Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008

Mr. President, today the Senate is poised to confirm two more nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench: Cathy Seibel for the Southern District of New York and Glenn T. Suddaby for the Northern District of New York. These nominees each have the support of the New York Senators, who worked with the White House to identify a slate of consensus nominees. I thank both Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton for their work in connection with these nominees.

When these nominees are confirmed, that will bring the number of judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate during the slightly more than three years I have served as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to 158. Coincidentally, the number of President Bush's judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate during the almost four and one-half years of Republican control totaled 158.

I have always said that we would treat this President's nominees more fairly than Republicans treated President Clinton's. And we have. Indeed, we have matched the confirmation record that Republicans achieved for a President from their own party. We have not pocket filibustered more than 60 of this President's nominees. We are not going to return 17 circuit court nominees without action to this President as the Republican-led Senate did to President Clinton. We have not doubled the judicial vacancies and forced them above 100 nationwide, nor have we doubled the number of circuit court vacancies. To the contrary, we have cut judicial vacancies by more than half, and reduced circuit court vacancies by more than two-thirds from a high point of 32, to a low of just nine throughout all 13 Federal circuits.

The 100 nominations we confirmed in only 17 months in 2001 and 2002, while working with a most uncooperative White House, reduced the vacancies by 45 percent by the end of 2002. With 40 additional confirmations last year, and another 18 this year, the Senate under Democratic leadership has now confirmed 158 lifetime appointments to the Federal bench nominated by President Bush. Nearly half of the judicial nominees the Senate has confirmed while I have served as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee have filled vacancies classified by the Administrative Office of the Courts as judicial emergency vacancies. Eighteen of the 27 circuit court nominees confirmed while I have chaired the committee filled judicial emergency vacancies, including nine of the 10 circuit court nominees confirmed this Congress. This is another aspect of the problem created by Republicans that we have worked hard to improve. When President Bush took office there were 28 judicial emergency vacancies. Those have been reduced by more than half.

In the 2 full years that preceded my returning as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2007, with a Republican chairman and a Republican Senate majority working to confirm the judicial nominees of a Republican President, 54 nominations were confirmed. After the two confirmations today, we will reach 58 judicial confirmations for this Congress. Truth be told, President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed faster by the Democratic majority than by the previous Republican majority of the Senate.

Judicial vacancies have been reduced from 10 percent as we made the transition to the Bush administration to 4.5 percent today. I wish we could say the same about unemployment, the cost of gasoline, food prices, health care costs, about inflation and the national debt, but all those indicators have been moving in the wrong direction, as is consumer confidence and the percentage of Americans who see the country as on the wrong track.

Republican critics ignore the progress we have made on judicial vacancies. They also ignore the crisis that they had created by not considering circuit nominees in 1996, 1997 and 1998. They ignore the fact that they refused to confirm a single circuit nominee during the entire 1996 session. They ignore the fact that they returned 17 circuit court nominees without action to the White House in 2000. They ignore the public criticism of Chief Justice Rehnquist to their actions during those years. They ignore the fact that they were responsible for more than doubling circuit court vacancies during their pocket filibusters of Clinton nominees or that we have reduced those circuit court vacancies by more than two thirds.

In fact, as the Presidential elections in 2000 drew closer, and when the judicial vacancy rate stood at 7.2 percent, then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch declared that ``There is and has been no judicial vacancy crisis,'' and that 7.2 percent was a ``rather low percentage of vacancies that shows the judiciary is not suffering from an overwhelming number of vacancies.'' As a result of Republican inaction, the vacancy rate continued to rise, reaching 10 percent when the Democrats took over the Senate majority in 2001.

Democrats have reversed course. We have cut circuit court vacancies by more than two-thirds, from a high of 32. With the confirmation of two nominees today, the judicial vacancy rate will be just 4.5 percent.

I have yet to hear praise from a single Republican for our work in lowering vacancies. I also have yet to hear in the Republican talking points any explanation for their actions during the 1996 congressional session, when the Republican Senate majority refused to allow the Senate to confirm even one circuit court judge. I have yet to hear explanations for why they did not proceed with the nominations of Bonnie Campbell, Allen Snyder and so many others.

I hope the American people will not witness another week in which Senate Republicans attempt to make a partisan, election-year issue out of the confirmation of judicial nominations. This is the one area where the numbers have actually improved during the Bush presidency while the life of hardworking Americans has only gotten more difficult. The Treasury Secretary has been quite sobering about the financial difficulties still ahead. Inflation is now on the rise, jobs are being lost, gas prices have skyrocketed, food prices have soared, health care is unaffordable and yet Republicans want come to the floor to pick a partisan fight about the pace of judicial confirmations while the Senate proceeds to confirm two more judges.

Americans have seen the unemployment rate rise to 5.5 percent and trillions of dollars in budget surplus have turned into trillions of dollars of debt. Last week General Motors announced layoffs. The annual budget deficit is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the dollar has lost half its value, and the costs of the Iraq war and interest on the national debt amounts to $1.5 billion a day.

