FACT Act

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Max Baucus in introducing legislation that addresses the longstanding problem of dilapidated tribal detention facilities on Indian reservations. There is a tremendous need for replacement construction of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) operated and funded facilities, and I am pleased that this legislation offers a creative and innovative bonding approach to address the construction backlog.

USA Today reported that Federal investigators have uncovered evidence of abuse, neglect and inhumane conditions in Native American prisons and jails. This troubling report suggests that the conditions in Indian detention facilities are not improving and, in fact, appear to be getting worse. It is my hope that this hearing will help shed additional light on these allegations, and lead to solutions to improve conditions in facilities across Indian country.

According to recent statistics from the Department of Justice report on Indian jails and prisons, there are 70 detention facilities in Indian country, supervising approximately 2,100 inmates. Many of these facilities are in

an appalling state of disrepair, and face problems that range from overcrowding and understaffing to sheer neglect and abuse.

According to the most recent statistics from the Department of Justice, over half of all detention facilities in Indian country were operating at 100-percent capacity in 2002, and nineteen were operating at 150-percent or higher capacity. Of those nineteen, three are located in my state of South Dakota: Pine Ridge's Medicine Root Detention Center, operating at 250-percent capacity; Crow Creek's Fort Thompson Jail, operating at 242-percent capacity; and the Pine Ridge Correctional Facility, which is operating at a staggering 400 percent of its capacity.

Inmates in South Dakota's BIA facilities are housed in dilapidated buildings and are forced to endure extraordinarily harsh conditions. Even though the Lower Brule tribal detention facility was condemned by the BIA in 1987, it was still being used to house inmates as recently as two years ago. Because the new facility is still under construction, Lower Brule prisoners are sent 13 miles away, across the Missouri River, to the Crow Creek facility in Fort Thompson. Because there aren't enough BIA officers to transport them back to Lower Brule, detainees released from Crow Creek are often forced to make the return trip to Lower Brule on foot. It is shocking that this is allowed to happen at all, but especially in South Dakota where harsh winters and sub-zero temperatures are routine. Moreover, the Fort Thompson facility is equally understaffed. One person serves as both police dispatcher and detention officer in a facility that houses up to 30 prisoners.

These conditions have a devastating impact on prisoners. Nationally, between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002, 282 inmates in tribal jails attempted suicide, up from 169 the previous year. In the last five years, the number of admissions rose 32 percent, and the annual number of attempted suicides more than doubled, from 133 to 282. On Crow Creek, which is located in one of the most impoverished counties in the U.S. and experiences inordinate suicide rates among its general population, several suicides have occurred in the local jail.

Even more troubling, inadequate detention facilities pose a serious threat to the surrounding communities. With a limited number of officers responsible for large inmate populations, the risk of prisoner violence--against both prison staff and, in the event of an escape, local citizens--is much greater. Moreover, the culture of neglect and abuse found in many of our Indian jails is indicative of broader trends within the communities. The Lower Brule jail doubles as a suicide-watch center for troubled teens, since there is nowhere else in the community to take them. Several Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) have either resigned, or are on the brink of resigning, due to the stress of the situation. Law enforcement officials are at a loss about how to address this disturbing pattern, and are overwhelmed by the feelings of hopelessness that accompany it.

Clearly, the impact that overcrowding, dilapidated conditions, and neglect are having on inmates in these facilities, as well as local communities, is reaching a critical mass--both in South Dakota and across the Nation--and we must act now to reverse the trend. While addressing the problems that exist in jails and prisons clearly isn't the whole answer, such an approach will meet a critical need in Indian country, and will represent an important step toward increasing public safety and reducing incidences of abuse and neglect.

We can start by increasing funding for BIA facilities. Unfortunately, this Administration has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to give Indian detention facilities the resources they need, and has actually reduced funding for jails and prisons in Indian country. It wasn't always so bad. Under the Clinton Administration, then-Attorney General Janet Reno created the Department of Justice--Department of Interior Indian Law Enforcement initiative with the objective of creating an effective way to address law enforcement, facilities, juvenile justice, and rehabilitation efforts in Indian country. Although funding for these programs, which increased under the Clinton administration and was consistent until the FY2002 appropriations cycle, was not enough to meet all of Indian country's needs, the initiative represented an unprecedented step toward addressing some of these problems.

Unfortunately, the current Administration, while budgeting hundreds of millions of dollars for Federal prison construction, has proposed eliminating the tribal facility program for the second year in a row. While Congress appropriated $35 million per year for construction of BIA detention facilities between 2000 and 2002, we appropriated only $2 million in FY2004. Now, with an even tighter budget to work with, the outlook for this year is especially bleak, and conditions at BIA facilities are likely to get even worse.

For too long, we have neglected our obligations to Native Americans. We are seeing the effects of that neglect in South Dakota. These are once again examples of the abrogration of the trust responsibility by the Federal Government to the tribes and its people.

We need to do a better job of funding Indian detention centers, and we need to do more to address public safety, tribal courts, and rehabilitation efforts. We cannot ask tribes to choose between funding crisis intervention and law enforcement. We cannot force tribes to make the choice between funding education and after school programs for their children, and repairing cracked walls and inoperable surveillance cameras in their jails.

While national rates are the lowest in years, crime on Indian lands continues to rise. Particularly disturbing is the violent nature of this crime; violence against women, juvenile and gang crime, and child abuse remain serious problems. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that American Indians experience the highest crime victimization rates in the nation--almost twice the national average.

