation counsel who has authority to prosecute 
     criminal offenses under State or local law.
       ``(2) The term `eligible offender' means an individual 
     who--
       ``(A) has been convicted of, or pled guilty to, or admitted 
     guilt with respect to a crime for which a sentence of 
     imprisonment is required and has not completed such sentence;

[[Page 22927]]

       ``(B) has never been convicted of, or pled guilty to, or 
     admitted guilt with respect to, and is not presently charged 
     with, a felony crime of violence or a major drug offense or a 
     crime that is considered a violent felony under State or 
     local law; and
       ``(C) has been found by a professional substance abuse 
     screener to be in need of substance abuse treatment because 
     that offender has a history of substance abuse that is a 
     significant contributing factor to that offender's criminal 
     conduct.
       ``(3) The term `felony crime of violence' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 924(c)(3) of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       ``(4) The term `major drug offense' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 36(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a) of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(24) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     part AA--
       ``(A) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(B) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(C) $95,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(D) $105,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(E) $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4493.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4493, the Prosecution Drug Treatment Alternative to 
Prison Act of 2000 would authorize grants for drug treatment 
alternative to prison programs administered by State or local 
prosecutors. This legislation represents a responsible approach to drug 
treatment because it holds the individual receiving treatment 
accountable and it allows local prosecutors to exercise discretion 
regarding those for whom drug treatment is appropriate.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the sponsor of 
this legislation, for his leadership on this innovative legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), I 
would like to enter into the record the other original cosponsors of 
this bill, those being, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Ballenger); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman); the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss); the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger); the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson); the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham); the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman); the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp); and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf).
  The reason I do that is I want to evidence the broad geographic 
interest in providing some means of relief for folks who are suffering 
from the malaise of drugs. I wish to thank also the dozens of 
cosponsors of this legislation from both sides of the aisle. It is my 
expectation that the bill soon will be introduced and receive 
bipartisan support in the United States Senate as well.
  This legislation will provide much needed resources to State and 
local governments for new prosecutor-managed drug treatment options for 
eligible nonviolent offenders. The program is designed for offenders 
who need and seek an opportunity to break the terrible chains of drug 
addiction and take back control of their lives.
  In fact, such a program has been administered successfully for more 
than a decade in Brooklyn, New York. It has been rigorously evaluated 
and found to have resulted in higher treatment success, low recidivism 
rates and substantial tax dollar savings. This legislation will be an 
important new addition to our Nation's drug demand reduction efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, most State and local criminal prosecutions are resolved 
through guilty pleas and plea bargains. Plea agreements prevent our 
criminal justice system from coming to a screeching halt and, as such, 
they are a valuable tool. This particular legislation represents 
another option for offenders who plead guilty to nonviolent offenses 
such as personal drug use. Just to be clear, violent drug offenders and 
serious drug traffickers will not be eligible under this legislation. 
The legislation also authorizes new Federal funding for programs 
designed and managed by State and local prosecutors who prosecute 
nonviolent offenders who are in desperate need of treatment. It allows 
prosecutors to select only eligible nonviolent offenders for a rigorous 
program of mandatory drug treatment and strict rules and conditions. 
Prosecutors have total discretion to select participants. Participants 
must be identified as being in need of treatment but they must also not 
have been convicted of a felony crime of violence or a major drug 
offense as defined under Federal law.
  An important benefit of this option is that a prosecutor retains the 
leverage of a substantial prison sentence to be used if an offender 
violates program or treatment requirements. That is called 
accountability.
  This accountability provides prosecutors with a common sense cost-
effective alternative for offenders who really want to reform their 
lives. A successful model program of this type is the drug treatment 
alternative to prison program, as I mentioned, established in 1990 by 
the Office of the District Attorney for Kings County, which is 
Brooklyn, New York.
  Evaluation results of the New York program indicate high treatment 
retention rates, low recidivism and significant cost savings. The 1-
year retention rate in drug treatment is 66 percent. The recidivism 
rate for participants is less than a half for comparable offenders, 23 
percent compared to 47 percent. Nearly all employable program 
graduates, that is 92 percent, are now working or are in vocational 
programs compared with only 26 percent who were employed prior to 
entering the program.
  This particular program in Brooklyn, New York, reportedly has saved 
the city and the State more than $15 million over the past 10 years. 
The program holds great promise for communities across America. It is 
designed to combat drugs and address the treatment needs of eligible 
nonviolent offenders who desire to forsake crime and drugs and regain 
control of their lives. Experience has shown that this approach breaks 
addiction, protects lives, assists families, promotes gainful 
employment and saves substantial tax dollars. The legislation itself 
will provide funds up to 75 percent of program costs directly to State 
and local governments. The total authorized under this bill is almost a 
half a billion dollars. The program grants will be administered by the 
United States Department of Justice. State and local government 
recipients must match by at least 25 percent the Federal grant award 
amount.