When President Bush took office, the price of gas was $1.42 a gallon. Today, it is over $4.00 a gallon. The housing crisis and mortgage crisis threatens the economy. The stock market dropped 2,000 points in the first six months of the year and went under 11,000.

Hardworking Americans trying to do the best they can for their families are more concerned about critical issues they face in their lives each day. They are concerned about affording to heat their homes this winter. They are concerned about gas prices that have skyrocketed so high they do not know how they will afford to drive to work. They are concerned about the steepest decline in home values in two decades. More and more Americans are affected by rising unemployment, with job losses for the first six consecutive months of this year tallying over 438,000. Americans are worried about soaring health care costs, rising health insurance costs, the rising costs of education and rising food prices. The partisan, election-year rhetoric over judicial nominations, at a time when judicial vacancies have been significantly reduced, is a reflection of misplaced priorities.

Our progress today in confirming two more nominations for lifetime appointments shows that when the President works with home State Senators to identify consensus, well-qualified nominees, we can make progress, even this late in an election year. I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today.

The Federal judiciary is the one arm of our Government that should never be political or politicized, regardless of who sits in the White House. I will continue in this Congress, and with a new President in the next Congress, to work with Senators from both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Federal judiciary remains independent and able to provide justice to all Americans, without fear or favor.

Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to consider a number of bipartisan measures. Several are important items on which Republicans had already delayed consideration since June. They include the bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, a bipartisan OPEN FOIA bill and the bipartisan William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. In addition, we had before us the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act, the Fugitive Information Networked Database Act, the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act and the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act.

I had hoped that last week we would be able to report these measures. A few words about one of them--the legislation to reauthorize the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act. This bill would strengthen our efforts to stop the abhorrent practice of human trafficking around the world. Our bill enhances protections for victims of these terrible crimes. Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery, involving victims who are forced, defrauded or coerced into sexual or labor exploitation. These practices continue to victimize hundreds of thousands around the world, mostly women and children, and we must do all that we can to be more effective in confronting this continuing problem. I thank Senator Biden for his leadership. Unfortunately, Republican partisan antics have gotten in the way of progress on this front and delayed the Judiciary Committee and the Senate from acting on this measure.

Rather than meet and work on the human trafficking bill and the others, a number of the Republican Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee came to the Senate floor while Republicans objected to the committee meeting. That was too bad. It set back our legislative agenda.

Republicans previously boycotted business meetings for the month of February when we were trying to report judicial nominations. That only slowed our progress. Then, when we tried to expedite consideration of two circuit court nominations in May, they objected. Those judicial nominations were finally confirmed late in June.

I look forward to a time when Senators from the other side of the aisle return to work with us on the important legislative business of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate. It would be refreshing if they recognized the progress we have made on filling judicial vacancies.

When they do, when they show cooperation, when we are able to make progress on our legislative agenda, at that point I will be able to turn my attention from concentrating on that legislative agenda and consider, along with the majority leader, whether there are additional judicial nominees we might be able to consider and confirm this year. It will be difficult to do so, especially in connection with nominees recently received for whom we do not have an ABA peer review rating at this time.

Let me give you some flavor of how petty the obstructionism from Republicans has become. I introduced at the request of the Chief Justice a bill to extend authorization for the Supreme Court police to remain in operation, S. 3296. I have been trying to clear this measure for passage since June 19. Although our Ranking Republican on the Committee cosponsored, he has not been able to clear it on his side of the aisle.

I have been seeking for months to find a way to extend the EB-5 investor visa pilot program that brings benefits

not only to Vermont but to Pennsylvania and Iowa, and elsewhere. Authority for this worthwhile program that leads to investments here in the United States expires in September. My efforts to clear H.R. 5569, a bill to extend the program for 5 years, have been stymied by Republicans who insist on using this bill as a vehicle for other immigration-related matters and have ensnarled it in a series of competing concerns.

More broadly, the Judiciary Committee has worked throughout this Congress to advance the priorities of Americans. We have reported legislation to support local law enforcement to make our cities and towns safe from crime that has now gone back up after consistent declines in the 1990s, like the COPS Improvements Act, S. 368, and my bill to extend the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, S. 2511. We have reported legislation to combat fraud and corruption, like the War Profiteering Prevention Act, S. 119, and the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act, S. 1946. We have reported legislation to protect the civil rights and voting rights of Americans, like the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, S. 535, and Senator Obama's Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, S. 453. We have reported legislation to protect Americans' data privacy like my Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, S. 495. We have reported measures to provide the Federal judiciary with increased resources both in terms of salary restoration and additional judgeships, S. 1638 and S. 2774. We have reported intellectual property measures like the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act, S. 2913. And, of course, we have reported the bill to confront the OPEC cartel, NOPEC, S. 879. I look forward to a time when Republicans work with us on these matters instead of obstructing us at every turn.