The law enforcement, public safety, and tribal detention facility issues are of critical importance to Indian country and surrounding communities. If this were happening in any other part of the country, it would be met with public outrage and swift government action. However, in Indian country, it is met with silence and reduced funding. For the safety of our Indian people and the well-being of their communities, we must take action.

I am pleased that on September 21, 2004, the Senate Finance Committee held an oversight hearing on these issues, and that this legislation has emerged as a step in the right direction to address the construction backlog of much-needed facilities in rural, tribal communities.

I support this legislation which authorizes eligible Indian tribes to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance tribal prison facilities, ``tribal prison facility bonds''. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address these important issues and to advance this legislation.

Mr. President, every American knows this photograph. It is one of the great iconic images of American courage and determination: the Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima. What many Americans probably do not know is that one of the six Marines in this photo was a Native American. His name was Ira Hayes. He was a full- blooded Pima Indian, raised on a small farm on the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona.

Raising the flag with Ira Hayes that day on Iwo Jima were: a coal miner's son from Pennsylvania who came to America as an infant from Czechoslovakia; a farm boy from the Rio Grande Valley of Texas; a mill worker's son from New Hampshire; a former altar boy from Wisconsin, and a poor kid from eastern Kentucky.

One writer has called this photo `` a triumphant metaphor for the very soul of the (Marine) Corps.'' It is also something else. It is a reflection of every war our Nation has ever fought. In every major military conflict in our Nation's history, Indians have fought side-by- side with non-Indians. Native Americans served with honor and distinction in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. They served on both sides in the Civil War. Stand Watie, a Cherokee, was the last Confederate brigadier general to surrender to the Union troops. And Eli Parker, a Seneca from New York, was at Appomattox, serving as an aide to General Ulysses S. Grant when Robert E. Lee surrendered.

Native American soldiers rode with Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the charge on San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War. Twelve- thousand Indians served in World War I. Even though Native Americans were denied U.S. citizenship at the time, many were so eager to serve that they went to Canada to enlist before the U.S. even entered the war. Their tremendous demonstration of patriotism finally moved Congress to pass the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924.

In World War II, more than one-third of all able-bodied Indian men between the ages of 18 and 50 served. The most famous were the ``Code Talkers'' from the Navajo Nation and other tribes--including the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota tribes of the Great Sioux Nation. During the Korean War, two Native American soldiers were awarded posthumous Congressional Medals of Honor. Another Korean War veteran, a Northern Cheyenne from Colorado, served with distinction in the Air Force and later in the United States Senate. He is our friend and colleague, the chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

In Vietnam, nearly 42,000 Native Americans served--90 percent of them volunteers. Native Americans served with honor in Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf war, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. And they are serving our Nation today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Given the tragic history between Indian tribes and the U.S. military, some might regard it as remarkable that Native Americans choose to serve in the military at all. Yet, not only do Native Americans serve, they have the highest rate of military service of any ethnic group in America. Today, one in four Native American men is a military veteran, as are nearly half of all tribal leaders.

Incredibly, despite this extraordinary history of service and sacrifice for our Nation, there has never been a national American Indians veterans organization. Until now.

Last week, a new organization, the National American Indian Veterans Association, held its first annual meeting in Arizona. At that meeting, members voted unanimously to approve the organization's charter. Today, I am introducing a bipartisan proposal to grant the National American Indian Veterans Association a Federal charter. I am proud to sponsor this proposal, along with four great champions of Indian people and tribes: my fellow South Dakotan, Senator Johnson; Senator Bingaman; Senator Campbell, the distinguished chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee; and the committee's ranking member, Senator Inouye, a noble warrior himself and a Medal of Honor recipient.

The National American Indian Veterans Association is long overdue, and it is desperately needed. Native Americans are the most likely of all Americans to volunteer for military service. But they are the least likely of all veterans to apply for the benefits they have earned. When they do try to claim those benefits, too often, the First Americans find themselves last in line.

Too many Native American veterans go without urgently needed medical care because they can't get appointments or they can't overcome bureaucratic hurdles at the VA or the nearest clinic is too far away. Too many Native American veterans are living in crowded apartments and crumbling houses and trailers, partly because homeownership assistance programs that work for most veterans don't take into account the specific needs of many Indian veterans. Many Native American veterans don't claim the education benefits they have earned. Too many Native American veterans don't get the retirement benefits they deserve. And when they die, too many of their families don't get the survivors' benefits they should.

A Federal charter does not grant the National American Indian Veterans Association any special legal status or favors. It will simply enable Native American veterans from all tribes to speak with one voice to Congress and to the Nation.

The National Commander of the National American Indian Veterans Association is a man I am proud to know. Don Loudner is from Mitchell, SD. He is a member of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and a Korean War veteran with 35 years in the Army Reserves. He is also a member of the VA's Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, a former Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the State of South Dakota, a former superintendent of the Crow Creek Sioux Reservation, and one of the most tireless, articulate advocates for Native American veterans I have ever known.

Congress has chartered many veterans organizations representing specific groups: the American War Mothers, the Blinded Veterans Association, Catholic War Veterans, Italian American War Veterans of the USA, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, the National Association for Black Veterans, Polish Legion of American Veterans.

