Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 147 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6229-S6241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. CORNYN:
S. 3428. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure
that new wind turbines located near certain military installations are
ineligible for the renewable electricity production credit and the
energy credit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.

[[Page S6230]]

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 3428

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 ``Protection of Military
Airfields from Wind Turbine Encroachment Act''.

SEC. 2. NEW WIND TURBINES LOCATED NEAR CERTAIN MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``Such
term'' and all that follows through the period and inserting
the following: ``Such term shall not include--
``(A) any facility with respect to which any qualified
small wind energy property expenditure (as defined in
subsection (d)(4) of section 25D) is taken into account in
determining the credit under such section, or
``(B) any facility which is originally placed in service
after the date of the enactment of the Protection of Military
Airfields from Wind Turbine Encroachment Act and is located
within a 30-mile radius of--
``(i) an airfield or airbase under the jurisdiction of a
military department which is in active use, or
``(ii) an air traffic control radar site, weather radar
site, or aircraft navigation aid which is--

``(I) owned or operated by the Department of Defense, and
``(II) a permanent land-based structure at a fixed
location.''.

(b) Qualified Small Wind Energy Property.--Paragraph (4) of
section 48(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D),
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) Exception.--The term `qualifying small wind energy
property' shall not include any property which is originally
placed in service after the date of the enactment of the
Protection of Military Airfields from Wind Turbine
Encroachment Act and is located within a 30-mile radius of
any property described in clause (i) or (ii) of section
45(d)(1)(B).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Coons, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Booker, and
Mr. Franken):
S. 3432. A bill to reform the use of solitary confinement and other
forms of restrictive housing in the Bureau of Prisons, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the
Solitary Confinement Reform Act, a bill that would make significant
reforms to the use of solitary confinement in federal prisons and
encourage states to implement similar reforms. Before I discuss what
this legislation would do, let me explain why I am introducing it.
Several years ago, I read an article in the New Yorker magazine
entitled ``Hellhole.'' This article was written by Dr. Atul Gawande, a
medical doctor who examined the human impact of long-term solitary
confinement in American prisons. In this article, Dr. Gawande asked:

If prolonged isolation is--as research and experience have
confirmed for decades--so objectively horrifying, so
intrinsically cruel, how did we end up with a prison system
that may subject more of our own citizens to it than any
other country in history has?

At the time, I was serving as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, and I
decided to hold a hearing on solitary confinement--the first-ever
congressional hearing on the topic. It turned out to be a hearing that
I will never forget.
One of our witnesses at the hearing was Anthony Graves. I will never
forget Mr. Graves' testimony. He spent 18 years in prison, including 16
years in solitary confinement. In 2010, he became the 12th death row
inmate to be exonerated in Texas. Think about that--Mr. Graves spent 16
years in solitary for a crime he didn't commit. At the hearing, Mr.
Graves testified about his experience, and here is what he said:

I lived under some of the worst conditions imaginable with
the filth, the food, the total disrespect of human dignity. I
lived under the rules of a system that is literally driving
men out of their minds.

He went on to say:

Solitary confinement does one thing, it breaks a man's will
to live and he ends up deteriorating. He's never the same
person again. . . . I have been free for almost two years and
I still cry at night, because no one out here can relate to
what I have gone through. I battle with feelings of
loneliness. I've tried therapy but it didn't work. The
therapist was crying more than me. She couldn't believe that
our system was putting men through this sort of inhumane
treatment.

I think that sentiment echoed through the minds of everyone in the
hearing room as Mr. Graves gave his testimony. We couldn't believe that
our system was putting inmates through this sort of inhumane treatment.
Mr. Graves' story shed light on the damaging impact of holding tens
of thousands of men, women, and children in small windowless cells 23
hours a day--for weeks, months, years--with very little, if any,
contact with the outside world. Clearly, such extreme isolation can
have serious psychological effects on inmates.
At the hearing, we also examined the serious fiscal impact of
solitary confinement. We learned that in a federal high security
facility, the cost of housing an inmate in segregation is about 1.3
times the cost of housing an inmate in a general population unit. At
the Federal supermax prison in Florence, CO, the cost of housing an
inmate in segregation is more than 2.5 times the cost of housing an
inmate in the general population. Is this a wise use of taxpayer
dollars when the money we spend on our Federal prisons already consumes
one quarter of the Department of Justice's budget every year? So every
dollar that we spend holding a prisoner in solitary confinement is a
dollar that we don't spend on community policing, crime prevention, and
drug treatment.
We also discussed the significant public safety consequences of
widespread solitary confinement. Some people might ask, ``What happens
in our prisons doesn't affect me, so why should I care?'' But consider
this--the vast majority of inmates held in segregation will be released
into our communities someday. So if solitary confinement destabilizes
prisoners and makes them more likely to engage in violence or other
criminal conduct, then that affects all of us.
Two years after my first hearing, I held a follow-up hearing. At that
hearing, we heard from Damon Thibodeaux, who spent 15 years in solitary
confinement at the Louisiana State Penitentiary before he was
exonerated in 2012. Mr. Thibodeaux testified:

I do not condone what those who have killed and committed
other serious offenses have done. But I also don't condone
what we do to them, when we put them in solitary for years on
end and treat them as sub-human. We are better than that. As
a civilized society, we should be better than that.

Mr. Thibodeaux was right. We should be better than that. Thankfully,
our society is beginning to recognize that the widespread use of
solitary confinement in our prison system must change.
In 2014, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy testified to Congress
that, quote, ``solitary confinement literally drives men mad.'' Last
year, Justice Kennedy again brought up the issue in a powerful
concurring opinion. He wrote, quote, ``research still confirms what
this Court suggested over a century ago: Years on end of near-total
isolation exacts a terrible price.'' He went on to note that, quote,
``the judiciary may be required . . . to determine whether workable
alternative systems for long-term confinement exist, and, if so,
whether a correctional system should be required to adopt them.''
Pope Francis has also criticized solitary confinement. In a 2014
speech at the Vatican, he referred to the practice of extreme isolation
as ``torture'' and ``a genuine surplus of pain added to the actual
suffering of imprisonment.'' He went on to say:

The lack of sensory stimuli, the total impossibility of
communication and the lack of contact with other human beings
induce mental and physical suffering such as paranoia,
anxiety, depression, weight loss, and significantly increase
the suicidal tendency.

I still don't fully understand how our society reached a point at
which the overuse of solitary confinement became acceptable, or normal.
But I know that we need to do something about it.
In light of the mounting evidence of the harmful, even dangerous,
impacts of solitary confinement, states around the country have led the
way in reassessing the practice. Take Colorado, for example, which has
implemented a number of critical reforms. Colorado no longer releases
offenders directly

[[Page S6231]]

from solitary to the community and no longer places inmates with
serious mental illness in solitary. Have these reforms made Colorado's
prisons less safe? No, in fact since Colorado changed its solitary
confinement practices, inmate-on-staff assaults are at their lowest
levels since 2006, incidents of self-harm have decreased, and most
inmates released from solitary are not returning.
Progress has been made at the Federal level as well. After my 2014
hearing I called for an end to solitary confinement for juveniles,
pregnant women, and inmates with serious mental illness in our federal
prisons. I also asked the Federal Bureau of Prisons to submit for the
first time to an outside independent assessment of its solitary
confinement practices. The assessment, released last year, noted that
some improvements have been made since the hearing, most importantly in
the declining number of inmates in solitary confinement. The assessment
also made a number of recommendations for additional reforms, such as
improving mental health care for inmates in segregation and
establishing alternatives to segregation for inmates in protective
custody. BOP began taking steps to address these issues following the
release of the assessment.
Last year, building upon this independent assessment, the Department
of Justice undertook a review of the Bureau of Prisons' use of solitary
confinement. This January, President Obama announced that he had
accepted a number of DOJ's recommendations to reform and reduce the
practice of solitary confinement in the Federal prison system--
including implementing the ban on juvenile solitary confinement that I
called for in 2014.
I welcome the reforms that the President announced, and I am glad to
see that the Bureau of Prisons is making some progress in implementing
these reforms. However, our Federal prison system is still housing more
than 10,000 inmates in segregation as I speak. The number of inmates in
solitary confinement since my first hearing has decreased from about
13,600 to about 10,400. But the number of total Federal prisoners has
also dropped significantly since 2012. So the percentage of Federal
prisoners in solitary has only gone down from 7.8 percent to 6.7
percent. Clearly, there is much more work to be done.
That is why Senator Coons and I are joining together to introduce the
Solitary Confinement Reform Act. This legislation will build on the
Justice Department's recommendations to further reform and reduce the
use of solitary confinement in Federal prisons.
Our bill ensures that inmates are only placed in solitary confinement
when absolutely necessary--such as to control a substantial and
immediate threat to the safety of other inmates or corrections staff,
or to punish an inmate for a significant and serious disciplinary
violation.
Our bill also improves the conditions of confinement for prisoners in
solitary and establishes firm time limits on segregation, in order to
combat long-term isolation. However, we recognize that some extremely
dangerous inmates require long-term separation from the general
population. That's why our bill ensures that BOP can continue to
separate those inmates who pose the greatest risk to other inmates,
staff, and the general public.
Among the most important provisions in our bill are the strict limits
on the use of solitary confinement for inmates nearing their release
date, inmates in protective custody, LGBT inmates, and inmates who are
minors, have a serious mental illness, have an intellectual or physical
disability, or are pregnant or in the first eight weeks of postpartum
recovery after birth.
For inmates who are placed in segregated housing, our bill improves
access to mental health care and ensures that a robust review process
is in place. Additionally, our bill increases transparency and
accountability by requiring the Attorney General to establish a Civil
Rights Ombudsman within the Bureau of Prisons to review inmate
complaints, and directing BOP to submit an annual assessment to
Congress detailing their solitary confinement policies, regulations,
and data. Finally, our bill establishes a National Resource Center on
Solitary Confinement Reform that would provide vital resources to state
and local jurisdictions as corrections systems around the country
pursue reductions in solitary confinement.
I want to thank Senator Coons for working with me on this
legislation, and Senators Booker, Leahy, and Franken for joining as
original cosponsors of the bill.
I also want to thank the ACLU, The Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Just Detention International,
Campaign for Youth Justice, Center for Children's Law and Policy, Human
Rights Campaign, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National
Religious Campaign Against Torture, Bend the Arc Jewish Action,
Interfaith Action for Human Rights, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human
Rights, and Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban
Affairs for endorsing the Solitary Confinement Reform Act.
This legislation is one of many steps we should take to reform our
criminal justice system and make our country safer, more just, and more
fiscally responsible. I urge my colleagues to support the Solitary
Confinement Reform Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3432

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 ``Solitary Confinement Reform
Act''.