Legislation with broad bipartisan support that I have managed to move through the Judiciary Committee has then been stalled on the Senate floor by the obstruction of a few Republicans. Of the bills that have been reported from the Judiciary Committee this Congress, Republicans have blocked legislation to support runaway and homeless young people, S. 2982; to help law enforcement cope with mentally ill offenders, S. 2304; to support the investigation and prosecution of civil rights era murders left unsolved for too long, S. 535; and to protect our children from the scourges of drugs, child pornography, and child exploitation, such as S. 1210, S. 1738 and S. 2344. I joined the Majority Leader in introducing a measure yesterday that combines some of these Committee- approved and House-passed bipartisan measures into one bill, S. 3297. These should have been consent items and already been considered and passed by the Senate.

The list goes on. I say, again, Republican obstructionists have blocked legislation to ensure that law enforcement officers can obtain bulletproof vests, to give much needed resources to State and local law enforcement, to break the grip of the OPEC cartel on oil prices, to prohibit war profiteering, to train prosecutors, and to teach children to use the internet safely, just to reiterate a few examples. And that is just legislation reported by the Judiciary Committee. Every Committee in the Senate has seen simple legislation intended to help the American people in difficult times stymied by Republican obstruction.

Republicans have become masters of true obstruction, boycotting business meetings of the Judiciary Committee and cutting short important hearings, including a hearing at which two courageous women from Pennsylvania were testifying about severe injuries they suffered to help us understand the plight of hardworking Americans whose legitimate grievances have been rejected by a pro-business Supreme Court. When Republicans obstructed a meeting last week where we could have made progress on reducing youth violence, protecting women and children from human trafficking, and helping those who serve our country to cope with unmanageable debt, that was just the latest example of a pattern that has become all too familiar.

Sadly, we have seen Republican obstructionism since the beginning of this Congress, with Republicans using filibuster after filibuster to thwart the will of the majority of the Senate from doing the business of the American people. Republican filibusters prevented Senate majorities from passing the climate change bill; the Employee Free Choice Act; the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; the DC Voting Rights Act; the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007; the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008; the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008; and the Consumer- First Energy Act.

These are critical pieces of legislation to address urgent priorities like the energy crisis, the environment, voting rights, health care, and fair wages for working men and women. All of them had the support of the majority of the Senate. And all were blocked by a minority of Republican Senators bent on preventing us from making progress. Republicans have now filibustered more than 80 pieces of legislation in this Congress. We can only imagine what we could have accomplished in this Congress with cooperation rather than obstruction.

This long list of priorities unaddressed because of the Republicans in Congress would be even longer if we were to include the many important bills President Bush has vetoed since the beginning of this Congress. This list includes legislation to fund stem cell research to fight debilitating and deadly diseases, to extend and expand the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program that would have provided health insurance to more of the millions of American children without it, to set a timetable for bringing American troops home from the disastrous war in Iraq, and to ban waterboarding and help restore America as a beacon for the rule of law.

The American people are going through increasingly difficult times, and their Congress should be working to make their lives better. Time is running short in this Congress. It is past time for Republicans to stop their foot stomping and work with us to get things done. That is what I have been trying to do throughout this Congress. I hope, despite their recent antics, that Republicans will reconsider and join with me to make progress on legislative matters of concern to the American people.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague from New Mexico in introducing the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will authorize continued Federal support for cooperation between the criminal justice and mental health systems on jail diversion, correctional treatment, and community reentry of offenders with a mental illness, and cross-training of criminal justice and mental health personnel. With full funding, this proposal has the potential to achieve significant reforms in the treatment of offenders diagnosed with a mental illness.

I commend Senator Domenici for his leadership on this bill and on many other initiatives to improve our Nation's mental health systems. I also welcome the support and leadership of Representatives Scott and Forbes in the House of Representatives. We all agree that this legislation can promote cooperative initiatives that will significantly reduce recidivism and improve treatment outcomes.

Based on the most recent studies by the Bureau of Justice, more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem in 2005, including 56 percent of inmates in State prisons, 45 percent of Federal prisoners and 64 percent of jail inmates. The high rate of symptoms of mental illness among jail inmates may reflect the role of local jails in the criminal justice system, which operate as locally- run correctional facilities that receive offenders pending arraignment, trial, conviction or sentencing. Among other functions, local jails also hold mentally ill persons pending their relocation in appropriate mental health facilities.

Far too often, individuals encounter the criminal justice system when what is really needed is treatment and support for mental illness. Families often resort to the police in desperation in order to obtain treatment for a loved one suffering from an extreme episode of a mental illness. During such extreme distress, families may face no other alternative, because persons with symptoms such as paranoia, exaggerated actions or impaired judgment may be unable to recognize the need for treatment.

It is unconscionable, and may well be unconstitutional, for these vulnerable individuals to be further marginalized once they are incarcerated. Too often, they are denied even minimal treatment because of inadequate resources.

Most mentally ill offenders who come into contact with the criminal justice system are charged with low-level, nonviolent crimes. Once behind bars, they may well face an environment that further exacerbates symptoms of mental illness, which might otherwise be manageable with proper treatment. Caught in a revolving door, they may soon be back in prison as a result of insufficient and inadequate transitional services when they are released.

This bill reauthorizes critical programs to move away from troubled systems that often result in the escalating incarceration of individuals with mental illness. Through this legislation, State and local correctional facilities will be able to create appropriate, cost- effective solutions. Low-level, nonviolent mentally ill offenders will have greater access to continuity of care.