I believe the guidance and collected wisdom of the National American Indian Veterans Association will enable America to better honor its commitments to Native American veterans and their families. In doing so, it will strengthen Native Americans' long and exceptional tradition of military service to our Nation. And that will make America even safer and stronger.

Five Native American warriors have already given their lives in Iraq. They include three members of the Navajo Nation: Army Private First Class Lori Piestewa, a young Hopi mother and the first Native American woman soldier ever killed in combat; and a young Army Private First Class from the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. Sheldon Hawk Eagle was a member of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, the famed ``Screaming Eagles,'' the same unit that parachuted into Normandy on D-Day. He was also a descendant of the legendary Lakota warrior leader, Crazy Horse.

There are many reasons that these young warriors and so many other Native Americans have risked--and

given--their lives for this Nation. Clarence Wolf Guts may have said it best. Mr. Wolf Guts is from the Oglala Sioux Tribe and one of the last two surviving Lakota Code Talkers from World War II. Two weeks ago, he testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs about a bill I am sponsoring to honor all Native American Code Talkers, from all tribes. In Clarence Wolf Guts' words, ``Indian people love America, and we will do whatever it takes to protect our freedom from all aggressors.''

By formally recognizing the National American Indian Veterans Association--America's first and only Native American veterans organization--America will be better able to honor the extraordinary patriotism of these heroes and provide them with the respect and benefits they have earned. I urge my colleagues to join us. Let's pass this bill this year.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to enhance Federal research on an emerging chronic disease in the U.S. known as pulmonary hypertension. PH is a serious and often fatal condition where the blood pressure in the lungs rises to dangerously high levels. In PH patients, the walls of the arteries that take blood from the right side of the heart to the lungs thicken and constrict. As a result, the right side of the heart has to pump harder to move blood into the lungs, causing it to enlarge and ultimately fail.

PH can occur without a known cause or be secondary to other conditions such as; collagen vascular diseases, i.e., scleroderma and lupus, blood clots, HIV, sickle cell, and liver disease. PH does not discriminate based on race, gender or age. Patients develop symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain, dizziness, and fainting. Unfortunately, these symptoms are frequently misdiagnosed, leaving patients

with the false impression that they have a minor pulmonary or cardiovascular condition. By the time many patients receive an accurate diagnosis, the disease has progressed to a late stage, making it impossible to receive a necessary heart or lung transplant.

With this legislation, I am proud to join the Pulmonary Hypertension Association in the fight against this deadly illness. PHA is the Nation's oldest and largest organization dedicated to finding a cure for PH and improving the quality of life for PH patients and their families. I would particularly like to recognize the contributions of four PHA members from my home State of Texas who have contributed so much to this worthy cause--Leo and Bobbie Fields, and Jack Stibbs and his daughter Emily. Their commitment to improving the quality of life for PH patients and pursuing a cure for this disease is truly inspiring. I would also like to recognize our colleague Congressman Kevin Brady for his leadership in introducing the ``PH Research Act'' in the other body.

A few years ago the scientifc community discovered the first gene associated with pulmonary hypertension. This was a landmark discovery in the battle to unravel the mystery surrounding this disease. The ``PH Research Act'' seeks to capitalize on this exciting advancement by establishing ``Centers of Excellence'' on pulmonary hypertension through the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health. These Centers would focus on: 1. basic and clinical research into the cause, diagnosis, and treatment of PH: 2. the training of new investigators in PH research; 3. continuing education for health care professionals regarding PH with a focus on early diagnosis and 4. the dissemination of information regarding the disease to the general public.

This is an important bill that has the potential to help tens of thousands of Americans and their families, who are struggling with this devastating disease. I look forward to working with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to advance the ``PH Research Act.''

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my co-sponsors, Senators McConnell and McCain, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe has the potential to improve profoundly the lives of millions of Americans across the country.

The Auto Choice Reform Act of 2004 offers a real solution to a very real problem faced by those of us who drive every day--the high cost and inadequate compensation of the current tort and liability automotive insurance system.

The tort system ought to ideally compensate people injured by negligence and deter others from acting irresponsibly. With respect to auto accidents, the system fails miserably on both counts.

Numerous studies over the past 75 years document just how poorly the tort system compensates injured people. Almost one-third of injured people recover nothing at all, and many injured persons who do recover compensation must wait years to receive payment from the other person's insurer.

Worst of all, people with minor injuries recover compensation far in excess of their actual losses while many people with serious injuries are grossly underpaid. The RAND Institute for Civil Justice has found that people with economic losses between $500 and $1,000 recover on average 2\1/2\ times their economic loss. This is largely due to the fact that it is cheaper for an insurer to pay a questionable claim than to pay the costs of going to court, where they risk paying a multiplier of economic damages for pain and suffering.

The perverse incentives generated by pain-and-suffering damage awards also cause rampant fraud and abuse in auto insurance claims. A study by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice confirms that between 35 and 42 percent of medical costs claimed in auto accidents occur in response to the incentives of the tort liability system. In other words, more than one-third of all medical losses claimed in auto accidents are fraudulent or exaggerated--attempts to nab the pain-and-suffering jackpot.

On the other hand, people with the highest economic losses, in excess of $100,000, recover only 9 percent of their economic loss on average. To add injury to insult, that amount doesn't even include their lawyers' standard one-third fee. Because most drivers don't carry enough insurance to even pay this level of economic loss, particularly after attorneys' fees are deducted, people with the most serious injuries rarely recover anything for pain-and-suffering.