SEC. 2. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT REFORMS.

(a) Amendment.--Chapter 303 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 4050. Solitary confinement

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Administrative maximum facility.--The term
`administrative maximum facility' means a maximum-security
facility, including the Administrative Maximum facility in
Florence, Colorado, designed to house inmates who present an
ongoing significant and serious threat to other inmates,
staff, and the public.
``(2) Administrative segregation.--The term `administrative
segregation' means a non-punitive form of solitary
confinement that removes an individual from the general
population of a correctional facility for--
``(A) investigative, protective, or preventative reasons
resulting in a substantial and immediate threat; or
``(B) transitional reasons, including a pending transfer,
pending classification, or other temporary administrative
matter.
``(3) Appropriate level of care.--The term `appropriate
level of care' means the appropriate treatment setting for
mental health care that an inmate with mental illness
requires, which may include outpatient care, emergency or
crisis services, day treatment, supported residential
housing, infirmary care, or inpatient psychiatric
hospitalization services.
``(4) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of
the Bureau of Prisons.
``(5) Disciplinary hearing officer.--The term `disciplinary
hearing officer' means an employee of the Bureau of Prisons
who is responsible for conducting disciplinary hearings for
which solitary confinement may be a sanction, as described in
section 541.8 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor thereto.
``(6) Disciplinary segregation.--The term `disciplinary
segregation' means a punitive form of solitary confinement
imposed only by a Disciplinary Hearing Officer as a sanction
for committing a significant and serious disciplinary
infraction.
``(7) Intellectual disability.--The term `intellectual
disability' means a significant mental impairment
characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual
functioning and in adaptive behavior.
``(8) Multidisciplinary staff committee.--The term
`multidisciplinary staff committee' means a committee--
``(A) made up of staff at the facility where an inmate
resides who are responsible for reviewing the initial
placement of the inmate in solitary confinement and any
extensions of time in solitary confinement; and

``(B) which shall include--
``(i) not less than 1 licensed mental health professional;
``(ii) not less than 1 medical professional; and
``(iii) not less than 1 member of the leadership of the
facility.
``(9) Ongoing significant and serious threat.--The term
`ongoing significant and serious threat' means an ongoing set
of circumstances that require the highest level of security
and staff supervision for an inmate who, by the behavior of
the inmate--
``(A) has been identified as assaultive, predacious,
riotous, or a serious escape risk; and
``(B) poses a great risk to other inmates, staff, and the
public.
``(10) Protection case.--The term `protection case' means
an inmate who, by the request of the inmate or through a
staff determination, requires protection, as described

[[Page S6232]]

by section 541.23(c)(3) of title 28, Code of Federal
Regulations, or any successor thereto.
``(11) Serious mental illness.--The term `serious mental
illness' means a substantial disorder of thought or mood that
significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to
recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary
demands of life.
``(12) Significant and serious disciplinary infraction.--
The term `significant and serious disciplinary infraction'
means--
``(A) an act of violence that either--
``(i) resulted in or was likely to result in serious injury
or death to another; or
``(ii) occurred in connection with any act of non-
consensual sex; or
``(B) an escape, attempted escape, or conspiracy to escape
from within a security perimeter or custody, or both; or
``(C) possession of weapons, possession of illegal
narcotics with intent to distribute, or other similar, severe
threats to the safety of the inmate, other inmates, staff, or
the public.
``(13) Solitary confinement.--The term `solitary
confinement' means confinement characterized by substantial
isolation in a cell, alone or with other inmates, including
administrative segregation, disciplinary segregation, and
confinement in any facility designated by the Bureau of
Prisons as a special housing unit, special management unit,
or administrative maximum facility.
``(14) Special administrative measures.--The term `special
administrative measures' means reasonably necessary measures
used to--
``(A) prevent disclosure of classified information upon
written certification to the Attorney General by the head of
an element of the intelligence community (as specified or
designated under section 3(4) of the National Security act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4))) that the unauthorized disclosure of
such information would pose a threat to the national security
and that there is a danger that the inmate will disclose such
information, as described by section 501.2 of title 28, Code
of Federal Regulations, or any successor thereto; or
``(B) protect persons against the risk of death or serious
bodily injury, upon written notification to the Director by
the Attorney General or, at the Attorney General's direction,
by the head of a Federal law enforcement agency, or the head
of an element of the intelligence community (as specified or
designated under section 3(4) of the National Security act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4))), that there is a substantial risk
that the communications of an inmate or contacts by the
inmate with other persons could result in death or serious
bodily injury to persons, or substantial damage to property
that would entail the risk of death or serious bodily injury
to persons, as described by section 501.3 of title 28, Code
of Federal Regulations, or any successor thereto.
``(15) Special housing unit.--The term `special housing
unit' means a housing unit in an institution of the Bureau of
Prisons in which inmates are securely separated from the
general inmate population for disciplinary or administrative
reasons, as described in section 541.21 of title 28, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any successor thereto.
``(16) Special management unit.--The term `special
management unit' means a non-punitive housing program with
multiple, step-down phases for inmates whose history,
behavior, or situation requires enhanced management
approaches in order to ensure the safety of other inmates,
the staff, and the public.
``(17) Substantial and immediate threat.--The term
`substantial and immediate threat' means any set of temporary
and unforeseen circumstances that require immediate action in
order to combat a threat to the safety of an inmate, other
inmates, staff, or the public.
``(b) Use of Solitary Confinement.--
``(1) In general.--The placement of a Federal inmate in
solitary confinement within the Bureau of Prisons or any
facility that contracts with the Bureau of Prisons to provide
housing for inmates in Federal custody shall be limited to
situations in which such confinement--
``(A) is limited to the briefest term and the least
restrictive conditions practicable, including not less than 4
hours of out-of-cell time every day, unless the inmate poses
a substantial and immediate threat;
``(B) is consistent with the rationale for placement and
with the progress achieved by the inmate;
``(C) allows the inmate to participate in meaningful
programming opportunities and privileges as consistent with
those available in the general population as practicable,
either individually or in a classroom setting;
``(D) allows the inmate to have as much meaningful
interaction with others, such as other inmates, visitors,
clergy, or licensed mental health professionals, as
practicable; and
``(E) complies with the provisions of this section.
``(2) Transitional process for inmates in solitary
confinement.--
``(A) Inmates with upcoming release dates.--The Director
shall establish--
``(i) policies to ensure that an inmate with an anticipated
release date of 180 days or less is not housed in solitary
confinement, unless--

``(I) such confinement is limited to not more than 5 days
of administrative segregation relating to the upcoming
release of the inmate; or
``(II) the inmate poses a substantial and immediate threat;
and

``(ii) a transitional process for each inmate with an
anticipated release date of 180 days or less who is held in
solitary confinement under clause (i)(II), which shall
include--

``(I) substantial re-socialization programming in a group
setting;
``(II) regular mental health counseling to assist with the
transition; and
``(III) re-entry planning services offered to inmates in a
general population setting.

``(B) Inmates in long-term solitary confinement.--The
Director shall establish a transitional process for each
inmate who has been held in solitary confinement for more
than 30 days and who will transition into a general
population unit, which shall include--
``(i) substantial re-socialization programming in a group
setting; and
``(ii) regular mental health counseling to assist with the
transition.
``(3) Protective custody units.--The Director--
``(A) shall establish within the Federal prison system
additional general population protective custody units that
provide sheltered general population housing to protect
inmates from harm that they may otherwise be exposed to in a
typical general population housing unit;
``(B) shall establish policies to ensure that an inmate who
is considered a protection case shall, upon request of the
inmate, be placed in a general population protective custody
unit;
``(C) shall create an adequate number of general population
protective custody units to--
``(i) accommodate the requests of inmates who are
considered to be protection cases; and
``(ii) ensure that inmates who are considered to be
protection cases are placed in facilities as close to their
homes as practicable; and
``(D) may not place an inmate who is considered to be a
protection case in solitary confinement due to the status of
the inmate as a protection case unless--
``(i) the inmate requests to be placed in solitary
confinement, in which case, at the request of the inmate the
inmate shall be transferred to a general population
protective custody unit or, if appropriate, a different
general population unit; or
``(ii) such confinement is limited to--

``(I) not more than 5 days of administrative segregation;
and
``(II) is necessary to protect the inmate during
preparation for transfer to a general population protective
custody unit or a different general population unit.

