Floor Statements

Madam President, I support Senator Carper's motion to instruct reconciliation conferees to reject the House TANF provisions. Assisting needy families is too important an issue for this Chamber to cede its legislative authority to the House of Representatives. The TANF Program affects millions of American children and families. It deserves a full and fair debate.

The reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is not the place for policy changes.

The right starting point for Senate debate is the PRIDE bill. PRIDE is not a perfect bill. But it is a reasonable bipartisan effort that addresses childcare, transitional medical assistance, and certain educational opportunities.

Mr. President, we should have a full debate on the PRIDE bill. We should consider what the evidence actually says about moving people from welfare to work, from dependence to independence, from poverty to prosperity. We should have a full debate about what is really required to provide all Americans with equal opportunity.

Unfortunately, reconciliation does not permit that debate. Worse yet, the House provisions are based not on evidence and experience but on ideology.

The cynical increase in the work hour requirement, for example, is a Federal mandate with no basis in the

reality of what works to promote work and reduce poverty. The data shows that people meeting the current 30-hour requirement work about 35 hours now. That is a bit more than the national average for ``full time'' work for all employees, whether they receive TANF or not. Indeed, among all mothers with children under the age of 6, only 43 percent work as much as 35 hours.

People who don't meet the 30-hour TANF requirement now--for whatever reason--are not going to work more just because the requirement has been increased. What will happen is that Congress will punish the States and reduce State flexibility to do what works.

In my own State of Illinois, we are committed to moving people off welfare and into work. And Illinois is not cynical about it. This isn't about pinching pennies but about providing opportunity.

Illinois is serious about the need for work. Tens of thousands of families have worked their way off assistance. But we understand why people find themselves in need of assistance. We have adopted flexible rules to accommodate families where the wage earner was medically unable to work, where a spouse or child was disabled, where the worker was finishing up a training program.

Illinois requires work but allows people to work part time while they take care of their obligations. And to get mothers out of their homes and into the workforce in a productive way, we have improved the child care subsidy system. We have invested in it.

And you know what? People in Illinois have not lingered on TANF. If they could work their way off the program, they have done so.

Unfortunately, the House TANF provisions which raise participation rates to 75 percent will make it harder for States to deal with family sickness, the realities of raising children, and natural disasters. To avoid penalties, States will have to find make-work activities even for TANF recipients who are working full time.

Another problem is that raising work hours and participation rates will increase the need for childcare well beyond the funding provided in the House bill. Childcare funding makes work possible for many women. If we want people to work and be responsible parents, we have to worry about who will care for their kids. Under the House proposal, States will be forced to fund other activities that will leave them with less money for childcare. That makes no sense.

The House TANF provisions make it harder for States to support working families. I urge my colleagues to reject those provisions in reconciliation, and I look forward to an honest debate about TANF and the PRIDE bill here on the Senate floor.

I also rise today to speak in favor of the motion to instruct offered by Senator Kohl. This motion expresses the Senate's view that the Senate conferees should not accept the cuts to the child support program that have been proposed by the Committee on Ways and Means in the House of Representatives.

The child support program is an effective and efficient way to enforce the responsibility of noncustodial parents to support their children. For every public dollar that is spent on collection, more than four dollars are collected to support children. That is a good return on our investment in families. Moreover, these families are then less likely to require public assistance and more likely to avoid or escape poverty. This is a program that works.

The evidence is compelling. For example, in 2004, enforcement efforts helped collect almost $22 billion in child support. Our aggressive State and Federal efforts have translated into $1 billion in collected child support payments in Illinois alone this year. That means 386,000 Illinois families will be better equipped to provide for their children.

Preliminary budget estimates suggest the cuts proposed by the Ways and Means Committee will translate into $7.9 billion in lost collections within 5 years, increasing to a loss of over $24 billion within 10 years. This proposal is not even penny-wise, and it is certainly pound-foolish.

Today, the State of Illinois reports a 32 percent child support collection rate. Let's not take a step backward in the progress that has been made by stripping the States of necessary Federal support. The welfare of too many is at stake.

Child support is the second largest income source for qualifying low- income families. We should not balance our budget on the backs of families that rely on child support to remain out of poverty.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion as well. Thank you.

Mr. President, today I rise in support of Senator Clinton's bill which would provide tax credits of $1,000 to $3,000 to property owners who eliminate or contain lead-based paint hazards in homes where low-income young children or women of childbearing age live.

Children who eat lead paint chips ingest a highly toxic substance that can produce a range of health effects including reduced IQ, reading and learning disabilities, reduced attention spans, kidney damage, and hyperactivity. The sad fact is that there are still over 400,000 children suffering from lead poisoning in this country, many of them poor and many of them minorities. My home State, Illinois, is the State with the highest number of these children.

The loss of IQ and ability to learn affects these children and their families for the rest of their lives and imposes an economic burden on the rest of us because of their reduced productivity.

I urge my colleagues to join Senators Clinton, Smith, DeWine, and me in preventing future lead poisonings by giving property owners a tax incentive to eliminate this problem.

Mr. President, today I rise in support of Senator Clinton's bill which would provide tax credits of $1,000 to $3,000 to property owners who eliminate or contain lead-based paint hazards in homes where low-income young children or women of childbearing age live.

Children who eat lead paint chips ingest a highly toxic substance that can produce a range of health effects including reduced IQ, reading and learning disabilities, reduced attention spans, kidney damage, and hyperactivity. The sad fact is that there are still over 400,000 children suffering from lead poisoning in this country, many of them poor and many of them minorities. My home State, Illinois, is the State with the highest number of these children.

The loss of IQ and ability to learn affects these children and their families for the rest of their lives and imposes an economic burden on the rest of us because of their reduced productivity.

I urge my colleagues to join Senators Clinton, Smith, DeWine, and me in preventing future lead poisonings by giving property owners a tax incentive to eliminate this problem.

I call up amendment No. 2605 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was an enormous urgency, not only in Congress but all

across the Nation, to respond to the needs of the people of the gulf coast region. Although the sense of urgency appears to have subsided, unfortunately, somewhat in Congress, that sense of urgency remains all too real for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are still dealing with the loss of jobs, the loss of family, and the loss of homes that too many Hurricane Katrina survivors have suffered.

I am pleased the bill we are debating today includes tax relief for those affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. I am fully supportive of those provisions. I also believe that before we go home for Thanksgiving to enjoy our homes and our families, we need to take some meaningful action to help those who might not have as much to be thankful for.