In short, we would be hard pressed to design a worse compensation system if we tried.

Indeed, the system is so bankrupt that lawyers in the auto insurance litigation currently consume more than 25 cents out of every premium dollar spent, an amount that is significantly more than the amount received by those actually injured for medical bills and lost wages. In total, more than $16 billion went to lawyers in 2001 for automobile related personal injury cases.

What about deterrence? Perhaps it is worth paying for a poor compensation system if people are deterred from driving badly, thereby avoiding injuries in the first place. Some studies have made this argument but the most comprehensive analysis of accident data, again by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, has found that the tort system has little or no deterrent impact. This conclusion is a logical one. If a driver is not deterred by the threat of personal danger from reckless driving, then surely that driver is not deterred by the penalty for reckless driving--simply a modest increase in one's insurance premium.

The current system is also unnecessarily expensive, as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Joint Economic Committee estimates that switching to the new Personal Injury Protection system, discussed below, which relies primarily on the payment of economic losses for all injured persons without regard to fault and largely without the need for lawsuits, could save drivers a total of $48 billion a year in unnecessary premiums.

Excessive premiums disproportionately impact low income Americans and welfare recipients. Families in the bottom 20 percent of incomes who buy auto insurance spend 16 percent of their household income on that insurance. That percentage is seven times the proportion that families in the top 20 percent spend. Lower premiums would enable many low income workers to afford the cars they need to travel to better-paying jobs. The Auto Choice reform legislation we are proposing today would reduce premiums for low income people by more than it would reduce them for the average driver--both in terms of percentages and often in terms of absolute dollars. And all drivers would see significantly lower premiums.

Auto Choice is designed to allow consumers to choose the type of insurance that meets their needs and to opt out of the pain-and- suffering litigation lottery associated with the current system.

Essentially, drivers are permitted under Auto Choice to choose a new Personal Injury Protection, ``PIP'', Insurance under which they would be compensated without regard to fault for all economic losses up to their policy limits by their own insurance company, with nothing available for pain and suffering. Alternatively, for those who remain in the current tort system, they will select a small amount of additional coverage similar to an uninsured motorist for situations involving another motorist that opted for the PIP system--a premium offset by the savings realized by everyone as a result of the overall shift away from the lawsuit system.

The system does not abolish lawsuits. By design, there will be reduced incentives to head straight to court, but the right to sue remains firmly intact--as injured parties not fully compensated can sue to recover excess economic losses over and above that covered by the PIP coverage and other sources of first party insurance. They can also sue for all damages, including pain and suffering, when the accident is caused by a driver who is drunk or on drugs.

In summary, if a driver wants to maintain the possibility of recovering for pain and suffering, he will stay in essentially the current system. On the other hand, if he wants to opt-out of the current system in exchange for lower premiums with prompt compensation for economic losses--then he instead will choose the personal injury protection system.

The idea is not a new one. Indeed, this idea has been discussed--and even introduced in one form or another--for over thirty years now. Several versions of Auto Choice reform have enjoyed broad support on both sides of the aisle. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Steve Forbes, Michael Dukakis, Mayor Rudy Guliani, Congressman Dick Armey--just to name a few--have all opined in support of giving drivers a way out of the current ineffective system.

The time has come for Congress to act. The results of our action are clear and tangible: were Congress to enact Auto Choice Reform legislation now, motorists would stand to save as much as $48 billion next year.

Think about that for just one moment. Over 5 years, Americans would be able to save almost $250 billion--savings tantamount to a massive tax cut with absolutely no negative impact to the Federal deficit.

And what does this mean for the average American? The average American family with two cars will be able to save nearly $380 a year, according to Joint Economic Committee estimates.

Particularly encouraging is the effect these savings will have for low income families. Lower auto insurance premiums will make owning a car more affordable for poor Americans, allowing them to find and keep better-paying jobs and have longer commutes. Auto Choice would allow low-income drivers to save almost 37 percent on their overall automobile premium. For a low-income household, these savings

are the equivalent of 5 weeks of groceries or nearly 4 months of electric bills.

Auto Choice Reform can provide immediate and real relief for average, mainstream American families across the country. Those are real savings, resulting from a sound system that offers legitimate choice--a choice between guaranteed upfront savings on insurance premiums on one hand; and on the other, the right to sue for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering in the event an accident one day occurs.

For most Americans, I believe the choice is an easy one. Unfortunately, for most Americans today, that choice is unavailable.

The Auto Choice Reform Act of 2004 gives the American people that choice. Let's get government back to doing what it ought to--protecting the rights of all Americans to have the freedom to make choices about how they live their lives.

Mr. President, Senator Specter and I introduce today the Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates for our Nation's ex-offenders and improving the transition for these offenders from prison back into the community.

All too often we think about today, but not tomorrow. We look to short-term solutions for long- term problems. We need to have a change in thinking and approach. It's time we face the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of positive influences, a paucity of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills.

The bill we introduce today is about providing a second chance for these ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them. It's about strengthening communities and ensuring safe neighborhoods.

Since my 1994 Crime Bill passed, we've had great success in cutting down on crime rates in this country. Under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, we've funded over 114,000 officers all across the country. And our crime rate has plummeted. Murder is down 37.8 percent, rape 19.1 percent, and aggravated assaults 28 percent. The overall crime rate sharply declined by 28 percent.

