[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7322-7328]
[From the U.S. 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 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,

[[Page 7323]]

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 
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

[[Page 7324]]

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 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

[[Page 7325]]

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 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:

[[Page 7326]]



     ``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
       ``(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.

[[Page 7327]]

       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.


                            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

[[Page 7328]]

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 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.

                          ____________________