Nearly 2 months after Hurricane Katrina devastated the people of the gulf coast, we are seeing that our Government is still leaving too many Americans behind. Let me give some examples. This week, FEMA is telling 150,000 evacuees who are currently in hotels that they have to be out of their hotels in 15 days. Imagine, someone has lost their home, and they have 15 days to get out of the shelter they are currently in.

Yesterday, we heard a story on NPR that shelter residents in Iberville, LA, will soon be transitioned to a tent city when the shelter closes. That's right--a tent city.

Thousands in Mississippi are currently living in two-person tents, without running water or adequate heat, because FEMA has not provided the mobile homes they promised.

There are concerns that contractors participating in the gulf coast reconstruction are exploiting immigrant labor. There are stories from Mississippi and Louisiana of immigrant laborers being lured to the gulf by promises of good pay, only to be stiffed their salaries and charged for their temporary housing.

In addition to these stories--we are hearing enormous complaints--and I am getting them in Illinois, despite the fact that I do not represent the region--that local companies are being shut out of the reconstruction bidding process.

According to the Washington Post, companies outside the States most affected by Katrina have received more than 90 percent of the Federal contracts for recovery and reconstruction. Ninety percent of the contracts have gone to companies that do not maintain a place of business in the affected States. This is unacceptable.

The American taxpayers and this Congress provided $62 billion for the reconstruction effort precisely so that the people of the gulf coast region, including some of the most vulnerable citizens of our society, would be left behind no more. Yet right now we have no idea where that money is being spent, how that money is being spent, why it is not being spent on fixing the problems I mentioned and why FEMA is still sitting on nearly $40 billion that has not been spent at all.

Now think about that. The managers of this bill have been struggling with the fiscal constraints we are trying to deal with and we have $40 billion that is not spent and we do not know where the other $20 billion has gone. There is absolutely no accountability to this process at all, no accountability to the taxpayers and no accountability to the people who need this help the most.

I am a freshman in the minority party. I am accustomed sometimes to not knowing what is going on around here, but this is, unfortunately, one of those situations in which I do not get a sense that neither the majority party nor the administration has a clear idea of how our money is being spent.

The Hurricane Katrina contracting process has been rife with problems from the very beginning. Rather than use the reconstruction process to help companies and workers in the regions most affected, we are seeing many of the prime contracts going to the largest contractors in the country. These are the same contractors that received reconstruction contracts in Iraq and with only a few exceptions they are not the folks whose businesses were harmed by the ravages of the storm.

Small businesses are not being given a fair shake to bid on these projects, and it is unclear how many contracts have been provided to small businesses. Meanwhile, minority contractors have been left almost entirely out of the contracting process. The Congressional Black Caucus has proposed good legislation to address some of these problems and I hope the Senate will consider it, if it passes the House.

But let me be clear--this is not simply partisan complaining or political point scoring. At a hearing held on November 3, 2005, the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department, a Bush appointee, said about the reconstruction process: Obligations are being made at a rate of $275 million a day in an unstable environment and in an expedited manner. When you mix it all together, it is a potentially perfect recipe for fraud, waste, and abuse.

The GAO's preliminary observations indicate that the Army Corps of Engineers' $39 million purchase of portable classrooms may have resulted in the Army Corps paying more than necessary. The GAO will continue to monitor the reconstruction contracts.

I am certain that we are going to keep on seeing these stories surfacing almost daily about how taxpayer money is being wasted, while the people who are supposed to be helped are not getting what they need.

One of the most egregious examples of this potential waste, fraud, and abuse is in the Government's refusal to rebid $400 million worth of no-bid contracts that they already promised they would rebid. Immediately following Hurricane Katrina, FEMA awarded four $100 million no-bid contracts for reconstruction efforts. Acting FEMA Under Secretary Paulison made the following statement to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on October 6, 2005: I have been a public servant for a long time, and I have never been a fan of no-bid contracts. Sometimes you have to do them because of the expediency of getting things done. I can assure you, we are going to look at all of these contracts very carefully. All of those no-bid contracts, we are going to go back and rebid.

That is what Under Secretary Paulison said before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee a month ago.

These contracts have not been rebid. In fact, FEMA officials testified on November 11, just a month after the statement by Under Secretary Paulison, that they would not rebid the contracts until February. Here is the only problem: By February, the contracts will have been completed.

Today, I am offering a sense-of-the-Senate amendment calling on FEMA to immediately rebid these contracts in a competitive fashion before nearly $400 million of taxpayer dollars are spent in an inefficient and potentially abusive manner.

I know this amendment only gets at one element of a multilayer problem, but I firmly believe this body must take a stand to ensure that these Federal agencies that have been entrusted with such a monumental job and so many taxpayer dollars stick to their promises.

I am pleased my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, has joined me in offering this amendment.

Senator Coburn and I have also offered a bill that establishes a chief financial officer to oversee the use of Hurricane Katrina recovery funds so that we do not have further problems of this sort. That bill was voted out of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and is awaiting a vote. Unfortunately, that bill so far has not seen the light of this floor, so I am forced to offer this amendment today to provide some accountability and transparency into this contracting process.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. I appreciate the time and the attention of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus.

Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to call up a pending amendment that has no number yet, submitted by myself and Senator Kerry, filed earlier today by Senator Kerry, which provides relief from the marriage penalty and from the military service penalty faced by many low-income taxpayers who receive the low-income tax credit.

I was asked by the Senator from Massachusetts to read that, just to get it into the queue.

At this stage I am not speaking on it, and I am not asking for any additional action on it. I just wanted to get it in. If it is a problem, I am willing to defer.

Fair enough.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the amendment offered by Senator Feingold. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment.

In recent years, the philosophy in Washington has been that you can spend without consequence or sacrifice. That we can fight a war in Iraq and a war on terror, protect our homeland, provide our citizens with Medicare and Social Security, and maintain our domestic priorities, all while cutting taxes for the wealthy and funding every local project there is.

If you are wondering how Congress pays for all this, it doesn't. Instead, billions of dollars are borrowed from other countries and put on a credit card for our children to pay off. Yet, when it comes time to pay these bills, no one can seem to agree on any tax cuts to defer or any programs to cut.

Every family knows that it is one thing to use a credit card; it is another thing to keep spending money you don't have. You have to pay as you go, which is a rule most Americans live by.

Washington once did too, until the White House and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle abandoned it to push through the President's tax breaks.

This attempt to pass $60 billion in tax breaks despite record breaking

deficits is just the latest example of the fiscal irresponsibility in this city.

The amendment offered by Senator Feingold is about restoring responsible budgeting. Previously, PAYGO rules applied equally to increases in mandatory spending and tax cuts.

Unfortunately, the rules were changed, and now the requirements of budget discipline apply to only half of the budget--the spending part.

