Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was going to send an amendment to the desk. Might I ask my colleague from Indiana--I would like to hold my position on the floor, but I saw him--did he come to the floor with the intention of speaking or introducing an amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if Senator Lugar came with the intention of offering the amendment, I was just trying to help Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings move this along. So might I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow Senator Lugar with the next amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if we could do a modification right now--I will work it up in the next couple of minutes--where, as Senator Durbin is saying, the police would automatically check off the observation that a child or the children are at home as a part of the form. Then, again, if you had it at the community level, that is where this has to happen--the real interface and cooperation with school officials, with child protective services, with health care, with law enforcement, with counselors in the school--the focus would be on the child. These children are falling between the cracks. Mr. President, that would be an excellent idea. I will try to maybe work on a modification. I am sure my colleagues will allow me to do a technical correction later. Altogether, this is an authorization for an appropriation, but it is authorization for $153 million a year for 3 years, which I think is not much to spend for what we can do. Later on, I know this gets resolved in the appropriations battle. I ask my colleagues whether they have a response. I can talk about this in more detail. I can go through the budget. I can talk about each specific program. But if you want to move along and you think this is something you can support, I would be very proud. I think it would be important.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague I am pleased to do that. That will give us a chance to add the suggestion of Senator Durbin, and if we need to debate later on, I can give lots of examples and debate the need for this. If my colleagues support it, that will be great. Let's wait and see what you think. We will temporarily lay this amendment aside. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Is there a copy we can look at?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am an active legislator. I ask the majority leader or Senator Gregg, I assume these are in addition to the amendment that has been laid aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to visit some detention facilities across our country and meet with correctional officers and also the incarcerated children and their parents. I am struck again and again by one fact: The mentally ill and the juveniles--the children, the kids--are particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect in jails and prisons in our country. That is why I am offering this amendment that will give back to the Federal courts full authority to remedy abusive conditions but only under which the mentally ill and juveniles are being held. Just 2 weeks ago, the Department of Justice released a report on the prevalence of mental illness among adult inmates in our jails and prisons. The Justice Department report merely confirms what many of us already know. The criminalization of mental illness is a national crisis. Of particular concern to me have been the extraordinary problems children with mental illness and emotional disorders encounter in juvenile jails. That is why I introduced the Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act earlier this year. Of the 100,000 children who are arrested and incarcerated each year, as many as 50 percent suffer from a mental or emotional disturbance. Jails and detention centers often find they are unprepared to deal with these kids. For instance, medication which should be given is not given; medication that should be properly monitored is not properly monitored; and guards may not even know how to respond to some of these kids. Why do so many youth with mental illness end up in the juvenile justice system? The truth of the matter is, we ought to, on the front end, do a much better job of assessing the problems of these kids and, for those who should not be incarcerated--some should--but for those who should not be incarcerated, look to alternatives. We have not invested as a country--you can talk to anybody down in the trenches doing this work--adequately in the service programs and community prevention programs that will reduce the need for incarceration. Therefore, many of these kids wind up in these facilities. They are incredibly vulnerable. They do not get the care they absolutely have to get, and the consequences are tragic. Last year, as an example, I went with the National Mental Health Association to the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth, a privately owned facility for over 600 youth in northeast Louisiana. I saw shocking civil rights violations which were cited by the U.S. Department of Justice. Basically what I am saying is, there were kids who were diagnosed with mental problems getting absolutely no treatment whatsoever. The Justice Department has also exposed gross abuses in Georgia, Kentucky, and the juvenile facilities in Louisiana. Other States also experience similar problems. Investigators found cases of physical abuse and neglect of mental health needs, including unwarranted and prolonged isolation of suicidal children, hog-tie and chemical restraints used on youth with serious emotional disturbances, forced medication, and even denial of medication. Children with extensive psychiatric histories who are prone to self- mutilation--cutting themselves with glass--never even saw a psychiatrist. In some cases, abusive treatment of these children results directly from their being emotionally disturbed. Staff in the juvenile facilities fail to recognize the problem and, in fact, punish these children for the symptoms of their disorders. Children have been punished for requesting treatment or put in isolation when they refuse to accept treatment. One child in a boot camp was punished for making involuntary noises that were symptoms of Tourette's syndrome. Mental disorders are being handled almost solely through discipline, isolation, and restraints, according to investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and