Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Substance Treatment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debate focuses on treatment access as lawmakers pass license‑reinstatement requirements
Summary
Senate considered House Bill 226, tying driver's-license reinstatement to completion of dependency assessment, education and treatment for drug- or alcohol-related offenses; senators raised funding and access concerns for low-income residents before the measure passed on roll call.
House Bill 226, concerning reinstatement of drivers’ licenses after drug- or alcohol-related convictions, was the subject of substantive floor debate in the Senate on Feb. 14, 1997. Sponsor Senator Montgomery explained the bill requires individuals convicted of offenses related to drugs or alcohol to comply with dependency assessment, education, treatment and rehabilitation before their license can be reinstated.
During floor discussion, Senator Ward and other senators asked whether the bill should appropriate funds — for example, earmarking some of the cigarette-tax proceeds — to ensure low-income defendants can access treatment programs. Senator Ward said that without funds and program capacity, a legal requirement to obtain treatment will be hollow for people who cannot afford care: "If they don't have the money and we don't have any programs set up for people that don't have money, what are we accomplishing?" she asked.
Senator Montgomery said he would not agree to earmark additional funds within the bill; he noted a House requirement provided $250,000 for an anti‑tobacco advertising campaign but declined to add program funding in this measure. Other senators observed that judges already consider individual circumstances when restoring licenses and that there are procedural allowances for people who demonstrate they are drug-free.
Following debate, the Senate recorded the roll-call result: 22 yeas, 3 nays and 4 absent; the clerk noted the bill will be returned to the House for further action because of amendments. Senators on both sides emphasized implementation challenges and the need to ensure program access if the requirement is to be effective.
The next step is further action in the House to resolve amendments and any implementation funding.