The problem is, that there is no such thing as half a budget. Budget discipline requires enforcing control over both sides of the ledger.

The original PAYGO rules were abandoned to provide for a series of unfunded tax breaks. In order to pay for these tax breaks, the Government had to borrow money from countries like Japan and China.

And we borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. In the process, our national debt shot up to $8 trillion, and it is still rising. Last year, for example, our national commitments exceeded our national resources by more than $550 billion.

Americans deserve better financial leadership.

Washington could learn a lot from the American people about fiscal responsibility. The people I talk to in Illinois are not fooled by what's going on. They know what is happening with higher deficits and reduced levels of Government service.

They understand that, in this life, you get what you pay for and if you don't pay for it today, it will cost you more tomorrow.

The people I have met with know that if you need to spend more money on something, you also need to make more money, and if your income falls, your spending must fall, too. This is the essence of the PAYGO rules we are trying to reinstate today. Changes in spending must be offset by changes in revenue, and vice versa.

The people I talk to understand that when you have massive costs coming down the road, you need to prepare for them. There is no excuse for ignoring the financial consequences of foreseeable expenses-- whether it is the rising costs of health care, the retirement of the baby boom generation, or the growing inequality of wealth in our society.

So when you are already deep in debt--as the Federal Government is now--and you are facing a mountain of debt in the future, it is just not the right time to be giving out $60 billion in tax cuts, even if many of these cuts have merit.

And if you are intent on giving out these tax cuts, let's find a way to pay for them.

And that is why it is so important that we reinstate PAYGO in a way that meaningfully enforces the budget discipline that both sides of the aisle need in order to honestly tackle our short-term and long-term fiscal challenges.

It is time for some adult supervision to return to the budgeting process. PAYGO provides a necessary tool at a necessary time.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, amendment No. 2605 deals with Hurricane Katrina contracting. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment I offer with Senators Coburn, Lautenberg, Ensign, and Johnson is a simple effort to enforce some accountability and transparency into the contracting process.

FEMA needs to reopen its no-bid contracts. FEMA representatives testified before Senate committees they would do so. They have now backed away from that. That is unacceptable.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment I am offering with Senator Kerry to make two simple yet critical improvements to the earned income credit and to reduce the Federal deficit. Our amendment provides relief from the marriage penalty and from the military service penalty faced by many low-income taxpayers.

The EITC is one of the most effective programs to lift working Americans out of poverty. It rewards work, reduces tax burdens, and supplement wages that help a family to be self-sufficient.

It is an idea that Republicans and Democrats can agree on because it works. Study after study has demonstrated that the EITC increases employment among single mothers and reduces reliance on cash welfare assistance. The EITC lifts millions of children and families out of poverty each year. Census data show that in 2003, the poverty rate among children would have been nearly 25 percent higher without the

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Healthy Communities Act of 2005, and I am pleased to have the support of my good friend and colleague Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Over the last few decades, our medical researchers and scientists have developed increasingly sophisticated and high tech methods to diagnose and treat disease. Yet, this approach has caused us to lose sight of the need for preventing diseases on the front-end, with greater investment in basic public health interventions that too often get short shrift.

Today, I would like to bring it back to the basics and talk about environmental quality. The air we breathe, the food we eat, the houses in which we live, and the parks in which our children play--all of these factors contribute to our health. Environmental health, as defined by the World Health Organization, includes both the direct, damaging effects of chemicals, radiation, and some biological agents, and the effects on health and well-being of the broad physical, psychological, social, and aesthetic environment. The legislation that I have introduced draws attention to that aspect of the environment that is the physical environment--the toxicants and pollutants that we may not notice, but are present in our everyday surroundings and taking a toll on our health.

My home State of Illinois faces a number of environmental challenges, including high levels of lead poisoning. It is estimated that over 400,000 children in this country suffer from elevated blood lead levels. Chicago has the unfortunate distinction of ranking number 1 for children with elevated blood lead levels. 6,691 children have elevated blood lead levels, which is 50 percent higher than the number of children in the second ranked city of Philadelphia. Elevated blood levels are known to cause behavioral and learning problems, slowed growth, impaired hearing and damage to the kidneys, brain and bone marrow. Adults are not exempt from lead toxicity--poisoned adults suffer pregnancy difficulties, high blood pressure, digestive problems, nerve disorders, memory and concentration problems, and muscle and joint pain. Lead poisoning is completely preventable, and although our agencies have made good progress, we can and must do more to address this issue.

Obviously lead is only one of many toxicants and pollutants with which we must contend. Different areas of the U.S. face unique challenges--States like California are grappling with the repercussions of air pollution, while Massachusetts and others in the Northeast are challenged with high levels of mercury in the water. As much as we know about these hazards, the effects of many chemicals are unknown.

Less than half of the chemicals produced in this country in quantities greater than 10,000 pounds have been tested for their potential human toxicity, with less than 10 percent studied to assess effects on development. This lack of knowledge has serious health repercussions--in children, environmental toxins are estimated to cause

up to 35 percent of asthma cases, up to 10 percent of cancer cases, and up to 20 percent of neurobehavioral disorders. Overall, an estimated 25 percent of preventable illnesses worldwide can be attributed to poor environmental quality. Diseases such as cancer, heart disease, asthma, birth defects, infertility, and obesity are all caused or exacerbated by toxicants or pollutants in the environment.

Minority Americans are significantly more likely to be affected than other Americans. Some studies have found that 3 of every 5 African- and Latino Americans live in communities with one or more toxic waste sites. Communities with existing incinerators, and those that are proposed for placement of new incinerators, have substantially higher numbers of minority residents. Minority Americans are already plagued with higher rates of death and disease, and fewer health resources in their neighborhoods. As we focus our efforts on environmental health, we must be cognizant that some groups are disproportionately affected by federal policies and decision-making, and deserve careful attention.

The Healthy Communities Act of 2005 addresses environmental health concerns in a comprehensive fashion, building upon many of the successful federal initiatives and filling in gaps in other critical areas. The bill establishes an independent advisory committee to provide recommendations across all relevant Federal agencies. It asks the CDC and the EPA to assess and report the environmental public health of the nation, and each State. The Health Action Zone Program will provide intense Federal attention and resources to clean up and address the health needs of the nation's most blighted communities. Environmental research is expanded, including biomonitoring and health tracking initiatives. Finally, the Act promotes environmental health workforce programs at the CDC and the NIH.

The Healthy Communities Act of 2005 will increase national attention on the importance of the environment, and its relationship to good health. As we work to make our future stronger for our communities, let us look to our past. In the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Congress wrote that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to assure that all Americans live in ``safe, healthful and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.'' Almost forty years later, our responsibility to the American people continues. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me and support passage of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead Free Toys Act of 2005, which directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission to intensify efforts to reduce lead exposure for children.