human rights groups. Nobody likes litigation, but sometimes lawsuits are necessary to protect the constitutional rights of our people, especially vulnerable, voiceless persons such as incarcerated children who suffer from mental illness. That is what this amendment is about. Because juveniles and mentally ill persons are particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect in State institutions, I am offering tonight an amendment which will give back to Federal courts the authority to remedy abusive conditions under which juveniles with mental illness are being held. Regrettably, the Congress has taken steps in recent years to limit the circumstances under which lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of prison conditions can be brought. Three years ago, this Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Its sponsors claimed that the bill would merely end frivolous lawsuits by prisoners, and we all agree with that goal. I certainly do. But the terms of the PLRA were much more sweeping. It deprived Federal courts of important legal tools to remedy brutal, unconstitutional conditions in juvenile detention facilities throughout our country. For example, the PLRA limited the power of Federal courts to impose and retain injunctive relief to improve conditions in juvenile facilities. This means that parties can no longer settle these lawsuits by means of a consent decree--a court-enforceable injunction entered into with agreement by the parties without admission of liability by a defendant. That is very important. Also, any relief order must be terminated by the courts 2 years after it is issued unless the court holds another trial. One of the most important judicial powers that the PLRA curtailed was the appointment of special masters. Quite often judges will appoint special masters who will come in, do the mediation, do the negotiation, but we have so limited the compensation that we are not able to do that. The act limited the powers of special masters so they can no longer perform this task of mediating disputes and assisting the parties in reaching some compliance with court orders. While the PLRA has made it much more difficult for courts to improve inhumane conditions in prisons generally, it has had a devastating impact on the conditions in which mentally ill and juvenile defenders are held. They are particularly vulnerable to abuse and neglect at State institutions, and precisely because of that fact, we must not be indifferent to their plight or ignore their need for protection. Let me give some examples. Just consider some of these horrific conditions involving mentally ill juveniles that PLRA has made more difficult to remedy: In Philadelphia, children with mental illness in a juvenile detention facility operating at 160 percent of capacity were regularly beaten by staff with chains and other objects. Santiago v. Philadelphia. In Delaware, juveniles with mental illness were housed in living units the court found posed a serious fire hazard. Their food and clothing were inadequate. Children were routinely beaten, maced, and shackled. The medical and education programs they received were below minimally accepted standards. These are facts. This is what is going on. John A v. Castle. In a Pennsylvania-run juvenile facility, children were routinely beaten by faculty staff, staff trafficking in illegal drugs was rampant, and sexual relations between staff and confined youth were commonplace. DB v. Commonwealth. A severely depressed 17-year-old in an adult prison in Texas was raped and sodomized. His request to be placed in protective custody was denied. For the next several months, he was repeatedly beaten by older prisoners, forced to perform oral sex, robbed, and beaten again. Each time, his requests for protection were denied by the warden. He attempted suicide by hanging himself in his cell after a guard had ignored the warning letter he wrote. He was in a coma for 4 months, after which he died. The purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act was to reduce or eliminate frivolous lawsuits by inmates. I am all for that, but as these examples make clear--and I have many other examples--the inmates I seek to protect with this amendment are not filing frivolous lawsuits. Or I should say, what is happening to them is not the stuff of a frivolous lawsuit. They are young; they are uneducated; they are suffering from mental illness that prevent them from functioning at the necessary level to file a lawsuit on their own. This is a population of uniquely vulnerable inmates who need representation in the legal system and are not receiving that representation, who need the protection that the Federal courts have historically provided. Unfortunately, this Congress seems to be moving, at least on the House side--and I pray we do not do the same thing--in the opposite direction. Just last month, the House adopted an amendment offered by Congressman DeLay to the juvenile justice bill that would actually terminate all consent decrees entered into prior to the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The DeLay amendment would say that even when prison conditions were horrible enough to warrant the continuation of the consent decree, that decree is going to be terminated by an act of Congress. No matter how many children will suffer, the Federal judge's hands will be tied. I think it is unconstitutional. Let me give a couple of examples and conclude, because if this amendment is agreed to tonight, this will negate the DeLay amendment in the House of Representatives. In Ironton, OH, a 15-year-old girl ran away from home over night, then returned to her parents but was put in the county jail by the juvenile court judge to ``teach her a lesson.'' On the fourth night of her confinement, she was sexually assaulted by a deputy jailer. More than 500 children had been incarcerated in the jail over the past 3 years, many for truancy and other status offenses. Under the consent decree, no children may be held in the jail. But with what is happening in the House of Representatives, that consent degree would not even apply. In Portland, ME, a lawsuit was filed after a young boy held in the county jail was sexually assaulted by an older adolescent. In 1987, county officials agreed to stop holding children in the jail because of another decree. In Clovis, NM, children were held in the county jail in unsanitary conditions, without