But now, we are seeing some troubling indicators that crime is back on the rise. Murder was up 2.5 percent in 2001, 1 percent in 2002, and 1.3 percent in 2003. Forcible rape is up as is robbery. Car theft is up 10 percent over the last four years.

If we are going to ensure that these latest numbers are only a blip on the continued downward trend of crime rates, as opposed to the beginning of a comeback in crime, we simply have to make strong, concerted, and common-sense efforts now to help ex-prisoners successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities.

There's a record number of people currently serving time in our country--over two million. This translates into 1 out of every 143 U.S. residents. In its latest statistics on the matter, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the Nation's overall prison population increased by over 40,000 from midyear 2002 to midyear 2003, the largest increase in 4 years.

Also vital to realize is that 95 percent of all these millions we lock up will eventually get out. That equals nearly 650,000 being released from Federal or State prisons to communities each year. In a State like Delaware, that's over 4,000 inmates per year. And here's the kicker--a staggering \2/3\ of these released state prisoners are expected to be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. Two out of every three! You're talking about hundreds of thousands of reoffending ex-offenders each year and hundreds of thousands of serious crimes being committed by people who have already served time in jail.

And, unfortunately, it's not too difficult to see why such a huge portion of our released prisoners recommit serious crimes. Up to 60 percent of former inmates are not employed; 15 to 27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison, with some estimates of involvement with drugs or alcohol around the time of the offense as high as 84 percent.

These huge numbers of released prisoners each year and the out-of- control recidivism rates are a recipe for disaster--leading to untold damage, hardship, and death for victims; ruined futures and lost potential for re-offenders; and a huge drain on society at large. One particularly vulnerable group is the children of these offenders. We simply cannot be resigned to allowing generation after generation entering and reentering our prisons. This pernicious cycle must come to an end.

My 1994 Crime Bill recognized these extraordinarily high rates of recidivism as a real problem. My bill, for example, created innovative drug treatment programs for State and Federal inmates to help them kick their habit.

But this is only one piece of the puzzle. I introduced a bill in 2000 that would have built on my 1994 Crime Bill--the ``Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2000'', S. 2908. This bill would have created demonstration reentry programs for Federal, State, and local prisoners. These programs were designed to assist high-risk, high-need offenders who served their prison sentences, but who pose the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lack the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the health services they need to successfully reintegrate into society.

Senator Specter has also been a dedicated and tireless leader on crime and public safety issues throughout his career and has, for many years, seen the serious public safety ramifications of high recidivism rates. For example, my colleague from Pennsylvania has been the leader on the effort to ensure that offenders who are being released back into our communities have adequate education and work training to become productive members of our society. I couldn't be more pleased than to join efforts with Senator Specter on the Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004.

While we have made some progress on offender reentry efforts since 1994, much more needs to be done. In the current session of Congress, I am pleased that colleagues of mine--from both sides of Capitol Hill and from both sides of the aisle--are also focusing their attention on this vital issue.

I am proud to have worked with Representatives Rob Portman, Danny Davis, and John Conyers, just to name a few, in the House or Representatives. In the Senate, a number of my colleagues, in addition to Senator Specter, have shown strong interest in offender reentry issues, including Senators Brownback, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Landrieu, Bingaman, Hatch, Grassley, and Santorum.

The Second Chance Act of 2004 was introduced in the House and Senate recently, and I was proud to have worked extensively on that bipartisan, bicameral process. The bill Senator Specter and I introduce today builds on those efforts. Like the Second Chance Act, the central component of our bill provides a competitive grant program to promote innovative programs to test out a variety of methods aimed at reducing recidivism rates. Efforts would be focused on post-release housing, education and job training, substance abuse and mental health services, and mentoring programs, just to name a few.

Because the scope of the problem is so large--with 650,000 prisoners being released from state and federal prisons each year--our bill provides more than three times as much funding than the House bill. While the House bill contains $40 million per year for the main grant program, our bill provides $130 million. This isn't being wasteful with our scarce federal resources, it's just an acknowledgment of the scope of the problem we're faced with.

A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts compares very well with the alternative, building more and more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they are unable to successfully reenter their communities and instead are rearrested and reconvicted of more crimes. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds $20,000 per year. In Delaware, this translates into over $200 per resident just to pay for jail and prison operating expenses.

In constant 2001 dollars, state prison costs in our country have increased from $11.7 billion per year in 1986 to $29.5 billion in 2001. And even with these kinds of resources being spent, by the end of 2002, 25 States and the Federal prison system reported operating at 100 percent or more of their highest capacity. My own home State of Delaware continues to see a prison system bulging at the seams. We have tried, but simply cannot build our way out of this problem. We need tough--but smart--strategies to stop the revolving door of prisoners being released from prison, only to re-offend and land right back behind bars. We simply can't be penny-wise but pound-foolish.

The Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004 also requires that Federal departments with a role in offender reentry efforts coordinate and work together; to make sure there aren't duplicative efforts or funding gaps; and to coordinate reentry research. Our bill would raise the profile of this issue within the executive branch and secure the sustained and coordinated federal attention offender reentry efforts deserve.

We also need to examine existing Federal and state reentry barriers-- laws, regulations, rules, and practices that make it more difficult for former inmates to successfully reintegrate back into their communities; laws that confine ex-offenders to society's margins, making it even more likely that they will recommit serious crimes and return to prison.