Congress must also address an unfunded mandate that has been imposed on the States for decades. In Estelle v. Gamble in 1967, the Supreme Court held that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of inmates is unconstitutional, ``whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.'' In Ruiz v. Estelle in 1980, the Supreme Court established minimum standards for mental health services in correctional settings. Yet more than twenty years later, Federal, State, and local facilities still do not have nearly enough resources to come even close to meeting these constitutional requirements.

Congress must do its part to assist State and local governments in meeting this burden. We cannot tolerate a system that fails to meet constitutional safeguards, or that fails to dedicate resources effectively so that people will get help instead of jail time. As a result of State budget cuts, more and more communities are looking to the Federal Government for support.

This call for change can not be ignored. We have seen too many news stories reflecting the need for action on this issue. A New York Times editorial by Bernard Harcourt on January 15, 2007, highlighted problems facing the mentally ill behind bars, noting two extreme examples in different parts of the country. In August 2006, a prison inmate, described by authorities as ``floridly psychotic,'' died in Michigan shackled to a concrete slab, waiting for a mental health transfer that never happened. Six months later, the head of Florida's social services department resigned in the face of charges for failing to transfer severely mentally ill jail inmates to State hospitals.

To date, we have seen only a fraction of the possible potential under this legislation, because only 50 planning and implementation grants have been awarded. Because of limited Federal funding, only 11 percent of applicants were able to receive one of these grants for which there is high demand. In Massachusetts, the Norfolk District Attorney's office received one of the planning grants. Right now, the office is working hard to implement a program to ensure that a trained mental health professional will serve in police departments, so that a qualified person on the scene can assist in a situation involving a mentally ill person.

The program will also reduce the likelihood that a mentally ill person charged with a low-level crime will be inappropriately jailed, and will give such persons the treatment they need and provide life skills training, housing placement, vocational training and job placement. Several local mental health centers have already expressed their support for the program and their willingness to cooperate in providing valuable services to this long-neglected population.

The expanded funding in this bill could help support ongoing efforts like

the Massachusetts Mental Health Diversion & Integration Program, MMHDIP, which is part of the Center for Mental Health Services Research at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The center for Mental Health Services Research has supported a series of research and training programs to assist persons with mental illness who come in contact with the criminal justice system and have worked with police departments in Boston, Worcester, and Attleboro. The center is also working on programs to develop evidence on which future practices may be based. They also disseminate best practices for crisis intervention and risk management to police, courts, probation, prosecutors, defense attorneys, schools, and social service providers. The goal of the program is to reduce reliance on the criminal justice system as an access point for social service provision, thereby freeing police and other portions of the criminal justice system to more effectively fulfill their public safety function.

The current programs in Massachusetts reflect the continuing legacy of the nationwide movement that began when Dorothea Dix entered an East Cambridge Jail in 1841. Discovering that the mentally ill inmates were being housed together in terrible conditions without any heat, Dorothea began documenting prison conditions for the mentally ill throughout our Commonwealth. Her advocacy, and her determination to pursue ideas that seemed radical at the time, achieved significant reforms in Massachusetts. She went on to lead the first national legislation to provide for the mentally ill. Today, we are still a long way to achieve the goals set forth by Dorothea so many years ago.

In every State, interactions between law enforcement and individuals suffering from mental illness continue to rise and the need for effective solutions is critical. This legislation will continue to ``foster local collaborations'' between law enforcement and mental health providers. What works in one community will not necessarily work or be desired in another--solutions must take into account the existing problem as well as the social and political dynamics within each community. With so many complex issues involved at the intersection of mental illness and the criminal justice system, no magic solution will solve the problems faced in communities across America. This bill encourages funding for specialized programs that will most effectively address the needs of these local communities. With this legislation, Congress will join local communities in their response to this problem.

In addition, members of State and local law enforcement need access to training and other alternatives to improve safety and responsiveness. The bill reauthorizes the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment Program and increases the funding to $75 million a year. The legislation also authorizes $10 million for grants to States and local governments to train law enforcement personnel on procedures to identify and respond more appropriately to persons with mental illnesses, and to develop specialized receiving centers to assess individuals in custody.

In his last public bill signing in 1963, President Kennedy signed a $3 billion authorization bill to create a national network of community mental health facilities across the country. With the escalation of the Vietnam War, not one penny of the $3 billion was ever appropriated. Now, decades later, we face a crisis in which far too many mentally ill individuals are facing jail time rather than treatment.

Last year, more than 1 million persons with serious mental illnesses were arrested. Noting the breadth of this national problem, Judge Leifman of the Criminal Division of the Miami-Dade County Court has stated that, ``Jails and prisons have become the asylums of the new millennium.''

The broad support for this legislation--ranging from the Council of State Governments, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Sheriffs Association, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Council of State Governments, the Campaign for Mental Health Reform and Mental Health America--demonstrates that it will provide much-needed support to help solve this complex problem. The courts, law enforcement, corrections and mental health communities have all come together in support of this legislation, and Congress must respond.