adequate fire safety procedures, recreation or programming, or adequate separation from adult inmates. In 1983, local officials agreed to stop using the jail as a detention facility for children. The DeLay amendment would automatically terminate these decrees even if judges disagreed. This amendment would deal with this problem. In Tucson, AZ, children in the juvenile detention center were held in leather restraints, mail was censored, there were inadequate treatment programs, and the facility was overcrowded. Another consent decree provided for the protection of these children. In Oklahoma, there was pervasive brutality in the operation of the State juvenile correctional institutions. Children were often handcuffed and hog-tied, and institutional staff relied on physical force and intimidation to keep order. The ``punishment unit'' was dark and dungeonlike. Another consent decree took care of that. Again, this amendment I offer tonight is an effort to make sure what was done in the House will essentially be negated. Mr. President, I will conclude. My amendment would not repeal, I say to my colleagues, the Prison Litigation Reform Act or adversely affect the crackdown on frivolous lawsuits. It would say that in the case of the mentally ill and juveniles, we should try to protect them. My amendment would merely carve a narrow exception to the PLRA restrictions in limited circumstances involving children and those who struggle with mental illness. Elie Wiesel once said: ``More than anything--more than hatred and torture--more than pain--do I fear indifference.'' We must be vigilant and we must not allow ourselves to be indifferent to children's misery, particularly those children who may be sick, difficult, and test our patience and our understanding. In that spirit, I ask my colleagues to support this modest and humane exception. This amendment has the support of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Children's Defense Fund, the Justice Policy Institute, the National Education Association, the National Network for Youth, The National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation, The Shiloh Baptist Church, the Youth Law Center, and other organizations as well. I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, so Senator Leahy can vote--I am very proud to have his support--I will add as an organization that supports this the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and I yield back the remainder of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I cannot add to the words of Senator Dodd. I thank him for what he said on the floor of the Senate. And I say to him that what he said represents how I feel as a Senator from Minnesota. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Alexis Rebane during today's debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I may, I ask unanimous consent that Sofia Lidskog be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of the debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from North Carolina, and the Senator from Oregon for their work on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, I say to Senator Wyden from Oregon that I did not get a chance to hear his remarks on the floor of the Senate, but I think this whole question of whether or not doctors and providers can advocate for their patients and speak up when they think their patient is being denied care unfairly is extremely important. It is a little shocking, but it is really true that we all hear from doctors who tell us that they do not believe they can do that. They have no protection. They are worried about losing their jobs. So I just say that if we are about being on the side of consumers, which I think is what we are about, Senator Wyden's amendment is extremely important. I will speak to another provision in this amendment which we actually have not discussed on the floor of the Senate. Of course, my fear is that Republicans will come out with a second-degree amendment and try to essentially wipe this amendment out. I wish--in fact, I would give up half of my 9 minutes if somebody from the other party would come down here; I would give up 4 and a half minutes just to get their other point of view, because the argument I am about to make goes as follows. This is about ``points of service,'' which actually is about consumer choice. What we are saying in this provision is that if you are paying extra or are willing to pay a little extra, you should have the choice to be able to stay with your doctor, to be able to go to the clinic to which you have been going. For example--and this just drives people in Minnesota crazy--an employer may shift a plan, and then what will happen is, even though you have been taking your child or your children, or you yourself have been seeing the same doctor whom you trust, who knows you well, who knows your family well, all of a sudden you no longer can see them. What we are saying is, don't the consumers and don't the families in Minnesota and Oregon and Massachusetts and Kentucky--all around the country--have some choice? My gosh, if people are willing to even pay a little extra in premium, how can anybody come out on the floor of the Senate and say they are not entitled to some continuity of care and some choice when it comes to being able to continue to see their doctor? I can give a lot of examples. Let me simply go through the Republican proposal for a moment and then come back to some examples. In the Republican proposal, only if the employer has 50 employees or more is there any discussion at all about any alternatives; and even there, it is two panels of providers. But two panels of providers does not make for choice. And if it is under 50 employees, there is no choice at all. We have gone over this over and over again. For the 115 million people who are excluded, they do not have any protection whatsoever. So again, the clock is ticking away. But if, in fact, any Republican wants to come and debate me, I would be pleased to give up my 4 minutes or 3 minutes or whatever. Again, this is about choice. We are saying is that if you and your family have been seeing a doctor and going to a clinic for 5 or 6 or 7 years, if you have paid extra, and all of a sudden your employer shifts plans or your managed care plan narrows the number of doctors you can see, you ought to be able to continue to see your doctor, you ought to be able to continue to go to that clinic. We