Turning over a new leaf and going from a life of crime to becoming a productive member of society is tough enough. We shouldn't have Federal and State laws on the books that make this even more challenging. That's not to say that we don't want to restrict former drug addicts from working in pharmacies, for example, or to bar sex offenders from working in day care centers. But many communities across the country currently exclude ex-prisoners from virtually every occupation requiring a state license, like chiropractic care, engineering, and real estate. Lifting these senselessly punitive bans would make it easier for ex-offenders to stay out of prison.

Our bill provides for a robust analysis of these Federal and State barriers with recommendations on what next steps we need to take. And these reviews are mandated to take place out in the open under public scrutiny.

The Enhanced Second Chance Act also spurs state-of-the-art research and study on offender reentry issues. We need to know who is most likely to recommit crimes when they are released, to better target our limited resources where they can do the most good. We need to study why some ex-offenders who seem to have the entire deck stacked against them are able to become successful and productive members of our society. We need to know what works and how we can replicate what works for others.

Our bill also provides a whole slew of common-sense proposals in the areas of job training, employment, education, post-release housing, civic rights, substance abuse, and prisoner mentoring--efforts and changes in law that we can do now. Some of these important provisions are included in the House bill, others are in addition to those efforts, but all are common-sense efforts in the art of the possible. Our goal is to do as much as possible right now.

Our Enhanced Second Chance Act is a next, natural step in our campaign against crime. Making a dent in recidivism rates is an enormous undertaking; one that requires action now and continued focus in the future. I commit to vigorously pushing this legislation as well as keeping an eye on what steps we need to take in the future. We need to realize that the problems facing ex-offenders are enormous and require sustained focus. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it.

I'm proud today to introduce the Enhanced Second Chance Act with Senator Specter and ask our colleagues to join with us in this vital effort.

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of our bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Confronting Methamphetamines Act of 2004.

Methamphetamine, meth, use is growing exponentially in parts of our country and is spreading across the country at an alarming rate. We must act aggressively to attack the meth problem with a long-term commitment of resources or we will soon have a national drug crisis on the scale of an epidemic.

Meth is an extremely dangerous and highly addictive drug. Individuals who use meth risk becoming addicted to this life-destroying drug with just one use. Meth use has ruined the lives of many people who prior to their addiction to meth were successful contributors to our society and our economy.

Meth use triggers an avalanche of other problems for addicts' families and our communities. The use of meth is often linked to child abuse and the destruction of families. It contributes substantially to the perpetration of violent crimes, particularly burglary and crimes of substantial cost and personal pain to the victims, including identity theft. The stories I have heard about meth users are horrible--parents so focused on feeding their habit that they forget their children are right there with them, hungry, and without any love or care. Users become aggressive, violent and unstable. Often, the kids end up users as well.

Sadly, our children are discovering meth, and the results will be devastating. According to a 2001 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly one in ten high school students have used meth. The statistics are clear: the problem is bad, and it's getting worse. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports that while the proportion of teens who know users of LSD, cocaine, and heroin has dropped sharply from last year, the percentage of teens who know a user of methamphetamines has risen from 12 percent in 2003 to 15 percent this year.

The devastation to our kids' lives is hitting our rural communities first. The Columbia University researchers also found that eighth graders living in rural America are 104 percent more likely to use amphetamines than eighth graders in urban areas.

And meth is not just a health and social problem; it is also an enormous environmental problem. There are two types of local meth labs: so-called ``super-labs,'' which are capable of manufacturing large volumes of methamphetamines and clandestine labs set up by users to manufacture small amounts of the drug for personal use. These clandestine labs can be set up in the woods, in hotel rooms or even in the back seat of a car. They can be

set up anywhere, but are usually located where there is little traffic or population.

These hazardous ``labs'' can go unnoticed for years, but they produce major chemical hazards and pose severe fire risk. Meth production generates extremely hazardous byproducts, such as anhydrous ammonia, ether, sulfuric acid, as well as other toxins that are volatile, corrosive, and poisonous. When these substances are illegally disposed of in rivers, streams and other dump areas, explosions and serious environmental damage can and does result. Our State and local environmental agencies are responsible to cleanup these hazardous sites and it is taking a toll on their resources.

The use of meth is spreading rapidly from the western region of the United States across the rural Midwest and to the east. The spreading availability of methamphetamine is illustrated by increasing numbers of meth seizures, arrests, indictments, and sentences. And those numbers are rising across the country. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, methamphetamine is widely available throughout the Pacific, Southwest, and West Central regions and is increasingly available in the Great Lakes and the Southeast.

Similarly, the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Community Epidemiology Working Group reports that, in 2002, methamphetamine indicators remained highest in West Coast areas and parts of the Southwest, as well as Hawaii. Meth abuse and the crimes associated with it are spreading in areas such as Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Texas, as well as the East Coast and mid-Atlantic regions. This problem, once perceived as a ``western state'' problem, has become a nationwide problem, growing at an extraordinary rate.

My State has shown that a cooperative effort--law enforcement working side-by-side with those handling cleanup, intervention, treatment, child and family support, drug courts and family drug courts, and education--is effective at addressing this problem. Thanks to the Washington Methamphetamine Initiative and the ``Methamphetamine Action Teams,'' multi-disciplinary teams situated in each county across the State, meth production was cut back by 25 percent last year. Washington State has dropped from second in the Nation to sixth in the production of meth. The comprehensive, holistic approach my State has taken to combat meth is working well, and I believe that our program can be a model for the national fight.