``(4) Vulnerable populations.--The Bureau of Prisons or any
facility that contracts with the Bureau of Prisons shall not
place an inmate in solitary confinement if--
``(A) the inmate is younger than 18 years of age, unless--
``(i) such confinement is a temporary response to the
behavior of the inmate, which poses a substantial and
immediate threat;
``(ii) all other options to de-escalate the situation have
been exhausted, including less restrictive techniques such
as--

``(I) penalizing the inmate through loss of privileges;
``(II) speaking with the inmate in an attempt to de-
escalate the situation; and
``(III) a licensed mental health professional providing an
appropriate level of care;

``(iii) such confinement is limited to--

``(I) 3 hours after the inmate is placed in solitary
confinement, if the inmate poses a substantial and immediate
threat to others; or
``(II) 30 minutes after the inmate is placed in solitary
confinement, if the inmate poses a substantial and immediate
threat only to himself or herself; and

``(iv) if, after the applicable maximum period of
confinement under subclause (I) or (II) of clause (iii) has
expired, the inmate continues to pose a substantial and
immediate threat described in that subclause--

``(I) the inmate shall be transferred to another facility
or internal location where services can be provided to the
inmate without relying on solitary confinement; or
``(II) if a qualified mental health professional believes
the level of crisis service needed is not currently
available, a staff member of the facility shall initiate a
referral to a location that can meet the needs of the inmate;

``(B) the inmate has a serious mental illness, has an
intellectual disability, has a physical disability that a
licensed medical professional finds is likely to be
exacerbated by placement in solitary confinement, is pregnant
or in the first 8 weeks of the post-partum recovery period
after giving birth, or has been determined by a licensed
mental health professional to likely be significantly
adversely affected by placement in solitary confinement,
unless--
``(i) the inmate poses a substantial and immediate threat;
``(ii) all other options to de-escalate the situation have
been exhausted, including less restrictive techniques such
as--

``(iii) such confinement is limited to the briefest term
and the least restrictive conditions practicable, including
access to medical and mental health treatment;

[[Page S6233]]

``(iv) such confinement is reviewed by a multidisciplinary
staff committee for appropriateness every 24 hours; and
``(v) as soon as practicable, but not later than 5 days
after such confinement begins, the inmate is diverted, upon
release from solitary confinement, to--

``(I) a general population unit;
``(II) a protective custody unit described in paragraph
(3); or
``(III) a mental health treatment program as described in
subsection (c)(2); or

``(C) the inmate is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (as
defined in section 115.5 of title 28, Code of Federal
Regulations, or any successor thereto), intersex (as defined
in section 115.5 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor thereto), or gender nonconforming (as defined
in section 115.5 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor thereto), when such placement is solely on the
basis of such identification or status.
``(5) Special housing units.--The Director shall--
``(A) limit administrative segregation--
``(i) to situations in which such segregation is necessary
to--

``(I) control a substantial and immediate threat that
cannot be addressed through alternative housing; or
``(II) temporarily house an inmate pending transfer,
pending classification, or pending resolution of another
temporary administrative matter; and

``(ii) to a duration of not more than 15 consecutive days,
and not more than 20 days in a 60-day period, unless--

``(I) the inmate requests to remain in administrative
segregation under paragraph (3)(D)(i); or
``(II) in order to address the continued existence of a
substantial and immediate threat, a multidisciplinary staff
committee approves a temporary extension, which--

``(aa) may not be longer than 15 days; and
``(bb) shall be reviewed by the multidisciplinary staff
committee every 3 days during the period of the extension, in
order to confirm the continued existence of the substantial
and immediate threat;
``(B) limit disciplinary segregation--
``(i) to situations in which such segregation is necessary
to punish an inmate who has been found to have committed a
significant and serious disciplinary infraction by a
Disciplinary Hearing Officer and alternative sanctions would
not adequately regulate the behavior of the inmate; and
``(ii) to a duration of not more than 30 consecutive days,
and not more than 40 days in a 60-day period, unless a
multidisciplinary staff committee, in consultation with the
Disciplinary Hearing Officer who presided over the inmate's
disciplinary hearing, determines that the significant and
serious disciplinary infraction of which the inmate was found
guilty is of such an egregious and violent nature that a
longer sanction is appropriate and approves a longer
sanction, which--

``(I) may be not more than 60 days in a special housing
unit if the inmate has never before been found guilty of a
similar significant and serious disciplinary infraction; or
``(II) may be not more than 90 days in a special housing
unit if the inmate has previously been found guilty of a
similar significant and serious disciplinary infraction;

``(C) ensure that any time spent in administrative
segregation during an investigation into an alleged offense
is credited as time served for a disciplinary segregation
sentence;
``(D) ensure that concurrent sentences are imposed for
disciplinary violations arising from the same episode; and
``(E) ensure that an inmate may be released from
disciplinary segregation for good behavior before completing
the term of the inmate, unless the inmate poses a substantial
and immediate threat to the safety of other inmates, staff,
or the public.
``(6) Special management units.--The Director shall--
``(A) limit segregation in a special management unit to
situations in which such segregation is necessary to
temporarily house an inmate whose history, behavior, or
circumstances require enhanced management approaches that
cannot be addressed through alternative housing;
``(B) evaluate whether further reductions to the minimum
and maximum number of months an inmate may spend in a special
management unit are appropriate on an annual basis;
``(C) ensure that each inmate understands the status of the
inmate in the special management unit program and how the
inmate may progress through the program; and
``(D) further reduce the minimum and maximum number of
months an inmate may spend in a special management unit if
the Director determines such reductions are appropriate after
evaluations are performed under subparagraph (B).
``(7) Administrative maximum facilities.--The Director
shall--
``(A) limit segregation in an administrative maximum
facility to situations in which such segregation is necessary
to--
``(i) implement special administrative measures, as
directed by the Attorney General; or
``(ii) house an inmate who poses an ongoing significant and
serious threat to the safety of other inmates, staff, or the
public that cannot be addressed through alternative housing;
and
``(B) issue final approval of referral of any inmate who
poses an ongoing significant and serious threat for placement
in an Administrative Maximum facility, including the United
States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum in Florence,
Colorado.
``(8) Right to review placement in solitary confinement.--
The Director shall ensure that each inmate placed in solitary
confinement has access to--
``(A) written notice thoroughly detailing the basis for
placement or continued placement in solitary confinement not
later than 6 hours after the beginning of such placement,
including--
``(i) thorough documentation explaining why such
confinement is permissible and necessary under paragraph (1);
and
``(ii) if an exception under paragraph (2)(A), (3)(D),
(4)(A), (4)(B), (4)(C), (5)(A), or (5)(B) is used to justify
placement in solitary confinement or under paragraph (1) to
justify increased restrictive conditions in solitary
confinement, thorough documentation explaining why such an
exception applied;
``(B) a timely, thorough, and continuous review process
that--
``(i) occurs within not less than 3 days of placement in
solitary confinement, and thereafter at least--

``(I) on a weekly basis for inmates in special housing
units;
``(II) on a monthly basis for inmates in special management
units; and
``(III) on a monthly basis for inmates at an administrative
maximum facility;

``(ii) includes private, face-to-face interviews with a
multidisciplinary staff committee; and
``(iii) examines whether--

``(I) placement in solitary confinement was and remains
necessary;
``(II) the conditions of confinement comply with this
section; and
``(III) whether any exception under paragraph (2)(A),
(3)(D), (4)(A), (4)(B), (4)(C), (5)(A), or (5)(B) used to
justify placement in solitary confinement or under paragraph
(1) used to justify increased restrictive conditions in
solitary confinement was and remains warranted;

``(C) a process to appeal the initial placement or
continued placement of the inmate in solitary confinement;
``(D) prompt and timely written notice of the appeal
procedures; and
``(E) copies of all documents, files, and records relating
to the inmate's placement in solitary confinement, unless
such documents contain contraband, classified information, or
sensitive security-related information.
``(c) Mental Health Care for Inmates in Solitary
Confinement.--
``(1) Mental health screening.--Not later than 6 hours
after an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons or
any facility that contracts with the Bureau of Prisons to
provide housing for inmates in Federal custody is placed in
solitary confinement, the inmate shall receive a
comprehensive, face-to-face mental health evaluation by a
licensed mental health professional in a confidential
setting.
``(2) Mental health treatment program.--An inmate diagnosed
with a serious mental illness after an evaluation required
under paragraph (1)--
``(A) shall not be placed in solitary confinement in
accordance with subsection (b)(4); and
``(B) may be diverted to a mental health treatment program
within the Bureau of Prisons that provides an appropriate
level of care to address the inmate's mental health needs.
``(3) Continuing evaluations.--After each 14-calendar-day
period an inmate is held in continuous placement in solitary
confinement--
``(A) a licensed mental health professional shall conduct a
comprehensive, face-to-face, out-of-cell mental health
evaluation of the inmate in a confidential setting; and
``(B) the Director shall adjust the placement of the inmate
in accordance with this subsection.
``(4) Requirement.--The Director shall operate mental
health treatment programs in order to ensure that inmates of
all security levels with serious mental illness have access
to an appropriate level of care.
``(d) Training for Bureau of Prisons Staff.--
``(1) Training.--All employees of the Bureau of Prisons or
any facility that contracts with the Bureau of Prisons to
provide housing for inmates in Federal custody who interact
with inmates on a regular basis shall be required to complete
training in--
``(A) the recognition of symptoms of mental illness;
``(B) the potential risks and side effects of psychiatric
medications;
``(C) de-escalation techniques for safely managing
individuals with mental illness;
``(D) consequences of untreated mental illness;
``(E) the long- and short-term psychological effects of
solitary confinement; and
``(F) de-escalation and communication techniques to divert
inmates from situations that may lead to the inmate being
placed in solitary confinement.
``(2) Notification to medical staff.--An employee of the
Bureau of Prisons shall immediately notify a member of the
medical or mental health staff if the employee--
``(A) observes an inmate with signs of mental illness,
unless such employee has knowledge that the inmate's signs of
mental illness have previously been reported; or