have all had this experience of--well, maybe we have not; I have. You go into the hospital; you put on one of those gowns. I think I could become rich by coming up with an alternative gown that does not tie in the back, because it just makes you nervous right away; you are very nervous, and you do not know what is going to happen to you. You know what? It sure makes a difference if it is your family doctor who is there with you. It sure makes a difference if you have the sense that there is a doctor or a nurse or people from the clinic who have recommended you need to have the surgery who are there with you, who care about you, who know you, who love you. I will say it again, consumer choice is what this amendment is about. How can the Republicans come to the floor of the Senate with a piece of legislation that they claim is patient protection and not give families this choice? If a family in Minnesota wants to pay or can pay a little more in premium to make sure that if their employer shifts plans they will be able to stay with their family doctor, or if you are an elderly citizen and you have Parkinson's you will be able to stay with your neurologist, or you have a child who is very ill with cancer you will be able to stay with your pediatric oncologist, I would think, for gosh sakes, we would want to allow a family to have that choice. I do not want to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about freedom of choice if they are going to come out here with a second-degree amendment that is going to wipe out this very important choice that this amendment says people and families should have in our country. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I only have 3 minutes left, since we are in the last day of the debate, I want to try to pull this into focus, at least as a Senator from Minnesota. I would like to say one more time, if you take, for example, this amendment--and I do not have the time to read it, this amendment has the support of the Patient Access Coalition with 134 members. Every kind of consumer organization, provider organization, children's organization, women's organization, and advocacy organization for people with disabilities, all are saying: Please make sure that families in this country have a choice and do not get cut off from seeing their doctor, do not get cut off from seeing a specialist who can really help them. I see the same pattern in all of this. We have said we ought to cover all 165 million Americans. We shouldn't be covering 43 million Americans. We ought to have some standard of protection for all families in the country that States can build on. Republicans say no. We say you ought to have a guarantee of access to specialists, if you need those specialists. There should be a panel in the plan. If there isn't a specialist in the plan to help you or a member of your family, you ought to be able to go outside the plan and receive that care. Republicans vote no. Then we say, if you are denied care, there ought to be an appeals process. You ought to have a right to seek redress of grievance. When you do that, there ought to be an independent appeals process, and there ought to be some people you can go to. There ought to be some advocacy for consumers. On that strong consumer protection amendment, Republicans vote no and basically want to stop it. I think the logic of this debate is clear. I have seen a little bit of confusion in a couple of articles. I do not believe this is about Senators who cannot sit down in the same room and agree with one another, and therefore, why can't they do that. What is wrong with them? I think this is a very honest debate where you have two different definitions of what is good. I think we are talking about two different frameworks of self-interest and power. I think there is a reason that every single children's consumer and provider organization has supported our amendment and wants to see real patient protection. There is a very good reason why the insurance industry is the only interest that is supporting the Republican proposal. It is because the Republican Party, the other side of the aisle in this debate, is marching lock, stock, and barrel with the insurance industry, and we are on the side of consumers and families. As Democrats, that is exactly where we should be. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I came to the floor earlier today and said I have a proposition for my colleagues. It is this: Let's give people freedom of choice. If people have paid extra premiums and their employer should shift insurance company plan or managed care plan, and they want to be able to take their children to the same family doctor they have been going to for 10 years, they ought to be able to do so. I waited for the response. Now I notice my colleagues on the other side of the aisle come out here with an amendment and they say this deals with the problem. First of all, they give freedom of choice to 48 million Americans, one-third of those who would be eligible. Only 48 million people in self-insured plans are covered. Another 115 million people aren't covered. Two-thirds of the families in our country that need some protection and need freedom of choice aren't covered. Then I look at this bill and I notice that even among the 48 million people, if you were in a plan where you are working for an employer with fewer than 50 employees, you would not be covered. Subtract that number of Americans. Now we are well below 48 million people, well below one-third of the citizens in this country. Finally--and I don't even know what this means, but we need to look at the fine print--they have an exception in terms of points of service or freedom of choice: It shall not apply with respect to a group health plan other than a fully insured group health plan if care relating to point of service coverage would not be available and accessible to the participant with reasonable promptness. I have absolutely no idea what that means. Obviously, consumers and families would be going to a doctor who would be prompt in giving them or their children the care they need, unless this is some kind of an open-ended escape clause. I am telling you, the more the people look at the fine print and the detail of what the Republicans are offering on the floor of the Senate, the more they will see a consistent pattern: Offer as little as possible, covering as few people as possible, with as little protection as possible, so you don't offend the insurance industry. That is what it is all about. We should be representing the people in our States. We should be advocates for people in our States. We should be advocates for families, advocates for children. We don't need to be advocates for the insurance companies. They already have plenty of clout. