By James D. Polley, IV
Student Loan Forgiveness
Senator Durbin introduced his loan bill, which is basically the same bill as introduced during the last Congress, as part of a larger anti-gang bill, S.1322, the American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs Act of 2005 (the ANTI-GANG Act). The bill has three co-sponsors and was referred to the Senate judiciary Committee, but no further action has occurred.
A similar bill, S. 155, the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005, was introduced by Senator Feinstein with seven co-sponsors. This is the same gang bill that the Judiciary Committee marked up during the last Congress but never got to a floor vote. While S. 155 does not contain loan forgiveness provisions, Senator Feinstein is the sponsor of S. 117, a bill to provide loan forgiveness to headstart teachers.
These gang bills were scheduled for mark-up prior to the summer break but were put off until after Labor Day. With the pending confirmation hearings it is questionable if they will get any further this year.
Senator Durbin is also poised to re-introduce his version of the student loan forgiveness bill as a stand alone bill. There is no bill number at this time. Seeking momentum for the introduction of the bill, (then) NDAA President Walsh sent letters to Senator Durbin in support of the bill, to previous co-sponsors of the bill in the last Congress and to senators who have been local prosecutors. Members of the NDAA Board were asked to support this effort.
Prosecutor Bad Check Programs
Many local prosecutors work with their local business communities to collect bad checks. While some prosecutors use in-office resources for these programs, others rely on professional companies working in partnership with the prosecutors and under their strict supervision to both run diversion programs and to have the bad check redeemed. A problem has developed as to whether these non-governmental entities are subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Pre-trial diversion programs for bad checks provide offenders a unique opportunity to avoid prosecution and criminal records in exchange for their participation in educational classes and the payment of full restitution to victims. These classes instruct the participants in financially and legally responsible behavior. As a result, jurisdictions have experienced a significant drop in recidivism. Prosecutors employing these programs have been able to alleviate case loads.
The NDAA Board of Directors believes that legislative clarification is badly needed to preserve these valuable and cost-effective programs that offer citizens an alternative to a criminal record and provide prosecutors and their private sector partners relief from frivolous lawsuits. To this end they have supported providing these service providers with legislative relief from the FDCPA.
Combat Meth Act
S. 103, the Combat Meth Act, minus provisions that would have preempted stricter state standards, has been marked up by the Senate Judiciary Committee and is waiting for a floor vote when Congress returns. NDAA was fully involved in making sure that the bill did not run counter to state efforts and worked toward the removal of the preemption language. NDAA now supports the Combat Meth Act.
The bill, introduced by Senators Talent and Feinstein, originally would have made the basic restrictions of the Oklahoma meth statutes federal law. In early May, based on changes made to the NDAA Policy Positions on Drug Control and Enforcement, (then) NDAA President Walsh sent letters of support to Senators Talent and Feinstein and to the chair and ranking members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Subsequently, the bill was amended to preempt stricter state restrictions on the sale of precursor drugs and, based on concerns raised by several states, NDAA amended its support. In a letter to the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Talent, NDAA indicated that its support could only be provided for a bill that did not preempt stricter state programs. After intense efforts by a number of local prosecutors and state prosecutor associations, a compromise bill was worked out that did not preempt stricter state controls. This is the one that will be going to the Senate floor.
The Combat Meth Act authorizes funding to train state and local prosecutors with a set-aside for rural communities; expands the meth Hot Spots program to authorize the use of existing funds to hire police and prosecutors and for clean-up of meth contaminated areas; provides authorization of funds to train local prosecutors as special assistant U.S. attorneys and hire additional assistant U.S. attorneys; and adds pseudoephedrine to Schedule V. It also establishes a grant program for drug-endangered children rapid response teams and provides grants to local communities for meth treatment programs. Grants would also be provided to states to establish precursor monitoring programs.
The Combat Meth Act has not been addressed in the House yet and the preemption issue could be revived either there or during any conference committee to resolve differences in the final versions. NDAA will be monitoring the progress of the legislation.
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA)
The president's budget request for fiscal year 2006 included a proposal to move program responsibility for HIDTA from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to DOJ and a proposal to reduce funding for the program. The House, in passing the funding bill for DOJ, did not transfer program responsibility and therefore did not address the budget issue in that particular appropriations bill.
In the House, the appropriations bill funding the Departments of Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, Judiciary, District of Columbia contains funding for the Executive Office of the President including ONDCP. The bill passed the full House on June 30, 2005. This appropriations bill did not move the program and did not cut funding. In fact, it increased funding by $477K.
In the Senate, the appropriation for DOJ rejected transferring HIDTA. As an interesting side light, the appropriation does transfer the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) to DEA. Had HIDTA been moved, it would also have transferred control to DEA as part of OCDETF. The appropriation bill for DOJ has not yet passed the full Senate. The appropriations bill that parallels the House bill for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, Judiciary, District of Columbia has not been marked up by the subcommittee. Since HIDTA was not moved it must be assumed that it will be funded through this bill, but the funding level is not clear at this time.
|