The unfortunate reality for many children--particularly in low-income and minority households--is the continued presence of high blood lead levels. Over 400,000 children in this country have elevated blood lead levels, with my own hometown of Chicago having the largest concentration of these children.

Lead is a highly toxic substance that can produce a range of health problems in young children, including IQ deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention spans, hyperactivity, and damage to the kidneys, brain and bone marrow. Even low levels of blood lead in pregnant women, infants and children can lead to impaired cognitive abilities, fetal organ development and behavioral problems.

We know that lead poisoning is completely preventable. As the Nation has increased efforts to reduce environmental lead exposure, the number of children with high blood levels has steadily dropped. Restricting lead in gasoline and paint represent two major accomplishments in this regard. But much work remains to be done.

Earlier today I introduced the Healthy Communities Act of 2005, to strengthen Federal, State and local efforts to address environmental health issues in communities already affected by lead and other toxins. However, we need to take greater proactive steps to prevent contamination, and the Lead Free Toys Act of 2005 will help us do just that.

Disturbingly, lead is present in a number of toys and other frequently used objects by young children. According to research conducted by the National Center for Environmental Health, about half of tested lunch boxes have unsafe levels of lead. The highly popular Angela Anaconda lunch box was found to have 56,400 parts per million of lead, which is more than 90 times the 600 parts per million legal limit for lead in paint for children's products. Other lunch boxes showed levels of lead between two and twenty-five times the legal limit for lead paint in children's products. In most cases, the highest lead levels were found in the lining of lunch boxes, where lead could come into direct contact with food.

This problem is not limited to lunchboxes. One study found that 60 percent of more than 400 pieces of costume jewelry purchased at major department stories contain dangerous amounts of lead. From September 2003 through July 2004, there were 3 recalls of nearly 150 million pieces of toy jewelry because of toxic levels of lead.

This past August the Centers for Disease Control updated their ``Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children'' statement calling for the elimination of all nonessential uses of lead in children's products. Specifically, the CDC urged a more systematic approach to identifying lead-contaminated items and prohibiting their sale before children are exposed, rather than usual recall efforts after exposure has occurred.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission leads our national efforts to safeguard our children from potentially dangerous objects. However, the Commission has dragged its feet in aggressively addressing the problem of lead in toys. The Lead Free Toys Act, introduced by my colleague Congressman Henry Waxman earlier this year, requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to prescribe regulations classifying any children's product containing lead as a banned hazardous substance under the Hazardous Substances Act. It defines ``children's product containing lead'' as any consumer product marketed or used by children under age 6 that contains more than trace amounts of lead as determined by the Commission and prescribed by regulations. The Act also requires the Commission to issue standards for reduction in lead in electronic devices.

It's a national disgrace that toys that could pose a serious and significant danger to children are readily available in our department stores and markets. The Lead Free Toys Act of 2005 will help us keep our children safe and healthy, and contribute to national efforts to reduce lead exposure. I ask each of my colleagues to help support this Act.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Healthy Communities Act of 2005, and I am pleased to have the support of my good friend and colleague Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Over the last few decades, our medical researchers and scientists have developed increasingly sophisticated and high tech methods to diagnose and treat disease. Yet, this approach has caused us to lose sight of the need for preventing diseases on the front-end, with greater investment in basic public health interventions that too often get short shrift.

Today, I would like to bring it back to the basics and talk about environmental quality. The air we breathe, the food we eat, the houses in which we live, and the parks in which our children play--all of these factors contribute to our health. Environmental health, as defined by the World Health Organization, includes both the direct, damaging effects of chemicals, radiation, and some biological agents, and the effects on health and well-being of the broad physical, psychological, social, and aesthetic environment. The legislation that I have introduced draws attention to that aspect of the environment that is the physical environment--the toxicants and pollutants that we may not notice, but are present in our everyday surroundings and taking a toll on our health.

My home State of Illinois faces a number of environmental challenges, including high levels of lead poisoning. It is estimated that over 400,000 children in this country suffer from elevated blood lead levels. Chicago has the unfortunate distinction of ranking number 1 for children with elevated blood lead levels. 6,691 children have elevated blood lead levels, which is 50 percent higher than the number of children in the second ranked city of Philadelphia. Elevated blood levels are known to cause behavioral and learning problems, slowed growth, impaired hearing and damage to the kidneys, brain and bone marrow. Adults are not exempt from lead toxicity--poisoned adults suffer pregnancy difficulties, high blood pressure, digestive problems, nerve disorders, memory and concentration problems, and muscle and joint pain. Lead poisoning is completely preventable, and although our agencies have made good progress, we can and must do more to address this issue.

Obviously lead is only one of many toxicants and pollutants with which we must contend. Different areas of the U.S. face unique challenges--States like California are grappling with the repercussions of air pollution, while Massachusetts and others in the Northeast are challenged with high levels of mercury in the water. As much as we know about these hazards, the effects of many chemicals are unknown.

Less than half of the chemicals produced in this country in quantities greater than 10,000 pounds have been tested for their potential human toxicity, with less than 10 percent studied to assess effects on development. This lack of knowledge has serious health repercussions--in children, environmental toxins are estimated to cause

up to 35 percent of asthma cases, up to 10 percent of cancer cases, and up to 20 percent of neurobehavioral disorders. Overall, an estimated 25 percent of preventable illnesses worldwide can be attributed to poor environmental quality. Diseases such as cancer, heart disease, asthma, birth defects, infertility, and obesity are all caused or exacerbated by toxicants or pollutants in the environment.

Minority Americans are significantly more likely to be affected than other Americans. Some studies have found that 3 of every 5 African- and Latino Americans live in communities with one or more toxic waste sites. Communities with existing incinerators, and those that are proposed for placement of new incinerators, have substantially higher numbers of minority residents. Minority Americans are already plagued with higher rates of death and disease, and fewer health resources in their neighborhoods. As we focus our efforts on environmental health, we must be cognizant that some groups are disproportionately affected by federal policies and decision-making, and deserve careful attention.

The Healthy Communities Act of 2005 addresses environmental health concerns in a comprehensive fashion, building upon many of the successful federal initiatives and filling in gaps in other critical areas. The bill establishes an independent advisory committee to provide recommendations across all relevant Federal agencies. It asks the CDC and the EPA to assess and report the environmental public health of the nation, and each State. The Health Action Zone Program will provide intense Federal attention and resources to clean up and address the health needs of the nation's most blighted communities. Environmental research is expanded, including biomonitoring and health tracking initiatives. Finally, the Act promotes environmental health workforce programs at the CDC and the NIH.