Individuals and their loved ones struggle with countless challenges and barriers during a mental health crisis. With this bill, Congress can provide significant support to needed cooperation efforts between law enforcement and mental health experts. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, so that we can achieve its enactment before the end of this current session of Congress.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague from New Mexico in introducing the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will authorize continued Federal support for cooperation between the criminal justice and mental health systems on jail diversion, correctional treatment, and community reentry of offenders with a mental illness, and cross-training of criminal justice and mental health personnel. With full funding, this proposal has the potential to achieve significant reforms in the treatment of offenders diagnosed with a mental illness.

I commend Senator Domenici for his leadership on this bill and on many other initiatives to improve our Nation's mental health systems. I also welcome the support and leadership of Representatives Scott and Forbes in the House of Representatives. We all agree that this legislation can promote cooperative initiatives that will significantly reduce recidivism and improve treatment outcomes.

Based on the most recent studies by the Bureau of Justice, more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem in 2005, including 56 percent of inmates in State prisons, 45 percent of Federal prisoners and 64 percent of jail inmates. The high rate of symptoms of mental illness among jail inmates may reflect the role of local jails in the criminal justice system, which operate as locally- run correctional facilities that receive offenders pending arraignment, trial, conviction or sentencing. Among other functions, local jails also hold mentally ill persons pending their relocation in appropriate mental health facilities.

Far too often, individuals encounter the criminal justice system when what is really needed is treatment and support for mental illness. Families often resort to the police in desperation in order to obtain treatment for a loved one suffering from an extreme episode of a mental illness. During such extreme distress, families may face no other alternative, because persons with symptoms such as paranoia, exaggerated actions or impaired judgment may be unable to recognize the need for treatment.

It is unconscionable, and may well be unconstitutional, for these vulnerable individuals to be further marginalized once they are incarcerated. Too often, they are denied even minimal treatment because of inadequate resources.

Most mentally ill offenders who come into contact with the criminal justice system are charged with low-level, nonviolent crimes. Once behind bars, they may well face an environment that further exacerbates symptoms of mental illness, which might otherwise be manageable with proper treatment. Caught in a revolving door, they may soon be back in prison as a result of insufficient and inadequate transitional services when they are released.

This bill reauthorizes critical programs to move away from troubled systems that often result in the escalating incarceration of individuals with mental illness. Through this legislation, State and local correctional facilities will be able to create appropriate, cost- effective solutions. Low-level, nonviolent mentally ill offenders will have greater access to continuity of care.

Congress must also address an unfunded mandate that has been imposed on the States for decades. In Estelle v. Gamble in 1967, the Supreme Court held that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of inmates is unconstitutional, ``whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.'' In Ruiz v. Estelle in 1980, the Supreme Court established minimum standards for mental health services in correctional settings. Yet more than twenty years later, Federal, State, and local facilities still do not have nearly enough resources to come even close to meeting these constitutional requirements.

Congress must do its part to assist State and local governments in meeting this burden. We cannot tolerate a system that fails to meet constitutional safeguards, or that fails to dedicate resources effectively so that people will get help instead of jail time. As a result of State budget cuts, more and more communities are looking to the Federal Government for support.

This call for change can not be ignored. We have seen too many news stories reflecting the need for action on this issue. A New York Times editorial by Bernard Harcourt on January 15, 2007, highlighted problems facing the mentally ill behind bars, noting two extreme examples in different parts of the country. In August 2006, a prison inmate, described by authorities as ``floridly psychotic,'' died in Michigan shackled to a concrete slab, waiting for a mental health transfer that never happened. Six months later, the head of Florida's social services department resigned in the face of charges for failing to transfer severely mentally ill jail inmates to State hospitals.

To date, we have seen only a fraction of the possible potential under this legislation, because only 50 planning and implementation grants have been awarded. Because of limited Federal funding, only 11 percent of applicants were able to receive one of these grants for which there is high demand. In Massachusetts, the Norfolk District Attorney's office received one of the planning grants. Right now, the office is working hard to implement a program to ensure that a trained mental health professional will serve in police departments, so that a qualified person on the scene can assist in a situation involving a mentally ill person.

The program will also reduce the likelihood that a mentally ill person charged with a low-level crime will be inappropriately jailed, and will give such persons the treatment they need and provide life skills training, housing placement, vocational training and job placement. Several local mental health centers have already expressed their support for the program and their willingness to cooperate in providing valuable services to this long-neglected population.

The expanded funding in this bill could help support ongoing efforts like

the Massachusetts Mental Health Diversion & Integration Program, MMHDIP, which is part of the Center for Mental Health Services Research at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The center for Mental Health Services Research has supported a series of research and training programs to assist persons with mental illness who come in contact with the criminal justice system and have worked with police departments in Boston, Worcester, and Attleboro. The center is also working on programs to develop evidence on which future practices may be based. They also disseminate best practices for crisis intervention and risk management to police, courts, probation, prosecutors, defense attorneys, schools, and social service providers. The goal of the program is to reduce reliance on the criminal justice system as an access point for social service provision, thereby freeing police and other portions of the criminal justice system to more effectively fulfill their public safety function.