[[Page S6234]]

``(B) observes an inmate with signs of mental health
crisis.
``(e) Civil Rights Ombudsman.--
``(1) In general.--Within the Bureau of Prisons, there
shall be a position of the Civil Rights Ombudsman (referred
to in this subsection as the `Ombudsman') and an Office of
the Civil Rights Ombudsman.
``(2) Appointment.--The Ombudsman shall be appointed by the
Attorney General and shall report directly to the Director.
The Ombudsman shall have a background in corrections and
civil rights and shall have expertise on the effects of
prolonged solitary confinement.
``(3) Reporting.--The Director shall ensure that each
Bureau of Prisons facility or any facility that contracts
with the Bureau of Prisons provides multiple internal ways
for inmates and others to promptly report civil rights
violations and violations of this section to the Ombudsman,
including--
``(A) not less than 2 procedures for inmates and others to
report civil rights violations and violations of this section
to an entity or office that is not part of the facility, and
that is able to receive and immediately forward inmate
reports to the Ombudsman, allowing the inmate to remain
anonymous upon request; and
``(B) not less than 2 procedures for inmates and others to
report civil rights abuses and violations of this section to
the Ombudsman in a confidential manner, allowing the inmate
to remain anonymous upon request.
``(4) Notice.--The Director shall ensure that each Bureau
of Prisons facility or any facility that contracts with the
Bureau of Prisons provides inmates with--
``(A) notice of how to report civil rights violations and
violations of this section in accordance with paragraph (3),
including--
``(i) notice prominently posted in the living and common
areas of each such facility;
``(ii) individual notice to inmates at initial intake into
the Bureau of Prisons, when transferred to a new facility,
and when placed in solitary confinement;
``(iii) notice to inmates with disabilities in accessible
formats; and
``(iv) written or verbal notice in a language the inmate
understands; and
``(B) notice of permissible practices related to solitary
confinement in the Bureau of Prisons, including the
requirements of this section.
``(5) Functions.--The Ombudsman shall--
``(A) review all complaints the Ombudsman receives;
``(B) investigate all complaints that allege a civil rights
violation or violation of this section;
``(C) refer all possible violations of law to the
Department of Justice;
``(D) refer to the Director allegations of misconduct
involving Bureau of Prisons staff;
``(E) identify areas in which the Bureau of Prisons can
improve the Bureau's policies and practices to ensure that
the civil rights of inmates are protected;
``(F) identify areas in which the Bureau of Prisons can
improve the solitary confinement policies and practices of
the Bureau and reduce the use of solitary confinement; and
``(G) propose changes to the policies and practices of the
Bureau of Prisons to mitigate problems and address issues the
Ombudsman identifies.
``(6) Access.--The Ombudsman shall have unrestricted access
to Bureau of Prisons facilities and any facility that
contracts with the Bureau of Prisons and shall be able to
speak privately with inmates and staff.
``(7) Annual reports.--
``(A) Objectives.--Not later than December 31 of each year,
the Ombudsman shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House
of Representatives a report on the activities of the Office
of the Ombudsman for the fiscal year ending in such calendar
year.
``(B) Contents.--Each report submitted under subparagraph
(A)--
``(i) contain full and substantive analysis, in addition to
statistical information;
``(ii) identify the recommendations the Office of the
Ombudsman has made on addressing reported civil rights
violations and violations of this section and reducing the
use and improving the practices of solitary confinement in
the Bureau of Prisons;
``(iii) contain a summary of problems relating to reported
civil rights violations and violations of this section,
including a detailed description of the nature of such
problems and a breakdown of where the problems occur among
Bureau of Prisons facilities and facilities that contract
with the Bureau of Prisons;
``(iv) contain an inventory of the items described in
clauses (ii) and (iii) for which action has been taken and
the result of such action;
``(v) contain an inventory of the items described in
clauses (ii) and (iii) for which action remains to be
completed and the period during which each item has remained
on such inventory;
``(vi) contain an inventory of the items described in
clauses (ii) and (iii) for which no action has been taken,
the period during which each item has remained on such
inventory, the reasons for the inaction, and shall identify
any official of the Bureau of Prisons who is responsible for
such inaction;
``(vii) contain recommendations for such legislative or
administrative action as may be appropriate to resolve
problems identified in clause (iii); and
``(viii) include such other information as the Ombudsman
determines necessary.
``(C) Submission of reports.--Each report required under
this paragraph shall be provided directly to the Committees
described in subparagraph (A) without any prior review,
comment, or amendment from the Director or any other officer
or employee of the Department of Justice or Bureau of
Prisons.
``(8) Regular meetings with the director of the bureau of
prisons.--The Ombudsman shall meet regularly with the
Director to identify problems with reported civil rights
violations and the solitary confinement policies and
practices of the Bureau of Prisons, including overuse of
solitary confinement, and to present recommendations for such
administrative action as may be appropriate to resolve
problems relating to reported civil rights violations and the
solitary confinement policies and practices of the Bureau of
Prisons.
``(9) Responsibilities of bureau of prisons.--The Director
shall establish procedures requiring that, not later than 3
months after the date on which a recommendation is submitted
to the Director by the Ombudsman, the Director or other
appropriate employee of the Bureau of Prisons issue a formal
response to the recommendation.
``(10) Non-application of the prison litigation reform
act.--Inmate reports sent to the Ombudsman shall not be
considered an administrative remedy under section 7(a) of the
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C.
1997e(a)).''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 303 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 4049
the following:

``4050. Solitary confinement.''.

SEC. 3. REASSESSMENT OF INMATE MENTAL HEALTH.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall--
(1) assemble a team of licensed mental health
professionals, which may include licensed mental health
professionals who are not employed by the Bureau of Prisons,
to conduct a comprehensive mental health reevaluation for
each inmate held in solitary confinement for more than 30
days as of the date of enactment of this Act, including a
confidential, face-to-face, out-of-cell interview by a
licensed mental health professional; and
(2) adjust the placement of each inmate in accordance with
section 4050(c) of title 18, United States Code, as added by
section 2.

SEC. 4. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF PRISONS.

Section 4041 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before the ``The
Bureau of Prisons shall be''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Ombudsman.--The Director of the Bureau of Prisons
shall--
``(1) meet regularly with the Ombudsman appointed under
section 4050(e) to identify how the Bureau of Prisons can
address reported civil rights violations and reduce the use
of solitary confinement and correct problems in the solitary
confinement policies and practices of the Bureau;
``(2) conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of each
referral from the Ombudsman under section 4050(e)(5)(D),
after each such investigation take appropriate disciplinary
action against any Bureau of Prisons employee who is found to
have engaged in misconduct or to have violated Bureau of
Prisons policy, and notify the Ombudsman of the outcome of
each such investigation; and
``(3) establish procedures requiring a formal response by
the Bureau of Prisons to any recommendation of the Ombudsman
in the annual report submitted under section 4050(e)(6) not
later than 90 days after the date on which the report is
submitted to Congress.''.

SEC. 5. DATA TRACKING OF USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.

Section 4047 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Prison Solitary Confinement Assessments.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than March 31 of each year,
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall prepare and
transmit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives an annual assessment of the use of solitary
confinement by the Bureau of Prisons, as defined in section
4050(a).
``(2) Contents.--Each assessment submitted under paragraph
(1) shall include--
``(A) the policies and regulations of the Bureau of
Prisons, including any changes in policies and regulations,
for determining which inmates are placed in each form of
solitary confinement, or housing in which an inmate is
separated from the general population in use during the
reporting period, and a detailed description of each form of
solitary confinement in use, including all maximum and high
security facilities, all special housing units, all special
management units, all Administrative Maximum facilities,
including the United States Penitentiary Administrative
Maximum in Florence, Colorado, and all Communication
Management Units;
``(B) the number of inmates in the custody of the Bureau of
Prisons who are housed in each type of solitary confinement
for any period and the percentage of all inmates who