The Healthy Communities Act of 2005 will increase national attention on the importance of the environment, and its relationship to good health. As we work to make our future stronger for our communities, let us look to our past. In the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Congress wrote that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to assure that all Americans live in ``safe, healthful and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.'' Almost forty years later, our responsibility to the American people continues. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me and support passage of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead Free Toys Act of 2005, which directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission to intensify efforts to reduce lead exposure for children.

The unfortunate reality for many children--particularly in low-income and minority households--is the continued presence of high blood lead levels. Over 400,000 children in this country have elevated blood lead levels, with my own hometown of Chicago having the largest concentration of these children.

Lead is a highly toxic substance that can produce a range of health problems in young children, including IQ deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention spans, hyperactivity, and damage to the kidneys, brain and bone marrow. Even low levels of blood lead in pregnant women, infants and children can lead to impaired cognitive abilities, fetal organ development and behavioral problems.

We know that lead poisoning is completely preventable. As the Nation has increased efforts to reduce environmental lead exposure, the number of children with high blood levels has steadily dropped. Restricting lead in gasoline and paint represent two major accomplishments in this regard. But much work remains to be done.

Earlier today I introduced the Healthy Communities Act of 2005, to strengthen Federal, State and local efforts to address environmental health issues in communities already affected by lead and other toxins. However, we need to take greater proactive steps to prevent contamination, and the Lead Free Toys Act of 2005 will help us do just that.

Disturbingly, lead is present in a number of toys and other frequently used objects by young children. According to research conducted by the National Center for Environmental Health, about half of tested lunch boxes have unsafe levels of lead. The highly popular Angela Anaconda lunch box was found to have 56,400 parts per million of lead, which is more than 90 times the 600 parts per million legal limit for lead in paint for children's products. Other lunch boxes showed levels of lead between two and twenty-five times the legal limit for lead paint in children's products. In most cases, the highest lead levels were found in the lining of lunch boxes, where lead could come into direct contact with food.

This problem is not limited to lunchboxes. One study found that 60 percent of more than 400 pieces of costume jewelry purchased at major department stories contain dangerous amounts of lead. From September 2003 through July 2004, there were 3 recalls of nearly 150 million pieces of toy jewelry because of toxic levels of lead.

This past August the Centers for Disease Control updated their ``Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children'' statement calling for the elimination of all nonessential uses of lead in children's products. Specifically, the CDC urged a more systematic approach to identifying lead-contaminated items and prohibiting their sale before children are exposed, rather than usual recall efforts after exposure has occurred.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission leads our national efforts to safeguard our children from potentially dangerous objects. However, the Commission has dragged its feet in aggressively addressing the problem of lead in toys. The Lead Free Toys Act, introduced by my colleague Congressman Henry Waxman earlier this year, requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to prescribe regulations classifying any children's product containing lead as a banned hazardous substance under the Hazardous Substances Act. It defines ``children's product containing lead'' as any consumer product marketed or used by children under age 6 that contains more than trace amounts of lead as determined by the Commission and prescribed by regulations. The Act also requires the Commission to issue standards for reduction in lead in electronic devices.

It's a national disgrace that toys that could pose a serious and significant danger to children are readily available in our department stores and markets. The Lead Free Toys Act of 2005 will help us keep our children safe and healthy, and contribute to national efforts to reduce lead exposure. I ask each of my colleagues to help support this Act.

Mr. President, today, Senator Burr and I are introducing a resolution that reaffirms the importance of the Medicaid prospective payment system for federally qualified health centers.

Federally qualified health centers--community, migrant, public housing, and homeless health centers--form the backbone of the Nation's health care safety net. FQHC's provide cost-effective, high-quality health care to the Nation's poor and medically underserved, including the working poor, the uninsured, and many high-risk and vulnerable populations.

Federally qualified health centers serve nearly 1 of 5 low-income children. Two-thirds of health center patients are members of racial and ethnic minority groups. And over 675,000 homeless persons receive care at health centers every year.

FQHC's play a particularly critical role in serving patients enrolled in Medicaid. Health centers provide care to nearly 6 million of the 53 million people enrolled in the Medicaid Program nationwide. Thirty-six percent of all FQHC patients are Medicaid beneficiaries compared to 12 percent nationally. Notably, the cost of treating Medicaid patients at FQHCs is about one-third less than the cost for those receiving care elsewhere, with drug costs alone about 25 percent lower.

In 2000, a bipartisan majority of the Congress established a prospective payment system, or PPS, to ensure that FQHC's receive fair Medicaid reimbursement. This system strikes a balance between protecting Federal investment in such health centers and allowing State flexibility in designing the payment system for these centers. The PPS allows health centers to provide and expand primary care services to more people in need, promotes efficient operation of FQHC's, and ensures they receive adequate Medicaid reimbursement.

Today, PPS has allowed health centers to provide quality health care to nearly 15 million people nationally, while also delivering significant cost savings to the Medicaid Program. Congress should recognize the critical role of such health centers as the primary source of care for millions of Medicaid recipients and uninsured Americans and support continuation of the prospective payment system.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2005. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

When Timothy McVeigh drove a rental vehicle up to a Federal building in Oklahoma City, Americans began to look at trucks in a completely new way. So we learned to screen vehicles to safeguard against such a tragedy ever happening again.

On September 11, 2001, a thing as ordinary as an airplane became an instrument of destruction and terror, robbing innocent people of the rest of their lives. As a result, we have gotten pretty good at screening people and their luggage at airports, and at keeping planes out of protected air space.

While these changes are necessary and prudent, there is another part of the equation to consider: the act of terror not yet committed. We must look at the threats our security experts have identified and address these potential threats.

One such threat is a possible attack on our Nation's wastewater treatment plants. Traditionally, wastewater treatment plants have stored chemicals that, if used properly, clean the water of harmful organisms. When most of these plants were built, we did not design them to ward against use as potential weapons of mayhem and destruction. Appropriately, we were only concerned about the environment, safety, and preventing accidents.

Since September 11, as security concerns have been identified in this sector, many of these facilities have taken steps on their own to switch to safer alternative treatments or to further secure chemicals and the facilities against deliberate acts of terrorism. But, such changes are expensive. Many of these facilities need assistance to upgrade security at the facility and to switch to these safer alternative forms of treatment.

The Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2005 puts in place requirements to assess facilities' vulnerability and provides much needed financial assistance to upgrade security and to switch to safer forms of chemical treatment. My only regret is that the bill does not pick up more of the cost of the assessments and upgrades. I believe the Federal Government needs to take on a larger share of funding these types of homeland security improvements.