The current programs in Massachusetts reflect the continuing legacy of the nationwide movement that began when Dorothea Dix entered an East Cambridge Jail in 1841. Discovering that the mentally ill inmates were being housed together in terrible conditions without any heat, Dorothea began documenting prison conditions for the mentally ill throughout our Commonwealth. Her advocacy, and her determination to pursue ideas that seemed radical at the time, achieved significant reforms in Massachusetts. She went on to lead the first national legislation to provide for the mentally ill. Today, we are still a long way to achieve the goals set forth by Dorothea so many years ago.

In every State, interactions between law enforcement and individuals suffering from mental illness continue to rise and the need for effective solutions is critical. This legislation will continue to ``foster local collaborations'' between law enforcement and mental health providers. What works in one community will not necessarily work or be desired in another--solutions must take into account the existing problem as well as the social and political dynamics within each community. With so many complex issues involved at the intersection of mental illness and the criminal justice system, no magic solution will solve the problems faced in communities across America. This bill encourages funding for specialized programs that will most effectively address the needs of these local communities. With this legislation, Congress will join local communities in their response to this problem.

In addition, members of State and local law enforcement need access to training and other alternatives to improve safety and responsiveness. The bill reauthorizes the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment Program and increases the funding to $75 million a year. The legislation also authorizes $10 million for grants to States and local governments to train law enforcement personnel on procedures to identify and respond more appropriately to persons with mental illnesses, and to develop specialized receiving centers to assess individuals in custody.

In his last public bill signing in 1963, President Kennedy signed a $3 billion authorization bill to create a national network of community mental health facilities across the country. With the escalation of the Vietnam War, not one penny of the $3 billion was ever appropriated. Now, decades later, we face a crisis in which far too many mentally ill individuals are facing jail time rather than treatment.

Last year, more than 1 million persons with serious mental illnesses were arrested. Noting the breadth of this national problem, Judge Leifman of the Criminal Division of the Miami-Dade County Court has stated that, ``Jails and prisons have become the asylums of the new millennium.''

The broad support for this legislation--ranging from the Council of State Governments, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Sheriffs Association, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Council of State Governments, the Campaign for Mental Health Reform and Mental Health America--demonstrates that it will provide much-needed support to help solve this complex problem. The courts, law enforcement, corrections and mental health communities have all come together in support of this legislation, and Congress must respond.

Individuals and their loved ones struggle with countless challenges and barriers during a mental health crisis. With this bill, Congress can provide significant support to needed cooperation efforts between law enforcement and mental health experts. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, so that we can achieve its enactment before the end of this current session of Congress.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss my vote on July 28 against cloture--to end debate--on the motion to proceed to S. 3297, the so-called Reid omnibus bill or ``Coburn package.'' As I stated on the Senate floor Monday, July 28, it is my inclination that the majority leader called for a vote on cloture on proceeding to this bill in order to dislodge the pending legislation on oil speculation. By using his position of power, he seeks to force the Senate to prematurely move away from the No. 1 issue facing the people from my State and the Nation namely energy legislation.

I did not support cloture to move to the Reid omnibus bill not because I do not support many of its provisions, rather because I believe we should complete work on energy legislation before moving on to other matters. Further, I am seeking my right as a U.S. Senator to offer amendments to a bill in a fair and balanced legislative process.

For instance, Senator Kohl and I had a bipartisan amendment prepared to offer to the speculation bill that would have brought OPEC nations under U.S. antitrust laws to prohibit them from meeting in a room, lowering production and supply, and thus raising prices. Unfortunately, this effort was denied by the majority leader's blocking of amendments by filling the so-called amendment tree, disallowing mine and a number of other amendments that ought to be considered.

This procedure is nothing new for this majority leader who has filled the amendment tree on 15 occasions in the current 110th Congress, surpassing all other majority leaders in modern history. As a result of the majority leader's curtailing Senate procedure and amendments, I have been faced with voting against cloture on measures I would have ordinarily supported including this past Saturday's vote on LIHEAP. I have also opposed cloture in instances such as the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill which was considered the first week of June--2 to 6. In that case, the majority leader filled the amendment tree at the first opportunity and filed cloture on the bill without ever allowing consideration of amendments. The 5-day debate culminated in a fait accompli cloture vote that failed on June 6.

Most recently, I voted against cloture to move to the Reid omnibus bill that was a conglomeration of legislation that has been described as non-controversial and may benefit a wide variety of interests. As I stated on the Senate floor on Monday, July 28, I am supportive of most, if not all of the substance in this bill. In fact, I am a cosponsor of six of the items.

I support and have worked to pass a number of the Judiciary Committee-related bills in the proposed omnibus. For example, I am an original cosponsor of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act, S. 2982, which makes changes in the grant program for centers for runaway youths. I am also a cosponsor of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008, S. 2304, which would provide grants for the improved mental health treatment and services provided to offenders with mental illness. In addition, I am a cosponsor of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, S. 535, which authorizes funding to solve pre-1970 civil rights crimes. Moreover, in committee, I supported a Federal commission to commemorate the bicentennial of the writing of the Star-Spangled Banner and the War of 1812, S. 1079.