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution that urges the Parliament of Kuwait, sometime during its upcoming session, to grant women the right to hold office and the right to vote. Real progress has been made in support of the democratic ideal of fuller participation for women in the political process there. The women of Kuwait enjoy many social and economic benefits, but have historically lacked one fundamental right: the right of political participation in their own country's emerging democracy. I am proud to commend the Amir of Kuwait, His Highness, Sheikh Jaber al-Sabah, for his historic decision to issue a decree on May 16 to grant Kuwait women the right to vote and to hold office starting in 2003. Today in Kuwait, women lack the right to vote and to hold public office. All of this could change in the coming weeks when a newly- elected Parliament will vote to confirm or reject the Amir's decision. Mr. President, the decision of the Amir, though it will be granted great weight by the Parliament, is not final. Such royal decrees must be confirmed by a parliamentary vote. Recently, the Amir dismissed Parliament in Kuwait for inactivity and on July 3 Kuwait voted for new leaders. Now the men Parliament will vote on whether to confirm the right to vote and to hold office for Kuwaiti women in the coming weeks. I am also proud to say that a woman named Fatima al-Abdali, a courageous and passionate champion for women's rights in Kuwait, recently became one of the first women to announce that she is running for office in 2003. She is now one of at least seven women there who have announced that they will run for office for the first time. She has spent the last decade of her life fighting for the right to hold office and to vote. Her efforts have finally paid off with the Amir's recognition, as he has remarked, of ``the role played by Kuwaiti women in building and developing Kuwait society.'' This is a truly historic moment in the Middle East. It is only fitting, Mr. President, that Americans should be moved by the struggle of Kuwaiti women. The United States has been defined by great struggles for basic political rights: for the freedoms embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation; the freedom central to the major civil rights legislation of this century, and to the struggle of women in our own country to achieve the right to vote and the right to hold public office. Sojourner Truth and Susan B. Anthony were great heroines of this nation. They fought the fight in this country that is currently being waged in Kuwait. In memory of these crusaders for justice, I stand in strong support of Kuwaiti women. I know I speak for my home state of Minnesota and the entire country when I support the struggle being waged by the women of Kuwait. Some people in the region are arguing that under Islamic tradition women should not have such political rights. Contrary to this opinion, many experts believe that Islam does not prohibit the right for women to vote and to hold public office. In fact, Islamic history is filled with prominent female figures. Women in Kuwait are making great strides in business, government, education, and the media. A woman is the Rector of Kuwait University. The Under Secretary for Higher Education is a woman. A woman is the head of the Kuwait news agency. Now we are seeing women move forward and make significant political strides as well. Armed with this Amiri decree, the women in Kuwait are becoming prepared to seize the opportunity they have fought for. They are announcing campaigns for office in 2003. I ask that the members of the new Parliament not turn their backs on history and vote against the Amiri decree allowing voting rights and the right to hold office. I join the with leaders from across the world, including Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, and Indonesia in my admiration and respect for the importance of this development. I hope Kuwait's new Parliament will have the courage to take the historic step of affirming this decree.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I was going to hold up my own chart, but I would rather ask the Senator from Massachusetts, could you just give me the figures?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I enjoyed when you said: I just happen to have figures here.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The reason I asked my colleague for those figures is, that is over half the State's population. Minnesota does better than some other States in terms of the number of families that would be covered under the Republican plan because we have more people who are self-insured. But let me just be clear about this. The Senator from Massachusetts has made it clear that our amendment provides basic protection for every family in the country. We want some kind of floor. Any State that wants to do better, any State that wants to do better by way of protecting children, more access to specialty services, stronger consumer protection, can do so. But this amendment is an amendment to make sure that every family in the United States of America has some basic protection. Is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me just ask the Senator from Massachusetts one more question to finally put this debate in sharp focus--if we are going to have a debate. I do not know that we will. Do you believe there is some correlation between the fact that the plan we now have on the floor of the Senate, the Daschle-Kennedy Democratic plan, altogether covers an additional 113 million people and the Republican plan only covers 48 million people altogether? The Republican plan provides as little coverage as possible to people. Is that why all the consumer organizations, all the provider organizations, doctors and nurses, support our plan and the insurance industry is the only interested party that supports the Republican plan? Do you believe there is any correlation on this whole question of how many people are covered?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like to take 3 more minutes if I may.