This is a much needed bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues, the senior Senator from Virginia and the Senior Senator from Michigan, for their hard work in getting the fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization bill to the floor and for including in the bill two amendments I offered. These amendments will directly affect the quality of health care we provide our Nation's armed forces.

As many of you know, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has created one of the most effective electronic medical records systems in the Nation. Despite a number of problems at the VA--from funding shortfalls to delayed benefits--the electronic medical records system is one of the VA's great successes and serves as a national model. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense, DOD, has not created a similar system for members of the military.

Despite a significant expenditure of time and money, the Department of Defense appears to be far from completion of its system, the Composite Health Care System II, CHCS II. Consequently, we have soldiers who have honorably served their country leaving the military and entering the VA system, and yet there is no easy way to transfer their medical records to the new health care system. This lack of compatibility results in severe inefficiencies and delayed benefits for our veterans. This is a problem that the national veterans' service organizations have highlighted over the years, but despite their efforts, the Department of Defense is still lagging behind the VA.

The Government Accountability Office, in a report released last year, found that one of the primary reasons for the Defense Department's severe delays in producing a compatible medical records system is the lack of strong oversight of the process. My amendment is an effort to implement some oversight. Pursuant to my amendment, 6 months after enactment of the bill, the DOD would be required to report to Congress on the progress being made on the development of the CHCS II system, the timeframe for implementation of the system, a cost estimate for completion of the system, and a description of the management structure used in the development of the system.

I also want to thank Senators Levin and Warner for accepting my amendment requiring that DOD report to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees about its pandemic flu preparedness activities. When pandemic flu strikes, many of our military and civilian personnel will be at high risk for infection, particularly those deployed in Asia where avian flu poses the greatest current risk; military and civilian personnel in this country also will likely be involved in domestic response activities in the event of a pandemic. Our Nation's security is contingent on a healthy military, and we must ensure that these members will be protected.

It is Congress's duty to oversee the delivery of health care to our Nation's soldiers, and these amendments will help in our efforts to exercise this oversight. I hope to work with the conferees on this authorization bill to retain these provisions in conference.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski.

Mr. President, I know I speak for all Members of the Senate when I say we wholeheartedly support our Nation's law enforcement officers and we want to do every single thing possible to assist their efforts to keep our communities safe. Unfortunately, the Commerce-Justice-Science conference report before this body today does not send this message. In fact, it sends the exact opposite message.

The conference report provides important funding for programs such as the Office on Violence Against Women, the National Science Foundation, and important juvenile justice programs. But I am very troubled by the drastic cuts it makes to an important law enforcement program, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program.

This bill further eviscerates a program that has suffered significant cuts in the last few years, despite providing real results and benefits around the country. The conference report cuts the Byrne Program from the $900 million we passed in the Senate to $416 million, which is a 34-percent cut from the fiscal year 2005 funding level.

Now, in Illinois, these cuts will have an immediate and direct effect because law enforcement has been using Byrne grant funds to fight one of the gravest drug threats facing the Nation today--methamphetamines.

In downstate Illinois, as in other rural communities all across the country, there has been a tremendous surge in the manufacture, trafficking, and use of meth. Illinois State Police encountered 971 meth labs in Illinois in 2003, more than double the number uncovered in 2000.

According to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, the quantity of meth seized by the Illinois State Police increased nearly tenfold between 1997 and 2003. This surge is placing enormous burdens on smalltown police forces, which are suddenly being confronted with a large drug trade and the ancillary crimes that accompany that trade.

These police departments rely on Byrne grant funding to participate in meth task forces, such as the Metropolitan Enforcement Group or the Southern Illinois Enforcement Group. These task forces allow police in different communities to combine forces

to battle a regional problem. There are a total of seven meth task force zones in Illinois, and these task forces have seen real results with Byrne grant funding.

In 2004, the Southern Illinois Enforcement Group accounted for more than 27 percent of the State's reported meth lab seizures. This group pays 5 of its 12 agents through Byrne grants.

In towns such as Granite City and Alton, cuts in Byrne grant funding will force them to make difficult choices about how to allocate already scarce police resources. Indeed, the chief of police in Granite City told my staff yesterday that cuts in Byrne grant funding will threaten the viability of his meth task force. At a time when meth use is growing, it is inconceivable to me that we would be cutting the resources needed by law enforcement to fight crime and clean up the streets.

This is yet another example of the misplaced priorities of our country. We all know that we are facing a real budget crisis. The deficit is growing, and we need to enforce some fiscal discipline. But I don't believe we should be balancing the budget on the backs of our Nation's law enforcement officers who keep our families and communities safe each and every day.

I am disappointed by this bill. I hope next year we will be able to find the necessary funding that local law enforcement needs. I would ask those who are on the conference and who are looking at this to recognize that it is going to have an impact not just in Illinois but in rural communities all across the country, particularly farming communities in the Midwest that have been devastated by the plague of meth. This has been primarily a program to help prevent it. It is being cut drastically in this bill. It is a bad decision and reflective of misplaced priorities by this Senate.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution submitted by Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Feingold, and myself on the 10th anniversary of Ken Saro-Wiwa's death. On November 10, 1995, a terrible injustice occurred when Mr. Saro-Wiwa and eight of his countrymen were hanged by Sani Abacha's regime in Nigeria. While we cannot undo that tragedy, we must never forget it.

Mr. Saro-Wiwa led the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, dedicated to defending the rights of his fellow Ogoni in the Niger Delta through nonviolent means. Over the course of his life, he had dozens of opportunities to take a different path, to stop speaking out, to let someone else intervene. Instead, he risked everything, over and over again, to call the world's attention to suffering and injustice, to demand action. In May 1994, Abacha responded by imprisoning Mr. Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni men, the Ogoni Nine, and unjustly accusing them of murder.

Ten years ago on this day, Mr. Saro-Wiwa is said to have told his executioners: ``Lord, take my soul, but the struggle continues.''

Sadly, the struggle has indeed continued for the Ogoni people, whose standard of living is among the lowest in the world, and whose oil rich land remains severely polluted. The names of the Ogoni Nine have yet to be cleared, and they remain convicted of the crime for which they were unfairly tried and hanged.

This resolution acknowledges not only the tremendous legacy left by Ken Saro-Wiwa, but also the battles that remain to be fought in the Niger Delta and beyond. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to honor his memory, his vision, and his struggle which continues today.

