[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13869-13880]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 13870]]

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 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,

[[Page 13871]]



     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 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

[[Page 13872]]

     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--

       ``(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 the briefest term 
     and the least restrictive conditions practicable, including 
     access to medical and mental health treatment;
       ``(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;

[[Page 13873]]

       ``(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
       ``(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

[[Page 13874]]

     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 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

[[Page 13875]]

     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. 3432

  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 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

[[Page 13876]]

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.
  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

[[Page 13877]]

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 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 understood 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,

[[Page 13878]]



     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 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

[[Page 13879]]

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 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.

[[Page 13880]]

  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. 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.
  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.

                          ____________________