By making intervention, treatment and family support as important as arrests and prosecution, we are effectively overcoming the secondary problems that meth creates by addressing the root causes, not just the social symptoms. By taking this approach we are not simply growing prison populations and pushing the problem to regions not previously impacted by meth, but attacking the growth of the use of this terrible drug.

We in Washington State have also learned that laws restricting the sale of large quantities of precursor drugs such as ephedrine make it more difficult for users to produce meth, and this tactic has reduced the number of clandestine labs in the State.

This approach to fighting meth use has been very successful, but it takes money. And although there has been an explosion in the use of meth, Federal funding has been cut. Each year, States with a growing meth problem are required to go through a politicized process seeking Federal funding through the earmark process. And each year, the funds are being cut.

These challenges to our States mean only one thing: we need to make funding to combat meth permanent. Permanent Federal funding support for meth enforcement and clean-up is critical to the efforts of State and local law enforcement to reduce the use, manufacture and sale of meth.

That is why I am introducing the Confronting Methamphetamines Act of 2004. This bill will create a supplemental grant to augment the Department of Justice's Byrne Formula Grant Program to provide block grants to help States confront their meth problems.

Under my bill, States will be able to apply for a formula grant if they meet two prerequisites: the State must have a comprehensive, long term plan to address methamphetamine use, manufacture and sale; and the State legislature must commit to enacting laws to limit the sales of precursor products (the commercially available products used to make meth, such as ephedrine). Where a State has met these two requirements, that State will be eligible to receive a Federal formula grant.

States have discretion as to how to use the funds. The activities funded may include arrest, lab seizures and clean up, child and family support services, community based education, awareness and prevention, intervention, treatment, Drug Court and Family Drug Court, community policing, the hiring of specially trained law enforcement, State and local health and environmental department support, and prosecution.

The Confronting Methamphetamines Act also provides for planning grants, $100,000 per State, so States can develop long-term strategies to address meth. We have seen in Washington and in other States that comprehensive plans to address all aspects of meth--from use to manufacture to sale--have the best and most efficient results. Through this provision, I want to encourage States to consider the long-term situation when they take the initial steps in combating meth.

To assure that the best practices to confront meth deployed in our local communities are shared across the country, my bill requires the U.S. Attorney General to collect data, to establish a national clearinghouse for best practices in addressing the meth problem, and to provide technical assistance to States or local agencies.

Like the Byrne Formula Grants, distribution to eligible States will be based on State population. The supplemental allocation to an eligible State will be no less than the base amount of $250,000 or 0.25 percent of the amount available for the program, whichever is greater, with the remaining funds allocated to the other eligible States on the basis of the state's relative share of total U.S. population.

The bill authorizes $100 million per fiscal year 2005 and 2006, elevating the funding to $200 million for the subsequent three years, assuring that the funds are available as the meth problem grows and more States become plagued by the problem of meth.

I have received letters supporting this legislation from the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Washington State's Governor's office, representing State law enforcement, environmental protection, health and human services and the Washington State Methamphetamine Initiative, and the Pierce County Alliance, essentially the epicenter of Washington State's response to methamphetamines. These letters reflect the level and breadth of concern for our law enforcement, drug addiction care providers, the courts and environmental protection agencies.

We have to give a strong signal to the State and local governments that we recognize the meth problems that they are facing, we are committed to support long-term comprehensive strategies to confront the problem, and will assure availability of substantial federal funds to help confront this startlingly rapidly growing problem.

This legislation assures the funding and continuity of Federal support desperately needed by our State and local governments. It assures that States have the opportunity to develop a long-term comprehensive strategy to combat meth, and gives those on the front lines in this battle the flexibility to use the federal dollars as they see fit, consistent with their long-term plan. I urge the Senate to support this bill and plan to work aggressively with the other body to bring it into law as promptly as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the four letters of support be printed in the Record.

On Monday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the Trade Adjustment Assistance health coverage tax credit, HCTC. The report confirms what many in Congress have been saying since the HCTC program began--the credit is not enough, the program has several barriers to enrollment, the premiums are prohibitively high for some workers because of medical underwriting, and the program is very expensive to administer.

It is long past time for Congress to focus on the problems with the TAA health coverage tax credit. That is why I am introducing legislation today that will make much-needed improvements to the HCTC program. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act of 2004 offers solutions to many of the problems with the HCTC identified by GAO. This legislation will go a long way to make the TAA health care tax credit a realistic option for displaced workers and their families.

When Congress passed the Trade Act of 2002, we made a promise to American workers that the potential loss of jobs will not equal the loss of health care coverage. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to make good on that promise. For the last two years, I have heard from steel retirees and widows in my State about how unaffordable the TAA health care tax credit is. And I have been very frustrated, just as I was when this bill passed, that we were not able to make the credit more affordable and accessible for people who need it the most--laid- off workers and retirees who have very limited income.

For a good number of supporters of the Trade Act of 2002, the health insurance tax credit was the single most important factor in overcoming their concerns about giving the President fast- track authority to move trade agreements through Congress. In my own judgment, the fast-track would not have passed Congress without the health care tax credit. The TAA health credit was the trade-off to balance the President's authority.