Mr. President, oil companies recently announced record profits. Those of us who drive cars and trucks could feel our wallets shrink at the news. Throughout most of this year, American drivers have paid the highest gas prices of all time--more so in the wake of refinery disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina. While petroleum company shareholders enjoy healthy stock dividends, the rest of us hemorrhage the cash. Industry analysts explain it away as ``business is business.''

Sound familiar? In the 1970s, political conflicts compelled Middle East oil sheiks to tighten their reins on oil production, sending shockwaves throughout our economy and creating long lines at the gas pump. Congress responded with laws promoting energy conservation and fuel efficiency that we thought would reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Unfortunately, 30 years later, here we are again. The Middle East remains in turmoil, and the engines of America remain firmly fueled on foreign oil. Exacerbating the problem is that the economies of China and India--two nations totaling over 2 billion citizens--are quickly expanding, and they are competing with the U.S. for the same pool of oil. Quite simply, worldwide production capacity cannot keep pace. And that means U.S. gas prices likely will remain high for the foreseeable future.

More so than at any other time in a generation, our economy is exposed. In the year 2035, will the American market be shackled still to foreign oil? Will we question whether bolder past policies could have prevented future crisis?

The response to these questions can be ``no'' if we begin now.

For about $100 worth of hoses and sensors, we can make our cars run on ethanol made from homegrown corn. Automakers made 1 million of these cars this year. We have the technology, and it is proven. With 200 million cars on the road, and 17 million more each year, why can't more cars run on ethanol?

The answer is they can, and that is why I am pleased to join my colleagues from Iowa and Indiana, Senators Harkin and Lugar, in introducing legislation to require all cars made in the United States to be ethanol-capable vehicles within 10 years.

Making ethanol cars is not expensive. It is less than the cost of airbags. It is less than the cost of a sunroof. It is less than the cost of foglights. It is less than the cost of a fancy CD player. It is less than the cost of heated seats.

Making ethanol cars is not restrictive. These cars are known as flexible fuel vehicles. Where ethanol is not yet available, you simply fill up with regular gas.

And making ethanol cars is good for American automakers, because American automakers have a head start. Already, 5 percent to 7 percent of their fleet can run on ethanol. We are only asking for an increase over a decade.

I remind my colleagues that the renewable fuels standard enacted in the Energy bill of 2005 will incorporate enough ethanol into our fuel supply to reduce the use of foreign oil. The Harkin-Lugar-Obama bill, if enacted, would accelerate that reduction. And we can do it without hardship, without requiring drivers to purchase matchbox cars, without proposing futuristic technologies that only our great-great- grandchildren's children will see.

The Harkin-Lugar-Obama bill transforms existing, inexpensive, and simple technology into a genuine movement towards energy independence for the United States within a time period that we all can witness. I urge my colleagues' swift approval of this legislation.

Mr. President, oil companies recently announced record profits. Those of us who drive cars and trucks could feel our wallets shrink at the news. Throughout most of this year, American drivers have paid the highest gas prices of all time--more so in the wake of refinery disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina. While petroleum company shareholders enjoy healthy stock dividends, the rest of us hemorrhage the cash. Industry analysts explain it away as ``business is business.''

Sound familiar? In the 1970s, political conflicts compelled Middle East oil sheiks to tighten their reins on oil production, sending shockwaves throughout our economy and creating long lines at the gas pump. Congress responded with laws promoting energy conservation and fuel efficiency that we thought would reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Unfortunately, 30 years later, here we are again. The Middle East remains in turmoil, and the engines of America remain firmly fueled on foreign oil. Exacerbating the problem is that the economies of China and India--two nations totaling over 2 billion citizens--are quickly expanding, and they are competing with the U.S. for the same pool of oil. Quite simply, worldwide production capacity cannot keep pace. And that means U.S. gas prices likely will remain high for the foreseeable future.

More so than at any other time in a generation, our economy is exposed. In the year 2035, will the American market be shackled still to foreign oil? Will we question whether bolder past policies could have prevented future crisis?

The response to these questions can be ``no'' if we begin now.

For about $100 worth of hoses and sensors, we can make our cars run on ethanol made from homegrown corn. Automakers made 1 million of these cars this year. We have the technology, and it is proven. With 200 million cars on the road, and 17 million more each year, why can't more cars run on ethanol?

The answer is they can, and that is why I am pleased to join my colleagues from Iowa and Indiana, Senators Harkin and Lugar, in introducing legislation to require all cars made in the United States to be ethanol-capable vehicles within 10 years.

Making ethanol cars is not expensive. It is less than the cost of airbags. It is less than the cost of a sunroof. It is less than the cost of foglights. It is less than the cost of a fancy CD player. It is less than the cost of heated seats.

Making ethanol cars is not restrictive. These cars are known as flexible fuel vehicles. Where ethanol is not yet available, you simply fill up with regular gas.

And making ethanol cars is good for American automakers, because American automakers have a head start. Already, 5 percent to 7 percent of their fleet can run on ethanol. We are only asking for an increase over a decade.

I remind my colleagues that the renewable fuels standard enacted in the Energy bill of 2005 will incorporate enough ethanol into our fuel supply to reduce the use of foreign oil. The Harkin-Lugar-Obama bill, if enacted, would accelerate that reduction. And we can do it without hardship, without requiring drivers to purchase matchbox cars, without proposing futuristic technologies that only our great-great- grandchildren's children will see.

The Harkin-Lugar-Obama bill transforms existing, inexpensive, and simple technology into a genuine movement towards energy independence for the United States within a time period that we all can witness. I urge my colleagues' swift approval of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Second Chance Act, a bill to strengthen community safety by improving the reintegration of people returning from prison. I am pleased to work with Senators Specter, Biden, and Brownback and to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

This year, approximately 650,000 prisoners will be released into communities across America communities in which all of us live. They will have paid their debt to society and will now return to their homes and neighborhoods, to their families, and back to their lives. Their communities are our communities; their success is an important part of our success as a larger community and a nation.

The problem is that for most of these men--and more than 9 out of 10 of them are men--their families, neighborhoods, and prior lives often lack what it takes to ensure successful reintegration. If we punish crime, as we should, then we must also recognize that when punishment is concluded, there are lives that must be resumed constructively. We only hurt ourselves and our own communities if we fail.

That is why the Second Chance Act is so important. It is the leading edge of a smart community response to the challenges we all face from this inevitable feature of our justice system.

In the best of cases, incarcerated individuals maintain contact with their families and receive rehabilitation services while in prison; they are released to a network of law-abiding peers and quickly find a rewarding job that provides the skills and career development for long- term opportunity. Released prisoners can help support their families, become active in their churches and other community organizations, stay off drugs, away from trouble, on track, and out of jail.