[[Page S6235]]

have spent at least some time in each form of solitary
confinement during the reporting period;
``(C) the demographics of all inmates housed in each type
of solitary confinement described in subparagraph (A),
including race, ethnicity, religion, age, and gender;
``(D) the policies and regulations of the Bureau of
Prisons, including any updates in policies and regulations,
for subsequent reviews or appeals of the placement of an
inmate into or out of solitary confinement;
``(E) the number of reviews of and challenges to each type
of solitary confinement placement described in subparagraph
(A) conducted during the reporting period and the number of
reviews or appeals that directly resulted in a change of
placement;
``(F) the general conditions and restrictions for each type
of solitary confinement described in subparagraph (A),
including the number of hours spent in `isolation,' or
restraint, for each, and the percentage of time these
conditions involve single-inmate housing;
``(G) the mean and median length of stay in each form of
solitary confinement described in subparagraph (A), based on
all individuals released from solitary confinement during the
reporting period, including maximum and high security
facilities, special housing units, special management units,
the Administrative Maximum facilities, including the United
States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum in Florence,
Colorado, Communication Management Units, and any maximum
length of stay during the reporting period;
``(H) the number of inmates who, after a stay of 5 or more
days in solitary confinement, were released directly from
solitary confinement to the public during the reporting
period;
``(I) the cost for each form of solitary confinement
described in subparagraph (A) in use during the reporting
period, including as compared with the average daily cost of
housing an inmate in the general population;
``(J) statistics for inmate assaults on correctional
officers and staff of the Bureau of Prisons, inmate-on-inmate
assaults, and staff-on-inmate use of force incidents in the
various forms of solitary confinement described in
subparagraph (A) and statistics for such assaults in the
general population;
``(K) the policies for mental health screening, mental
health treatment, and subsequent mental health reviews for
all inmates, including any update to the policies, and any
additional screening, treatment, and monitoring for inmates
in solitary confinement;
``(L) a statement of the types of mental health staff that
conducted mental health assessments for the Bureau of Prisons
during the reporting period, a description of the different
positions in the mental health staff of the Bureau of
Prisons, and the number of part- and full-time psychologists
and psychiatrists employed by the Bureau of Prisons during
the reporting period;
``(M) data on mental health and medical indicators for all
inmates in solitary confinement, including--
``(i) the number of inmates requiring medication for mental
health conditions;
``(ii) the number diagnosed with an intellectual
disability;
``(iii) the number diagnosed with serious mental illness;
``(iv) the number of suicides;
``(v) the number of attempted suicides and number of
inmates placed on suicide watch;
``(vi) the number of instances of self-harm committed by
inmates;
``(vii) the number of inmates with physical disabilities,
including blind, deaf, and mobility-impaired inmates; and
``(viii) the number of instances of forced feeding of
inmates; and
``(N) any other relevant data.''.

SEC. 6. NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ON SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
REDUCTION AND REFORM.

(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the
term ``eligible entity'' means an entity, or a partnership of
entities, that has demonstrated expertise in the fields of--
(1) solitary confinement, including the reduction and
reform of its use; and
(2) providing technical assistance to corrections agencies
on how to reduce and reform solitary confinement.
(b) Requirements.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Bureau of Justice Assistance
shall enter into a cooperative agreement, on a competitive
basis, with an eligible entity for the purpose of
establishing a coordinating center for State, local, and
Federal corrections systems, which shall conduct activities
such as--
(1) provide on-site technical assistance and consultation
to Federal, State, and local corrections agencies to safely
reduce the use of solitary confinement;
(2) act as a clearinghouse for research, data, and
information on the safe reduction of solitary confinement in
prisons and other custodial settings, including facilitating
the exchange of information between Federal, State, and local
practitioners, national experts, and researchers;
(3) create a minimum of 10 learning sites in Federal,
State, and local jurisdictions that have already reduced
their use of solitary confinement and work with other
Federal, State, and local agencies to participate in
training, consultation, and other forms of assistance and
partnership with these learning sites;
(4) conduct evaluations of jurisdictions that have
decreased their use of solitary confinement to determine best
practices;
(5) conduct research on the effectiveness of alternatives
to solitary confinement, such as step-down or transitional
programs, strategies to reintegrate inmates into general
population, the role of officers and staff culture in reform
efforts, and other research relevant to the safe reduction of
solitary confinement;
(6) develop and disseminate a toolkit for systems to reduce
the excessive use of solitary confinement;
(7) develop and disseminate an online self-assessment tool
for State and local jurisdictions to assess their own use of
solitary confinement and identify strategies to reduce its
use; and
(8) conduct public webinars to highlight new and promising
practices.
(c) Administration.--The program under this section shall
be administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
(d) Report.--On an annual basis, the coordinating center
shall report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives on its activities and any changes in solitary
confinement policy at the Federal, State, or local level that
have resulted from its activities.
(e) Duration.--The Bureau of Justice Assistance shall enter
into a cooperative agreement under this section for 5 years.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated--
(1) to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons such sums as
may be necessary to carry out sections 2, 3, 4, and 5, and
the amendments made by such sections; and
(2) to the Bureau of Justice Assistance such sums as may be
necessary to carry out section 6.

SEC. 8. NOTICE AND COMMENT REQUIREMENT.

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall prescribe
rules, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United
States Code, to carry out this Act and the amendments made by
this Act.

SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided, this Act and the amendments
made by this Act shall take effect 18 months after the date
of enactment of this Act.

s. 342

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an urgent and long
overdue reform to address how the United States houses and treats
prison inmates in our Federal criminal justice system.
We are losing millions of Americans--disproportionately African-
American men--to a criminal justice system that robs them of any
meaningful opportunity to find gainful employment or participate in our
democracy after they served their time.
Fortunately, Americans across the country have come to recognize that
our so-called criminal justice system is broken. Here in the Senate, I
am encouraged that many of my colleagues, including Senator Durbin,
Senator Booker, and many others have joined together in support of a
broad bipartisan bill entitled the Sentencing Reform and Corrections
Act. Our criminal justice system should be about justice and
rehabilitation, not just punishment. Passing this Sentencing Reform and
Corrections Act would be a significant step in that direction. Today I
have come to talk about a specific and targeted bill that Senators
Durbin, Booker, Leahy, Franken, and I are introducing.
Far too often Federal inmates find themselves placed in 6-by-8-foot
cells for 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, colloquially called
restrictive housing units. These units are intended to segregate
dangerous prisoners from the rest of the prison population or to punish
individuals for crimes or misdeeds committed behind bars, but when one
looks at the actual evidence surrounding the use of solitary
confinement, they find it doesn't actually stop or reduce crime or bad
behavior and it doesn't keep us safer. What it does cause is lasting,
often irreparable, harm to those inmates subjected to it, and
oftentimes it makes it harder for them to later successfully reenter
society after they served their time.
Senator Durbin, who was to join me and Senator Booker on the floor
this afternoon but for a change of schedule, first held hearings on
this topic when he was Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights.
He held a hearing on solitary confinement--the first-ever
congressional hearing on the topic--back in 2012. In fact, he held two
hearings. He left a note for me that says at one of his first hearings
on solitary confinement, one of the witnesses was a man named Anthony
Graves, whose testimony forever

[[Page S6236]]

affected the Senator from Illinois. Anthony spent 18 years in prison,
including 16 years in solitary confinement. In 2010, he became the 12th
death row inmate to be exonerated in the State of Texas. Think about
that. Mr. Graves spent 16 years in solitary confinement for a crime he
was later proved never to have committed.
At that hearing, Mr. Graves testified about his experience, and here
is what he said:

I lived under some of the worst conditions imaginable, with
the filth, the food, the total disrespect of dignity. I lived
under the rules of a system that literally drives men out of
their minds.

He later said:

Solitary confinement does one thing--it breaks a man's will
and he ends up deteriorating. He is never the same person
again.

In those hearings, Senator Durbin asked: How big is the impact of
solitary confinement in our prison system? It is difficult to determine
exactly how many inmates are housed in these so-called restrictive
settings. One recent study estimated as many as 80,000 State and
Federal inmates in total. In my home State of Delaware, 453 inmates,
about 8 percent of our State prison population, were held in
restrictive housing units in 2015. Nearly one-third of them were
receiving mental health treatment.
To fully understand the extent to which our prisons utilize solitary
confinement, we need to look at not just the total number of inmates
being placed in restrictive housing but the duration of time they spend
there. One recent report by the nonpartisan Vera Institute of Justice
found that inmates, even those not overly disruptive or violent, stay
for long periods of time--months or years.
In Washington State, in 2011, the average length of stay in solitary
confinement was 11 months. In the State of Texas, in 2013, the average
stay was 4 years.
The overwhelming majority of individuals sentenced to prison will
return to our communities. Rehabilitating those who have paid their
debt to society is a key goal of our criminal justice system, and that
is why we shouldn't subject inmates to practices like solitary
confinement which lessens their ability to successfully reenter
society. Mounting evidence shows that solitary confinement physically
and mentally harms and destabilizes inmates in ways that then threatens
the very communities--our communities--to which they will later return.
Over a year ago, President Obama asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch
to review the overuse of solitary confinement in our Federal prisons.
Earlier this year, the Department of Justice released a report
recommending reforms, which the Bureau of Prisons is now implementing.
Today Senator Durbin, Senator Booker, Senator Leahy, Senator Franken,
and I are introducing a bill, the Solitary Confinement and Reform Act,
to codify into law many of the recommendations the Bureau of Prisons is
working to put in place and to lay the groundwork for broader reform.
This bill is grounded in two key observations: First, that our prison
system has grown in population beyond any reasonable scope. Second,
restrictive housing or solitary confinement is employed far too
frequently for minor behavioral infractions, not as a sanction of last
resort.