Yet, the success many of us envisioned for the health care tax credit has not been realized through implementation. The number of people who have been able to access the health care tax credit over the last two years is extremely disappointing. As of July 2004, only 13,194 out of 229,044 who are eligible for the credit are enrolled in the program. That is less than six percent, which means that over 94 percent of those eligible are not participating.

I must say to my colleagues that Congress has had a hand in these disappointing enrollment figures. We have ignored every opportunity to improve the health coverage tax credit and enhance the lives of workers displaced by trade. Most recently, the members of this body voted against the Wyden-Coleman-Rockefeller-Baucus TAA amendment to the FSC/ ETI bill. Not only would this amendment have extended Trade Adjustment Assistance to service workers, it also would have addressed some of the problems GAO has identified with the health coverage credit.

The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act makes long overdue improvements to the TAA health care tax credit. First, this legislation addresses the issue of affordability. In addition to GAO, several consumer advocacy groups and research organizations--including the Commonwealth Fund, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Families USA--have cited affordability of the credit as the primary reason for low participation in the HCTC program. The bottom line is that a 65 percent subsidy is not enough. With a 65 percent credit, an eligible individual still has to pay an average of $1,714 out-of-pocket per year for single coverage. This figure is particularly astounding given the fact that the average worker, while actively employed and earning a paycheck, paid just $508 in 2003 for single employer- sponsored health insurance coverage. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act makes the credit more affordable by increasing the subsidy amount to 95 percent.

This legislation also addresses the issue of affordability by placing limits on the use of the individual market, as Congress intended under the original law. The Trade Act of 2002 specified that the health insurance credit could not be used for the purchase of health insurance coverage in the individual market except for HCTC-eligible workers who previously had a private, non- group coverage policy 30 days prior to separation from employment. However, States have been allowed by this Administration to create state-based coverage options in the individual market for any HCTC beneficiaries, including those who did not have individual market coverage one month prior to separation from employment.

Because of the Administration's interpretation of the law, there are people who had employer-based coverage prior to separation from employment who are now being covered in the individual market. This was not the intent of the law. To make matters worse, this interpretation undermines the consumer protections set forth in the law because individual market plans are allowed to vary premiums based on age and medical status. In one State GAO reviewed for its report, because of medical underwriting, HCTC recipients in less-than-perfect health were charged almost six times the premiums charged to recipients rated in the healthiest category. The legislation I am introducing today addresses this problem by clarifying that states can only designate individual market coverage within guidelines of 30-day restriction and by requiring individual market plans to be community-rated.

Second, this legislation guarantees that eligible workers will have access to comprehensive group health coverage. Group coverage is what people know. The vast majority of laid-off workers and PBGC retirees had employer-sponsored group coverage prior to losing their jobs or pension benefits. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act designates the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) as a qualified group option in every State, so that displaced workers nationwide will have access to the same type of affordable, comprehensive coverage they were used to when they were employed.

Third, the TAA Health Coverage Act clarifies the three month continuous coverage requirement. Under the original TAA statute, displaced workers are required to maintain three months of continuous health insurance coverage in order to qualify for certain consumer protections. Those protections are guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition exclusion, comparable premiums, and comparable benefits. Congress intended this 3 month period to be counted as the 3 months prior to separation from employment. However, the Administration has interpreted the 3 month requirement as 3 months of health insurance coverage prior to enrollment in the new health plan, which usually is after separation from employment and after certification of TAA eligibility. Many laid-off workers and PBGC recipients cannot afford to maintain health coverage in the months between losing their jobs and TAA certification and, therefore, lose eligibility for the statutorily provided consumer protections. This legislation corrects this problem by clarifying that 3 months of continuous coverage means 3 months prior to separation from employment.

Fourth, this bill allows spouses and dependents to receive the health coverage tax credit. Over the last 2 years, younger spouses and dependents of Medicare-eligible individuals have not been able to receive the subsidy because eligibility runs through the worker or retiree. This technicality is unfair to individuals who rely on health coverage through their spouses or parents. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act allows younger spouses and dependent children to retain eligibility for the health coverage tax credit in the event the qualified beneficiary becomes eligible for Medicare.

Finally, this legislation streamlines the HCTC enrollment process and makes it easier for trade-displaced workers to access health insurance coverage. According to GAO, two of the factors contributing to low participation include a complicated and fragmented enrollment process and the inability of workers to pay 100 percent of the premium during the 3 to 6 months they are waiting to enroll in advance payment. This legislation includes a presumptive eligibility provision that allows displaced workers to enroll in a qualified health plan and receive the HCTC immediately upon application to the Department of Labor for certification. There is also a provision which directs the Treasury Secretary to pay 100 percent of the cost of premiums directly to the health plans during the months TAA-eligible workers are waiting for advance payment to begin.

As a former Governor, I know how important Trade Adjustment Assistance is to individuals who have lost their jobs due to trade. In West Virginia, thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of trade policy. While adjusting to the loss of employment, these individuals still have to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and care for their families. Finding affordable health care adds a significant burden to their worries. The TAA health coverage tax credit is designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage during this very difficult transition.

Unfortunately, the HCTC program is not living up to its potential. The Government Accountability Office has given us a very specific diagnosis of the problems. Now, it is up to us to fix them. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act builds upon the Trade Act of 2002 and the lessons we have learned since in order to make the health coverage credit workable for eligible individuals and their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.