                              {time}  1300

  Evaluations will be required and funded.
  Each program is required to maintain an enforcement unit of sworn 
officers to monitor and apprehend any offenders who violate program 
requirements and attempt to abscond from their responsibilities.
  There are requirements for ensuring a fair geographic distribution of 
funds, so that people in Maine or people in California or people in 
Washington or Iowa get a fair shot at getting the funding for their 
treatment. Grant awards are to be made, to the extent practicable, to 
each State and to rural suburban and urban jurisdictions.
  Madam Speaker, I do not have to remind you or other Members of the 
need for us to do everything possible to help

[[Page 22928]]

State and local governments respond to their continuing drug 
challenges. Even the White House's Office of National Drug Control 
Policy indicates that overall drug use has increased from 6.4 percent 
of our population in 1997 to 7 percent in 1999. That is a 10 percent 
increase in 2 years.
  While marijuana and crack use has decreased among youth, Ecstasy, 
methamphetamine and ``designer drug'' use has shot through the roof 
among youth and adults. We are seeing overdoses and deaths as we have 
never seen them before. Drug-induced deaths number about 17,000 
annually and are rising. In total, drug-related deaths, that is, where 
someone dies as a result of drug use, now exceed 50,000 each year. That 
is more than the number of murders in this country on an annual basis.
  We need to take this important step as outlined in this legislation 
in a national effort to turn this situation around, to make our 
communities safer and to improve the quality of life for everybody in 
America. This initiative will make a substantial contribution to this 
effort.
  Madam Speaker, I want to highlight in particular how this program, on 
a point-by-point comparison, will help in California because, as 
always, I go home every weekend, and that is kind of where my heart is.
  California has an initiative on the ballot this year called Prop 36, 
and it is being marketed to the voters as a drug treatment initiative 
to try and give people assistance. In fact, the initiative itself is 
around 4,500 words; and interestingly enough, of those 4,500 words, 
about 3,600 talk about sentencing and incarceration and doing time in 
prison.
  You would think that an initiative that is supposed to address drug 
treatment would talk about drug treatment instead of about sentencing 
and the like. In fact, this initiative spends about 390 words out of 
4,500 talking about treatment, and then it only talks about funding.
  Prop 36 in California is a sham, and I would hope that the other 
Members of this body would take the time to read it and share it with 
their people, because, if it is successful in California, it is coming 
to your State soon. It is kind of like a bad movie.
  We need to defeat Prop 36. The legislation that is on the floor today 
addresses actual treatment opportunities for people, compared to Prop 
36, which offers no treatment whatsoever.
  In fact, the single most effective means of helping people suffering 
from drug addiction, which is blood testing and urinalysis, under Prop 
36 is forbidden. Think about that. Prop 36 says it is a drug treatment, 
but it removes the single most effective tool that professionals in the 
field use to hold folks accountable for getting rid of this scourge.
  I want to close, if I can, Madam Speaker. This legislation put 
forward by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is about fighting 
drugs harder and smarter. It can make a real difference in promoting 
demand reduction and breaking the link between drugs and crime for many 
eligible nonviolent offenders who are at great risk of pursuing 
criminal careers.
  Both sides of the aisle support this legislation. So do criminal 
justice professionals. Treatment experts and providers, such as Phoenix 
House and the Therapeutic Communities of America, have endorsed this 
legislation. So have Pennsylvania and New York District Attorney 
Associations. We have worked very closely with the DA from Brooklyn, 
New York, to develop this legislation based upon his proven experience.
  The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), 
has personally visited the program and discussed it with the offenders 
going through it. Respected researchers and evaluators have documented 
the program's successes. If properly designed and administered as 
outlined in this legislation, I am convinced that we have the 
opportunity to save lives and save money in this country.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 4493 is a good bill, and it is much needed. It is 
important to States, communities, and families across this country. In 
combatting drug use, we must identify programs that work and support 
them. We cannot afford any longer to squander tax dollars on 
unnecessary bureaucracies and ineffective approaches.
  Accordingly, I urge all Members to vote for H.R. 4493. I appreciate 
the opportunity to speak on this very important issue this afternoon.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, could not be here today; but 
I will submit his statement.
  If I could take a brief moment, Madam Speaker, my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), this is his last or soon to be 
last presentation, I suspect, before this body; and I just want to say 
that over the years he has been here, there may be some that have 
disagreed with him on occasion, but hopefully no one would ever 
disagree that he is a man of integrity. I appreciate his friendship. I 
know he is going to enjoy going back and spending more time with his 
family, and I want to wish him well in his endeavors in Florida.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the kind remarks of the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, as we passed the threshold of two million 
incarcerated, It has become apparent that our nation's war on drugs has 
taken its toll on communities across the nation. With the support of 
the federal government, many states are implementing innovative 
programs to address the problems of incarceration and drug addiction. 
H.R. 4493 does not advance the best efforts to stem this tide.
  The best programs currently under consideration return discretion to 
the judges for an assessment of the best methods for rehabilitation. 
Programs, like those in H.R. 4493, that vest prosecutors with the 
discretion to grant alternative sentence are not new and suffer from a 
clear flaw that has limited their effectiveness.
  As a general matter, prosecutors are concerned with conviction rates, 
not rehabilitation. Consequently, these kinds of programs have been 
used as bargaining chips to obtain evidence and convictions, rather 
than tools for reducing recidivism. Moreover, these programs contain no 
long tern ``after care'' services which have proven critical to 
addressing the continuing problems faced by addicts after 
incarceration.
  This session, during a markup of methamphetamine legislation, an 
amendments that provide a good starting point for reforming our 
national drug policy was approved by the full Judiciary Committee.
  This legislation established federal drug courts that would allow the 
federal government to vigorously pursue sentencing and treatment 
alternatives to break the cycle and control the costs of drug-offense 
incarceration. This would allow us to join alternative sentencing and 
treatment programs that have been adopted in states such as Arizona, 
California, and New York that have been credited with significant 
declines in their prison population.
  The stakes could hardly be higher in our efforts for policy reform. 
It is a sad fact of life that more people were imprisoned during the 
1990s than any other period on record, with nearly one-in-four 
prisoners incarcerated for drug offenses, many carrying mandatory 
minimum sentences.
  In raw numbers, today, there are almost as many inmates imprisoned 
for drug offense as the entire U.S. prison population in 1980. It will 
cost counties, states and the federal government over $9 billion to 
incarcerate our 458,131 drug offenders this year.
  We should continue to look for and support successful strategies like 
those offered in the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4493.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.




                          ____________________