This act will establish limits on the use of solitary and require
that it be limited to the briefest amount of time and under the least
restrictive conditions that make sense in the setting.
The bill requires the Bureau of Prisons to limit the use of solitary
confinement for inmates nearing their release date and to establish a
transitional process for inmates who must remain housed in solitary
confinement up to their release.
Most importantly, the bill mandates that the Federal Bureau of
Prisons may not place an inmate in solitary confinement if the inmate
is a minor, has a serious mental illness, has intellectual or physical
disabilities, is pregnant or in the first eight weeks after delivery,
except--in all of those cases, except--under limited and temporary
circumstances.
Finally, the bill requires an annual report to Congress from the
Bureau of Prisons about their assessment of their progress in improving
solitary confinement practices and regulations.
The time to reform our criminal justice system is now, and this bill
would mark an important step forward.
Some might ask why this is a passion of mine. When I was a young man,
my father volunteered through our church and prison ministry, and I was
a young man exposed to the impact that prison conditions can have on
those who are serving time. But, more importantly, few individuals have
captured the urgency of this issue as powerfully as a fellow Delawarean
and friend, Bryan Stevenson. Bryan Stevenson is the author of a book
entitled ``Just Mercy'' that chronicles his efforts founding and
leading the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, AL. Since long
before sensible reforms to our criminal justice system seemed possible,
Bryan has been fighting to improve this badly broken system. In his
book he tells the powerful and painful story of a 13-year-old child,
Ian, incarcerated as an adult in an adult prison and who spent 18 years
in solitary. As Bryan Stevenson recounts, ``Ian's mental health
unraveled, and he attempted suicide several times. Each time he hurt
himself, his time in solitary was extended.''
I remember being brought to tears by a number of passages in Bryan's
book, and I profoundly agree with his concluding assessment that ``the
true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavored,
the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned.'' When it comes to
fairly distributing justice in America, Congress has long failed this
central test of character. With this bill, this Senate has a rare
opportunity to right some of the wrongs that have too long plagued
every step of our criminal justice system.
We also need to step up and take up and move forward the Sentencing
Reform and Corrections Act as well, an important and broad bill which
would reduce mandatory minimums and give judges more discretion in
sentencing. In this effort, we have a broad coalition of Democrats and
Republicans and a diverse group of faith and reform and advocacy
groups, and in President Obama we have a leader who has acted to end
solitary confinement for juveniles in Federal prison and who is ready
and willing to sign a broader package of criminal justice reforms into
law. Now it is up to Congress.
I would like to transition, if I might, to a man who, from his very
first days here in the Senate of the United States, has been a
powerful, passionate, and engaged advocate for criminal justice reform
broadly and for a change to our solitary confinement practices in
particular. Far too many Americans have grown up in a society where
they are defined by the worst thing they have ever done. When an inmate
leaves prison with his sentence complete and time served, with his mind
and spirit broken because of solitary, we are all less safe and our
world is less just.
I wish to thank Senator Durbin for his efforts on this bill, but in
particular I want to thank Senator Booker for his passion, for his
engagement, for his effectiveness. He is my colleague who has been most
engaged in the changes of solitary confinement from his first days
here, and he is the deserving partner of Senator Durbin's long record
going back to the hearings he first held in 2012.
With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from the great State of
New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my Senate colleague from
Delaware, Senator Coons, for his extraordinarily eloquent and, frankly,
urgently passionate voice on issues of solitary confinement, as well as
for all the work he is doing on criminal justice reform as a whole.
This bill that he and Senator Durbin have worked so hard on and that
I am so proud to cosponsor, along with Senators Leahy and Franken, is a
critically important bill when it comes to the overall reforming of our
criminal justice system. Please understand, as the Senator from
Delaware has said, this is currently a practice in our Federal system
as well as in State prisons. It is an archaic, damaging, ineffective,
and inefficient practice that actually works against the public
interests--not just their financial interests but even the safety and
well-being of our communities.

[[Page S6237]]

Now, solitary confinement--many people don't know exactly what we are
talking about. As Senator Coons said, it is people being kept in a
prison cell for 22 to 24 hours a day with little to no outside human
interactions. Senator Coons said it is a fact that on any given day, we
now have 80,000 to 100,000 incarcerated people in State and Federal
prisons who are being held in rooms often no bigger than a parking
spot.
We know that inmates placed in solitary confinement can be put there
for the most minor of infractions--for literally just filing papers
with the court to try to assert their constitutional rights. We also
know that solitary confinement is extraordinarily expensive--more
expensive than nonsolitary confinement. In fact, on average, it costs
about $75,000 each year for an individual to be housed in solitary
confinement. Yet it is increasingly clear that this overuse, especially
for low-level offenders--not people who have done violent crime, not
people who have assaulted a correctional officer, but people who are
there for low-level, nonviolent crimes--we know that this is providing
little benefit to no benefit for the public good, but what is
extraordinary is it is creating conditions which could harm the public.
Solitary confinement has irreversible effects on the human brain,
which may lead inmates to harm themselves or others. It does
psychological damage. It can do serious psychological damage, making a
person more dangerous.
So here we have a correctional system that doesn't correct but
actually is doing more harm and putting people in a position where they
can be more dangerous to themselves, to their fellow inmates, and to
society as a whole. It makes no sense.
International bodies understand this. Other nations have referred to
it as torture. The United Nations considers long-term isolation to be
cruel and degrading treatment. Here we are in the United States of
America, which I firmly believe is a symbol to the Nation--to the
globe--of justice, righteousness, and decency, yet we are engaging in
tactics that many of our peer nations consider cruel and degrading.
We know the data. It is clear that isolation actually worsens mental
illness and can actually create issues in those who were previously
seen as psychologically healthy. Researchers estimate that at least 30
percent of inmates held in solitary confinement already have a mental
disorder. So this is how we are treating mental illness. We incarcerate
not just the poor, but we incarcerate the addicted and the mentally
ill. In prison we should seek to make those populations better,
healthier, to deal with their disease or their mental disorder, yet we
are using practices that aggravate these conditions.
We know data has shown that holding inmates in isolation not only
makes mental illness worse for the individual, but it has truly
negative impacts on their lives, the lives of their families, and their
communities when they are released.
We know that while confinement for short periods of time may be
necessary for safety--and please understand that the security of our
correctional officers is critical in prison environments, but to allow
these practices to go on actually doesn't make our correctional
officers safer; it makes their job more dangerous and puts them at
greater risk. This is why correctional officers across the country are
speaking out. The very people who have to conduct the work in our
prisons are speaking out against solitary confinement. One Texas
correctional officer said: ``When you cut out social interaction, you
are dealing with a person who has nothing to lose, and that is
extremely dangerous.''
Kevin Kempf, the director of the Idaho Department of Corrections,
remarked that reforming the practice of solitary confinement ``is not a
soft-on-inmates approach; this is a public safety approach.'' He refers
to a time in 2014 when 44 inmates were released directly from isolation
in a maximum security prison and out to the public. That means that
they were released, as in the case that Senator Coons explained, from
solitary confinement--from these conditions of no social interaction,
from an environment that researchers deem aggravating to mental
illness--and they go right from that solitary confinement environment
out into the public. He remarked about this case:

Those 44 inmates, we took belly chains and leg irons off of
them and walked into your community. That is irresponsible of
me as a director. Frankly our taxpayers should expect more of
me, should expect more of our staff, to do things
differently.

It should come as no surprise to any of us that the use of solitary
confinement has received criticism both from law enforcement folks--
folks who have sworn oaths to protect the public--as well as the civil
rights community, civil libertarians, the medical community, and the
legal community.
Just last year, in a Supreme Court case, Davis v. Ayala, Justice
Kennedy denounced the widespread use of solitary confinement in
prisons. Justice Kennedy cited a litany of the possible side effects
from prolonged isolation, including anxiety, panic, withdrawal,
hallucinations, and self-mutilation. After examining the evidence,
Justice Kennedy concluded that ample ``research still confirms what the
Court suggested a century ago; years on end of near-total isolation
exacts a terrible price . . . [t]he penal system has a solitary
confinement regime that will bring you to the edge of madness, perhaps
into madness itself.''
This is not a criminal justice system that reflects our highest
values. It doesn't stand for moral rights when we are exacting such
cruel punishment that doesn't just do punitive damage but also puts an
inmate in a situation where they can cause more harm and damage to
themselves and others.
So the bill that Senator Coons talks about--the bill that we are
introducing with Senator Durbin--would substantially limit the ability
of the Bureau of Prisons to use solitary confinement in Federal
facilities. The bill would mandate that solitary confinement be limited
to the briefest terms under the least restrictive conditions
practicable, and it would preclude the BOP from placing vulnerable
populations in solitary confinement, like minors--like children--as
well as people with serious mental illnesses, physical disabilities,
and pregnant women.
Critically, this legislation wants to promote more data collection.
The bill would require the BOP to collect data on the use of solitary
confinement, and it would create a national resource center on solitary
confinement reform under the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
This is an issue--the issue of solitary confinement--that has been a
priority for me here in the Senate from my beginning months. In fact,
over a year ago, in August of 2015, I worked with members of the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on an oversight
hearing to explore current practices at the Federal Bureau of
Prisons. I requested this hearing because of the urgent need to shine a
spotlight on our broken criminal justice system, including what occurs
within the walls of Federal prisons that the general public does not
see that is being done in the name of the public. The hearing was a
good first start to improve transparency on solitary confinement. At
the hearing, we heard testimony from a wide range of stakeholders,
including the head of the Bureau of Prisons and advocates. Udi Offer,
from the New Jersey ACLU, testified that ``our nation has seen a
dramatic increase in the use or reliance on solitary confinement over
the last couple of decades.''