Unfortunately, that rarely happens. Up to two-thirds of all released prisoners nationwide end up back in prison within just 3 years. That means that of the 1,800 people released from prisons every single day in this country, almost 1,200 fail to make a successful transition into the world of work and responsibility. They do not manage to find and keep effective jobs and to care for themselves and their families. Many become a drain on their families and a drain on the system. They are more likely to resort to criminal activity and to perpetuate poverty and family dysfunction.

And their failure is our failure since we all share the high cost and other burdens of unemployment, crime, community failure, and cycles of recidivism.

The Illinois Department of Corrections released almost 40,000 people in 2004. A recent Chicago study found that only 30 percent of former prisoners were employed when interviewed 4 to 8 months after release, and of those who succeeded in finding at least some form of legal employment, the average cumulative length of employment was 13 weeks. The same study found that 81 percent of former prisoners were uninsured, and only 29 percent of those working full time had health insurance. Of the people released by the Illinois Department of Corrections three years ago, almost 55 percent of adults and 47 percent of juveniles have already returned to custody. This is a revolving door of failure that must stop.

Fortunately, smart people in hundreds of communities and community organizations all across the country have figured out ways to improve this performance and create constructive places for former prisoners in society. It is in the best interest of all of us and the communities we live in to provide the resources to take these effective strategies to scale. That is what the Second Chance Act does.

In Illinois, dozens of organizations are involved in safely reintegrating former prisoners into their communities, and many have been funded by the Illinois Department of Corrections through grants from the U.S. Department of Justice. As one example, the Safer Foundation has managed to cut the State's recidivism rate by almost 50 percent for the people who receive Safer's supportive employment services. And Safer has further demonstrated that ex-prisoners who are still employed after 12 months of supportive services have a recidivism rate of lower than 10 percent. One of Safer's program models, funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, provides participants with job placement and support services, and matches them with mentors from the neighborhoods where the participants reside. Only 2 percent of the participants in this community and faith-based program have recidivated over a 2-year period.

One of the most effective strategies that Safer, the Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, and other nonprofit organizations have devised is transitional jobs, a strategy that worked for welfare to work, and is now working for prison returnees. In a transitional jobs program, former prisoners with employment challenges are hired and paid a wage for legitimate employment in a time-limited, subsidized job. The program not only offers real work, income, skill development, and a letter of reference and experience to add to their resume, it also offers coaching and support services to help participants overcome substantial barriers to employment, such as substance abuse or mental health issues. The program focuses heavily on placement into unsubsidized work at the earliest possible time and job retention services after placement. Studies of successful transitional jobs programs have found that transitional jobs result in a 33 percent increase in employment when compared to other types of employment preparation programs, and that 81 percent to 94 percent of transitional job graduates go on to unsubsidized employment at wages between $7 and $10 per hour.

The participants gain an immediate source of legitimate income upon release. They also gain paid work experience, access to professional counseling and training services, and a clear path to unsubsidized employment in the community. Employers gain access to a pipeline of supported workers who have demonstrated an ability to do the job and remain employable. Most of all, our communities gain by creating a productive place for ex-prisoners, where they contribute positively to family, neighborhood, and the larger environment rather than the opposite.

The ex-prisoner population is a challenging one to serve. It is estimated that 95 percent of unskilled jobs in this country require a high school diploma or some work experience. But 40 percent of released prisoners lack a high school diploma or GED--more than

twice the rate for the general population over 18. And 38 percent of prisoners without high school degrees were unemployed just prior to being incarcerated, compared to 25 percent for those with high school diplomas.

In prison, only about one-third of inmates receive vocational training or work experience designed to improve their ability to obtain legitimate employment once released. And very few former incarcerated individuals receive job counseling and placement services after their release.

Because of the low pay, lack of benefits, and lack of advancement potential of many formal work activities, informal and illegal activities may be tempting. Especially considering that an estimated 70 percent of State prison inmates have a history of regular drug use, and very few receive formal treatment in prison.

Most communities where prisoners go upon release already struggle with high poverty, unemployment, fragile families, and a dearth of jobs. In Illinois, for example, 54 percent of those released from prison return to just seven communities around Chicago. These communities are among the poorest in Chicago and are ill prepared for the additional burden of reintegrating young men with criminal records, spotty employment histories, low skills and education.

Former prisoners also face employer resistance to hiring people with criminal backgrounds. One study found that applicants with criminal records experienced a 50 percent reduction in job offers for entry level jobs, compared to those without records. This was compounded by racial bias as black former inmates experienced at 64 percent reduction in offers.

Other barriers include one documented by a recent study in Illinois in which only 22 percent percent of the prisoners had a photo identification card at the time of release. And most prisoners have financial and other obligations, including child support and the conditions of their release, that require immediate attention.

Notwithstanding the barriers to successful reentry, however, faith based and community based organizations have been achieving positive results with the released prisoner population for years. The Second Chance Act celebrates the potential of nonprofit community organizations working with State and local authorities and corrections departments to promote responsible parenting and sustainable employment, and to reduce recidivism.

This bill will make funding available to the Attorney General to support and evaluate the efforts of innovative communities and local service providers. Grants can be used to expand access to transitional jobs programs and to transitional and permanent housing, to support health services, to support the children of incarcerated parents and the maintenance of healthy parent-child relationships, to address literacy and educational needs, and to ensure that appropriate job training, placement, and retention services are available.

Priority under the Second Chance Act will be given to projects that serve geographic areas with large ex-prisoner populations, to projects that include partnerships with nonprofit organizations, and to projects that provide consultations between victims and ex-prisoners. Priority will also be given to projects that consider appropriate reforms of sanctions for technical post-release violations, and to projects that establish pre-release procedures to connect participants to the State and Federal benefits and referrals to social and health services for which they are eligible.

And by maintaining a strict focus on measurable results and data collection, the Second Chance Act will help us learn what works and what does not work.

Too many people are caught up in the criminal justice system. Especially within the African American community where 32 percent of black males will enter State or Federal prison sometime during their lifetime. Communities are protected and strengthened when people who break the law are punished appropriately. But communities--all communities, including yours and mine are weakened if we neglect the challenges of rehabilitation and reentry.

To improve the integration of former prisoners and to reduce recidivism is in all of our best interests. A well-designed reentry system can enhance public safety, reduce recidivism, reduce costs, and help prisoners achieve long-term integration. Former prisoners who are engaged in lawful work after they have returned to the community are less likely to commit new crimes and are more likely to be involved in their children's lives.

The Second Chance Act is an important effort to strengthen America's communities. The bill is supported by a wide range of organizations, and I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this important legislation.