Additionally, I voted in favor of the following child protection bills which were passed by the Judiciary Committee: The Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2008, S. 1738, which authorizes grants to combat child exploitation; and the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007, S. 1210, which extends a grant program directed at drug-endangered children.

I directed my staff to work to clear the child exploitation bills from the omnibus package in the same manner I worked to pass the Adam Walsh Act without extraneous add-ons during the 109th Congress. To that end, my staff worked with Senator Coburn's staff to draft a proposed compromise child exploitation bill that includes the key provisions of the child pornography and exploitation legislation in the proposed omnibus, as well as important legislation to strengthen the powers of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the SAFE Act, which was omitted from the omnibus bill.

My support is also invested in efforts to maintain the natural beauty of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed while simultaneously preserving its resources for the communities it serves. S. 2707, The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails Network Continuing Authorization Act, will permanently authorize appropriations for these vital programs. I cosponsored this legislation because I believe it is a critical organization whose mission to protect the bay is vital for the communities affected by this watershed.

Another environmental act I have fervently supported and of which I am an original cosponsor, is S. 496, the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008. The bill renews the Appalachian Regional Commission for 5 years--2007-2011--and authorizes $510 million to be appropriated over that timeframe for the Commission's economic development activities in distressed rural counties.

Numerous health care provisions I have worked hard for can also be found in this package, including S. 1382, which establishes a registry of those suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The registry will gather data about those who are diagnosed with the disease to better understand and research the illness. As Ranking Member of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education--LHHS--Appropriations Subcommittee, I support research and an ALS registry. I worked to provide $39 million for NIH research of ALS in 2008 and $2.8 million to plan the ALS registry.

I am also a cosponsor of S. 1183, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, to expand paralysis research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and set up a network to allow patients and their families to quickly learn the result of clinical trials on paralysis rehabilitation drugs. The LHHS fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill provided $64 million for NIH spinal cord research.

The package also included bills, H.R. 3112, S. 1810 intended to create a new Federal grant program to pay for information and support services regarding Down syndrome and other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions. While awaiting these authorization bills, I have worked with Senator Harkin to get a jump start on these much-needed activities by including $1 million to establish the congenital disabilities program in the fiscal year 2009 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill. In addition, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee provided almost $1 million to the CDC in fiscal year 2009 for awareness activities related to Down syndrome.

One of the bills, H.R. 477, would permit the issuing of grants to states for stroke care systems. As ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to increase CDC funding for heart disease and stroke activities in the States to over $50 million and NIH funding for stroke research to over $340 million in fiscal year 2008.

Another bill, S 1375, would establish a grant program for services to mothers suffering from postpartum depression. As ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with Chairman Harkin to include $4.9 million for a first-time motherhood initiative within the maternal and child health block grant.

I also support S. 675, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2007. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires 100 percent closed captioning for all new English broadcast programming by January 1, 2006. That deadline has come and gone. There are not enough real time writers and captioners to meet this unfunded mandate out in the workforce. Furthermore, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires 100 percent closed captioning for all new Spanish broadcast programming by January 1, 2010. America is very far from achieving this goal. S. 675 will assist with training the workforce to provide closed captioning for the 30 million Americans who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.

I support H.R. 3320, the Support for the Museum of the History of Polish Jews Act of 2007, which requires assistance from the Department of State to support the development of a permanent collection at the Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw, Poland. It is in the national interest of the United States to encourage the preservation and protection of artifacts associated with the heritage of U.S. citizens who trace their forbearers to other countries and to encourage the collection and dissemination of knowledge about that heritage. Most recently, I traveled to Poland on August 27, 2007, and observed fist hand the importance of museums that examine Poland in WW II, specifically the Polish uprising and the Home Army. The Museum of the History of Polish Jews will complement the current museum facilities in Warsaw by preserving and presenting the history of the Jewish people in Poland, which had the largest Jewish population in Europe at the beginning of World War II.

Having outlined a number of priorities and areas of support I have with this omnibus bill, let the record show that I support the package as a whole. However, as evidenced by my vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, I believe the energy situation is too important to set aside until we have completed or frankly even started our work on it by allowing amendments to be considered. It has been said on this floor that explaining opposition to this omnibus bill to our constituents will be difficult. While this premonition may have some merit,

I trust that the people of Pennsylvania and the Nation will support efforts to deal with high energy prices and encouraging the kind of open and fair debate that leads to better policies across the board.

I reinitiate my suggestion that the Senate stay in session during the month of August, if the majority leader would hold a legitimate session that provides the kind of deliberation that has led many to call the U.S. Senate ``the greatest deliberative body in the world.'' Members of this body should be prepared to work as long and hard as necessary in order to reach a solution to the energy crisis not based upon political appeasement, but results. It is time we allow debate and compromise to reverberate through this chamber as we find areas of agreement in the best tradition of the Senate.