I also introduced the MERCY Act, a bill that would prohibit the use
of solitary confinement of youth adjudicated delinquent in the Federal
system unless it is a temporary response to a serious risk of harm to
the juvenile or others.
Our justice system must ensure justice in the deepest, richest
meaning of that word. That is what we swear an oath to, that we will be
a nation of liberty and justice for all--not just some but for all. It
means that we need to begin to expose the practices that are happening
in our prisons and understand the consequences to all of this--
increased financial expenditures, increased risk to our security and
our safety, increased risks of recidivism.
Our justice system should not be engaged in practices that people
across the spectrum in America--political, medical leaders, and
others--really do view as harmful, inefficient, and ineffective.
I am proud to cosponsor the Solitary Confinement Reform Act. I urge
my

[[Page S6238]]

colleagues to support this bill and advance it in the Senate. I thank
Senators Durbin and Coons for their leadership.
This is a time where we need national urgency on this issue. It is
unfortunate that what happens in our prisons is seen as something that
we as a public wash our hands of--throw them away, throw away the key.
That kind of logic doesn't solve problems, it perpetuates them. It
doesn't make us safe, it makes us less safe. It doesn't save us money,
it costs us more. These kinds of practices undermine the foundation of
common sense as well as moral rectitude. We stand for more than this as
a country. We should set an example that ultimately as a nation we are
not about retribution, we are not about disproportionate punishment, we
are about restorative justice. Solitary confinement as a practice being
done now is an assault on justice. It is an offense to our moral values
as a nation. It calls for reform.
I am proud to stand with my colleagues today to introduce legislation
that will begin to take us down that important road to justice for all.
______

By Mr. DAINES:
S. 3453. A bill to amend provisions in the securities laws relating
to regulation crowdfunding to raise the dollar amount limit and to
clarify certain requirements and exclusions for funding portals
established by such Act; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, entrepreneurship is a bedrock of Montana,
a relationship well understicod by the Small Business Administration,
SBA. In fact, the SBA recognizes over 115,000 small businesses in the
state, making up 97.4 percent of all businesses. These organizations
employ nearly 236,000 Montanans, or 67.4 percent of the state
workforce.
While there are many harmful regulations coming out of Washington
these days, the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, issued a rule
last October to give entrepreneurs an important tool in their belt to
get their/dreams up and running. This rule was the crowdfunding rule,
which allows entrepreneurs to raise up to $1 million annually without
having to incur the costs of expensive SEC registration.
With this rule, entrepreneurs can now raise capital to grow their
business and create jobs without incurring expenses ordinarily reserved
for established companies able to become publicly traded. In fact,
Treasure State Internet & Telegraph is one startup in my home town of
Bozeman, Montana that has been able to use this important new rule.
I am pleased today to support Montana's entrepreneurs by introducing
the Crowdfunding Enhancement Act. This bill will make it easier for
startups using crowdfunding to grow by creating a ``longer runway'' for
costly filings. In this way, startups won't be penalized with costly
paperwork by growing too fast growth. This bill also makes it easier to
attract more capital once it reaches the current crowdfunding limits.
With passage, this bill is a win for Montana and all our entrepreneurs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3453

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 ``Crowdfunding Enhancement
Act''.

SEC. 2. CROWDFUNDING VEHICLES.

(a) Amendments to the Securities Act of 1933.--The
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 4A(f)(3), by inserting ``by any of
paragraphs (1) through (14) of'' before ``section 3(c)''; and
(2) in section 4(a)(6)(B), by inserting after ``any
investor'' the following: ``, other than a crowdfunding
vehicle (as defined in section 2(a) of the Investment Company
Act of 1940),''.
(b) Amendments to the Investment Company Act of 1940.--The
Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 2(a), by adding at the end the following:
``(55) The term `crowdfunding vehicle' means a company--
``(A) whose purpose (as set forth in its organizational
documents) is limited to acquiring, holding, and disposing
securities issued by a single company in one or more
transactions and made pursuant to section 4(a)(6) of the
Securities Act of 1933;
``(B) which issues only one class of securities;
``(C) which receives no compensation in connection with
such acquisition, holding, or disposition of securities;
``(D) no associated person of which receives any
compensation in connection with such acquisition, holding or
disposition of securities unless such person is acting as or
on behalf of an investment adviser registered under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 or registered as an
investment adviser in the State in which the investment
adviser maintains its principal office and place of business;
``(E) the securities of which have been issued in a
transaction made pursuant to section 4(a)(6) of the
Securities Act of 1933, where both the crowdfunding vehicle
and the company whose securities it holds are co-issuers;
``(F) which is current in its ongoing disclosure
obligations under Rule 202 of Regulation Crowdfunding (17 CFR
227.202);
``(G) the company whose securities it holds is current in
its ongoing disclosure obligations under Rule 202 of
Regulation Crowdfunding (17 CFR 227.202); and
``(H) is advised by an investment adviser registered under
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 or registered as an
investment adviser in the State in which the investment
adviser maintains its principal office and place of
business.''; and
(2) in section 3(c), by adding at the end the following:
``(15) Any crowdfunding vehicle.''.

SEC. 3. CROWDFUNDING EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION.

Section 12(g)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78l(g)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Commission'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--The Commission'';
(2) by striking ``section 4(6)'' and inserting ``section
4(a)(6)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Treatment of securities issued by certain issuers.--
An exemption under subparagraph (A) shall be unconditional
for securities offered by an issuer that had a public float
of less than $75,000,000 as of the last business day of the
issuer's most recently completed semiannual period, computed
by multiplying the aggregate worldwide number of shares of
the issuer's common equity securities held by non-affiliates
by the price at which such securities were last sold (or the
average bid and asked prices of such securities) in the
principal market for such securities or, in the event the
result of such public float calculation is zero, had annual
revenues of less than $50,000,000 as of the issuer's most
recently completed fiscal year.''.
______

By Mr. HEINRICH (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 3458. A bill to establish programs to improve family economic
security by breaking the cycle of multigenerational poverty, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Two-Generation
Economic Empowerment Act, alongside my colleague and friend from Maine,
Senator Susan Collins. We are going to hear from her in a few minutes.
I want to say a few words about an issue that is all too familiar to
many of our States from coast to coast--those represented by Democrats,
those represented by Republicans.
Earlier this month, we saw positive economic data from the Census
Bureau that showed that over the last year, American middle-class and
low-income families saw the largest growth in their income in
generations.
I thank my colleague from Maine for her incredible work on the
legislation we are going to be introducing today. There are simply far
too many families in my home State of New Mexico and across this Nation
who are still struggling to make ends meet, even to put food on the
table and certainly to escape multigenerational poverty.
Last year, nearly one in five New Mexicans lived below the federally
defined poverty rate. Think about that, one in five. These are mothers,
fathers, and grandparents trying to support themselves and their
families. They are young adults trying to get ahead and lay the
groundwork for the future they have envisioned for themselves, but
often the dreams we have of going to school and getting a job are cut
short by the reality that these once rites of passage on the way to the
American dream are further and further out of reach.
I believe all of us have a responsibility not to accept this status
quo. Without critical programs such as Medicaid or the National School
Lunch

[[Page S6239]]

Program, even more families in New Mexico would be struggling to
overcome poverty in the wake of the great recession. It is time to
recognize that the Federal Government's current approach to poverty is
far too disconnected. It is too fragmented and too disjointed to truly
address the needs of these working families, and too often it simply
ignores the very nature of the family itself.
I will tell you what I mean by that. I grew up on a small farm and
ranch operation. In addition to attending our cattle, both of my
parents worked full time, often more than full time. My dad was a
utility lineman. My mother worked in a factory inspecting wheels on an
assembly line. Like a lot of Americans, I learned the dignity of hard
work long before I ever held my first job. I learned it at home.
As a father of two children, I understand the challenges of
parenthood today, especially when both parents work. In many cases in
New Mexico, that means both parents may work more than one job. Much of
our time is centered on our jobs and our children. For many of us, this
leaves very little time for ourselves or our own educational pursuits.
If parents are able to find time to attend school and better
themselves, they have to fit their class schedule around those times.
They have to fit their class schedule around their child's school and
their childcare hours. All of this limits parents' access to a full and
rigorous class schedule and it extends the number of semesters a parent
is in school and it increases their student loan debt. The way the
Federal Government tries to help increased opportunities for working
families isn't working well enough to address these daily challenges
these families face.
When multiple programs exist to help low-income parents and children,
they have individual streaming causing silos and fragmentation. Low-
income families trying to access these benefits often have trouble
navigating the multiple eligibility requirements and the multiple
service providers. Families get discouraged and lose out on benefits
because each one has its own set of requirements.
Even the local service providers who are trying to help families get
ahead are finding this disjointed Federal landscape difficult to
navigate. Addressing the needs of children and parents separately and
without a comprehensive strategy is leaving too many children and
parents behind and diminishing the whole family's chances of reaching
economic security.
That is why I have teamed up with my Republican colleague from Maine,
Senator Susan Collins, to introduce the bipartisan Two-Generation
Economic Empowerment Act. Our legislation will increase opportunities
for working families through programs targeting parents and children
together with support aimed at increasing economic security,
educational success, social, capital, and health and well-being.
By aligning and linking existing systems and funding streams, our
legislation will lead to improved outcomes for parents and children
while improving the effectiveness of service delivery. Our legislation
will make Federal agencies coordinate more effectively through a new
Interagency Council on Multigenerational Poverty. The council will
align and link departments that are already working to address poverty
in order to reduce the redundancy and the redtape we see and to make
sure programs across different agencies are actually working in a
complementary fashion.
We are also looking for new ways to incentivize investments in
comprehensive two-generation programs. Our bill will encourage Federal,
State, tribal, and local governments to test innovative ways to using
Federal resources by allowing increased flexibility and blending
discretionary grant funds across multiple Federal programs in exchange
for a greater accountability. We will create a social impact bond pilot
project to encourage private foundations and investors to fund new two-
generation programs.
Over the last year, I visited programs in my home State of New Mexico
that are already using a two-generation approach. In Albuquerque, I met
with participants of the CNM Connect Services Program at Central New
Mexico Community College. This program assists students--many of whom
are parents or children of parents attending CNM--with academic
support, financial coaching, and career services, and it connects
families with behavioral health services and childcare. By streamlining
and coordinating all of these support services for students and their
children, families are able to learn and grow together.
At CNM, I met Maricela Cormona, who was a full-time mother who
couldn't focus on her own education until her two children started an
Even Start and Head Start early childhood education program. Thanks to
a two-generation program that connects parents to childcare and
education, she earned her GED, and she started taking courses at CNM to
become a social worker. She was working with other parents to help them
raise healthy families and receive an education.
In Sante Fe, I toured the United Way Early Learning Center. This hub
of early learning and family support can serve as a model for creating
a path of opportunity for all hard-working Americans, using a
comprehensive two-generation approach. At a state-of-the-art facility,
the center offers year-round, full-day services for children and
families, including hot meals, a health center, teaching and learning
technology, employment and social service assistance for parents, and a
home visitation program.

One mother I met there, Brenda Olivas, was connected with United Way
when she was 4 months pregnant. The home visitation supported her as
she and her husband raised their young son Angel. When I talked to her,
Brenda had just started working at the early learning center, helping
to care for the children. Brenda said that she hoped to enroll in
classes at Santa Fe Community College and put herself on a path toward
a successful career.
I also hosted an outreach session for families, education
administrators, and representatives of nonprofit service providers at
Dona Ana Head Start. I heard from working parents and service providers
about the challenges and obstacles that stand in the way of their
educational and career opportunities.
Just last month, I visited La Clinica de Familia's Early Head Start
Child Care Partnership Center. The center cares for children while
their parents work or further their education at New Mexico State
University and Dona Ana Community College. I had a chance to read
``Brown Bear, Brown Bear,'' which is not only one of the children's
favorite books, but it is also one of my favorite books. My kids loved
that book when they were little.
I think it is time to build on the progress we have seen demonstrated
through the data at programs like these. It is time to bring in more
stakeholders and start actively changing the trajectory of these
families and communities. This is the type of challenge that will have
to be fought on the frontlines through public-private partnerships on
college campuses and in community centers, on ball fields and in health
clinics, and in our towns both large and small. No matter what your ZIP
Code is, you should have an opportunity to use already existing Federal
resources or attract private investment to implement the two-generation
approach in your community because, as the data suggests, it works.
That is exactly what the Two-Generation Economic Empowerment Act aims
to achieve.
I wish once again to thank my colleague Senator Collins for her hard
work to help create this legislation, and I also thank the great minds
at places like Ascend at the Aspen Institute and great advocacy
organizations in my home State of New Mexico, such as New Mexico Voices
for Children, for working with me and my staff on these real,
innovative solutions to create more economic mobility.
As we work to advance this bipartisan bill in the Senate, I hope the
rest of my colleagues will see why this is an issue that should not
only be bipartisan but should command our urgent attention because the
status quo is not something any of us should accept.
It is important to note that our proposal doesn't add any new Federal
spending or add to the deficit. Our legislation simply takes existing
funding programs that we already have in place and makes sure we are
investing more

[[Page S6240]]

wisely, more efficiently, and more effectively to meet the needs of our
children and their families. This is a fiscally responsible way to
proceed, and it is a moral imperative.
We all know that all the potential we could ever ask for sits in
homes, churches, and classrooms across this great Nation. By helping
parents, grandparents, and children overcome poverty and pursue their
dreams together, we can put whole families on a path toward economic
security and create a greater economic future for all of our
communities.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
New Mexico, Senator Heinrich, in introducing the Two-Generation
Economic Empowerment Act of 2016. It has been a great pleasure to work
together to craft this important legislation, and I commend him for his
leadership.
Our bipartisan bill proposes a new approach to fighting poverty, one
that focuses on addressing the needs of children and their parents
together--two generations--in order to break the cycle of
intergenerational poverty.
More than 50 years after President Lyndon Johnson declared a War on
Poverty, poverty remains a troubling reality for millions of Americans
who struggle to find the resources they need for the basic necessities
of life. In the time since that worthy war was first declared, the
Federal Government has spent trillions of dollars--taxpayer dollars--on
programs to combat poverty. Yet the truth is that the poverty rate has
barely budged. In 1966, the poverty rate was 14.7 percent. Just this
month, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that the poverty rate for 2015
was 13.5 percent. I would note that is actually 1 percentage point
higher than the year before the start of the 2008 recession. The point
is that despite our good intentions and despite the expenditure of
trillions of taxpayer dollars, we have made very little progress in
lifting families out of poverty.
Every State in our Nation is impacted by poverty. In my State of
Maine, the poverty rate stands at 13.4 percent, just slightly below the
national rate. Poverty spans rural towns and urban centers, race and
ethnicity, men and women, old and young. It diminishes the chances of a
bright future for far too many of our children.
Just this weekend, the Maine Sunday Telegram reported a
heartwrenching story of a 5-year-old girl named Arianna, who lived in a
makeshift tent in the woods outside of Portland. This is a picture of
Arianna, a darling little girl only 5 years of age, living outside in a
very crude tent. Thanks to the involvement of a State social worker and
the Maine Homeless Veterans Alliance, who were committed to keeping the
family together, this story, fortunately, has a happy ending. Arianna
and her mother now live in an apartment in Auburn, ME, and she has
finally just started kindergarten.
We know that the well-being of children like Arianna is tightly
linked to the well-being of their parents. Just last week, I chaired a
hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation. We
examined whether there is a better way to provide housing assistance to
vulnerable families and individuals. Both OMB Director Shaun Donovan
and HUD Secretary Julian Castro have often pointed out to our
subcommittee that the single biggest predictor of a child's
opportunities--and even that child's life expectancy--is the ZIP Code
of the community where the child grows up.
Federal programs have certainly helped many of those living in
poverty to manage the day-to-day hardships they face, but the fact is
that these programs have failed to achieve their promise of breaking
the cycle of poverty that has trapped too many families. We should not
accept such outcomes here in the land of opportunity.
Our bipartisan legislation proposes a fresh approach that is aimed at
equipping both parents and their children with the tools they need to
succeed and become self-sufficient. It marks an important first step
toward reevaluating our approach to poverty-reducing programs,
encouraging innovative, more effective uses of tax dollars, and
encouraging programs that allow us to tailor them to the needs of
specific families--programs that will work.
Too often today our Federal programs address certain issues in silos,
overlooking the fact that the needs of families in poverty are almost
always interconnected. They shouldn't have to try to navigate the
various programs that are available to put together the funding streams
they need to lift themselves out of poverty. Our bill would change
that. It encourages an integrated, personalized approach.
Let me give an example. Helping a mother secure safe, high-quality
child care can have a positive impact not only on her ability to
succeed in the workforce but also by improving her child's readiness
for school. While that child is receiving care and an education, her
mother can be connecting with a skills training program to help her
improve her family's income. Connecting these various Federal programs
has the potential to lift entire families out of poverty and break that
vicious cycle of intergenerational or multigenerational poverty.
The Two-Generation Economic Empowerment Act would create an
Interagency Council on Multigenerational Poverty to coordinate efforts
across Federal agencies and departments aimed at supporting vulnerable
families. The Council would also make recommendations to Congress on
ways to improve coordination of anti-poverty programs and to identify
best practices. Similarly, our legislation would instruct the
Government Accountability Office, GAO, to study and report to Congress
and the Council on the barriers that prevent grant recipients from
collaborating and identify opportunities for improved coordination.
Our bill would also authorize a pilot program to provide additional
flexibility for States and local governments to improve the
administration of programs using two-generation models. It would
authorize five States to participate in two-generation performance
partnerships. This would allow, for example, States like Maine and New
Mexico to blend together similarly purposed funds across multiple
Federal programs in order to help poor families. It aims to reduce
duplicative reporting and application requirements. This kind of
redtape and bureaucracy often deters local agencies and organizations
from making the most effective use of tax dollars to ensure
accountability because that is what this is all about. This bill would
also require that these pilot programs be targeted at specific programs
designed to reduce poverty, and it would measure the outcomes and the
effectiveness of these programs.

Finally, our bill would create a pilot program to incentivize public-
private partnerships around poverty solutions through social impact
bonds. These public-private partnerships harness philanthropic and
private sector investments to implement proven social programs. This
concept is based on legislation that has been introduced by two of our
colleagues, Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Michael Bennet. I would
note that through these partnerships, government funds are only paid
out when the desired outcomes are met.
With this bill, we have the chance to make a permanent difference in
the lives of millions of families in this country who are struggling
and living in poverty. We have the opportunity to finally break the
multigenerational cycle of poverty. We have the chance--after 50 years
of pouring trillions of dollars into well-intentioned programs that
have had some good benefits but have not produced the kinds of lasting
results we need, we have the opportunity to change that.
Just as a child's ZIP Code should not determine his or her future
success, so should the bureaucratic, siloed approach to poverty not
make it so difficult for families to get the help they need to escape
lives of poverty. We don't want more cases where a 5-year-old girl is
living in a makeshift tent outside of the largest city in my State.
The Federal Government can be an effective partner in providing
funding, in providing opportunities for parents and their children,
lifting up families, and, in turn, building stronger communities. State
and local governments--the laboratories of experimentation in this
country--can be at the forefront of these efforts. And the increased
flexibility proposed by our bill would help reform practices across
government.

[[Page S6241]]

Building public-private partnerships would also help to spur innovative
approaches and would help generations to come to take part and be full
participants in the American dream.
Again, let me thank my partner Senator Heinrich for his leadership on
this bill. I urge our colleagues to take a look at the fresh,
innovative approach we have developed to moving families out of poverty
by breaking down the silos in Federal programs, by encouraging local
and State and private sector and nonprofit organizations collaboration,
and by giving them the tools they need to succeed.
Mr. President, let's not be here 50 years from now noting that the
poverty rate is the same as it was when Lyndon Johnson declared the War
on Poverty 50 years ago, which would then be 100 years ago. Let's try a
different approach.
Thank you, Mr. President.

____________________