Mr. President, it is an unfortunate reality that with so much at stake in the ballot box, organized efforts to suppress the vote go nearly as far back as the right to vote itself. These efforts have cast a shadow over what Justice Earl Warren called ``the essence of a Democratic society'': the right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice.

The first voter suppression in America was direct: blanket restrictions based on race, based on gender, based on class. Over the years, these overt efforts were eventually replaced by more indirect and nefarious means: poll taxes, literacy tests, Whites-only primaries, and myriad other disenfranchisement laws aimed directly at minority voters. These crafty legal obstacles were often supplemented by blunt physical violence. But despite the many and varied efforts to impede the franchise, American democracy has shown an extraordinary resilience--and the American people have shown an abiding dedication, sometimes paying with life and limb, to defend the right of their fellow citizens to vote.

This Senate, of course, has a checkered past on voting rights. For many years, the Senate is where civil rights bills came to die, stalled by filibusters and tangled in parliamentary technique. Eventually, of course, the tide turned, and Congress ushered in a series of laws that remain among the most important ever enacted: the 24th amendment banning poll taxes; the Civil Rights Act; and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which banned literacy tests, authorized the Attorney General to appoint Federal voting examiners to ensure fair administration of elections, and required the Federal Government to ``pre-clear'' certain changes in the voting laws of local jurisdictions.

That law has been improved and reauthorized a number of times--as recently as last year--and is a cornerstone of our democracy. Nevertheless, as we all know, efforts to suppress the vote persist and continue to erode the promise of democracy for many Americans. For example, in the last election cycle, we saw organized efforts to deceive voters by sending out fliers with false information about the location of polling places or with phony endorsements, we saw threats that immigrants could be imprisoned if they voted.

The Judiciary Committee, under the wise leadership of Chairman Leahy, has responded with the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, which would criminalize various forms of voter intimidation and election misinformation.

In recent years, we have also seen the rise of another voter suppression tactic, which has come to be known as ``vote caging.'' Caging is a voter suppression tactic whereby a political campaign sends mail marked ``do not forward/return to sender'' to a targeted group of voters--often targeted into minority neighborhoods. The campaign then challenges the right of those citizens whose mail was returned as ``undeliverable'' on the grounds that the voter does not live at the registered address. Of course, as the Presiding Officer knows, there are many reasons why a piece of mail might be ``returned to sender'' that have nothing whatsoever to do with the voter's eligibility. For example, a voter might be an active member of the armed services and stationed far from home or a student lawfully registered at their parents' address. Even a typographical error during entry of the voter's registration information might result in a ``false negative.'' Nevertheless, these individuals end up facing a challenge to their vote and possibly losing their right to vote.

Caging came into the media spotlight this summer during Congress's investigation into the political dismissal of U.S. attorneys, but this practice is not new, and it is not rare. In fact, since 1982, the Republican National Committee has been operating under a consent decree, filed in New Jersey U.S. District Court, which states that the RNC shall ``refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities.''

This consent decree was entered into after the Republican National Committee, during the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial election, initiated a massive voter-caging operation, sending mailers marked ``do not forward'' to voters in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods throughout the State. The Republican National Committee then compiled a caging list based solely on the returned letters and challenged these voters at the polls. They did it again in Louisiana, in 1986, when the Republican National Committee hired a consultant to send 350,000 pieces of mail marked ``do not forward'' to districts that were mostly African American, and the consent decree was then modified to require the U.S. District Court in New Jersey to preclear any so- called ballot security programs undertaken by the Republican National Committee.

However, in part because the Federal consent decree does not apply to State parties or other campaigns, caging has continued. During the past few election cycles, there has been credible evidence of caging in Ohio, in Florida, in Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. Not every caging operation has been successful, but the failure of a voter suppression attempt is no excuse for it. Therefore, I am introducing the Caging Prohibition Act, which would prohibit challenging a person's eligibility to vote--or to register to vote--based on a caging list. Simply put, eligible voters should not fear their right to vote might be challenged at the polls because a single piece of mail never reached them.

The bill would also require any private party who challenges the right of another citizen to vote--or to register to vote--to set forth in writing, under penalty of perjury, the specific grounds for the alleged ineligibility. The principle here is simple: If you are going to challenge one of your fellow citizen's right to vote, you should at least have cause and be willing to stand behind it.

I am very proud of the extraordinary group of Senators who have agreed to be original cosponsors of this piece of legislation: Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, Senator Feingold, Senator Schumer, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator Menendez, Senator Brown, and Senator Klobuchar. I was proud to work closely with the Brennan Center for Social Justice and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to develop the language of this bill. I would also like to thank People for the American Way for its support of this legislation.

In the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court stated:

[T]he right to exercise the franchise in a free and

unimpaired matter is preservative of other basic civil and

political rights. . . .

In other words, every right we have depends upon the right to vote. Organized voter-suppression efforts, including vote-caging schemes, infringe on this right and undermine our democracy. Congress should rise to the occasion and say ``enough is enough'' to vote caging.

I thank my many distinguished colleagues who have cosponsored this bill, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in stopping this nefarious voter suppression activity.

I yield the floor.