Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine. That is all we have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will do it in 1 minute. Then I will pass it on to others. Let me just finish my line of questioning by saying here on the floor of the Senate that one of the things I have been most interested in as a Senator from Minnesota is reform and how to revitalize democracy, how to make sure that the Government belongs to the people, how to make sure that the Senate belongs to the people. I really do believe that this vote on this amendment about whether or not we are going to cover all the families in our country and provide them with some basic protection, so that they can make sure they themselves and their loved ones receive the care they need and deserve, is a test case as to whether or not we have a system of democracy for the many or democracy for the few. This vote ultimately is about more than health care. This is a vote about whether the Senate belongs to people in Minnesota and people in Massachusetts and people in New York and people in North Carolina or whether it belongs to the insurance industry. It is that simple. I hope every citizen will hold all of us accountable for how we vote and whom we represent and for whom we fight. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Before the Senator speaks, may I do two quick things? Privilege Of The Floor Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Renato Mariotti, an intern, be allowed on the floor during this debate today.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I follow Senator Robb after we get back from caucuses, that I be first in order.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I did not rise to defend the Republican Party position. I am sorry to disappoint my colleagues. I say to the good Senator from Virginia, I am not here to speak against his amendment. I do find it interesting. I do not think I can repeat with the same eloquence and power what my colleagues have said about what this debate is about in personal terms when we are talking about women. But we could also be talking about a child having to get access to the services he or she needs. This is really a life-or-death issue. It is very important for people to make sure their loved ones, whether it be a wife, a husband, or children, get the care they need and deserve. That is what this debate is all about. I notice that the insurance industry is spending millions and millions of dollars on all sorts of ads talking about how we are going to have 1.8 million more people lose coverage. All of a sudden, the insurance industry is concerned about the cost of health care insurance. All of a sudden, the insurance industry in the United States of America is concerned about the uninsured. My colleague from Massachusetts says: Where are our colleagues on the other side of the aisle? Not too long ago, just a couple of hours ago, I heard colleagues come out on the Republican side and talk about how this patient protection was too expensive, families would lose their insurance company, the poor insurance industry--which is making record profits--cannot afford to provide this coverage. Where are they now? As I look at the figures, 10 leading managed care companies recorded profits of $1.5 billion last year. United Health Care Corporation, $21 million to its CEO; CIGNA Corporation, $12 million to its CEO; and the figures go on and on. Yet we have colleagues coming out to this Chamber--apparently not now--trying to make the argument, even though the Congressional Budget Office says otherwise, even though independent studies say otherwise, that we cannot provide decent patient protection for women because it will be too expensive. It is not going to be too expensive. What will be too expensive and what will be too costly is when women and children and our family members do not get the care they need and deserve and, as a result of that, maybe lose their lives, as a result of that they are sicker, as a result that there is more illness. Where do the patients fit in? Where do the women fit in? Where do the children fit in? Where do the families fit in? I say to Senator Kennedy, we know where the insurance industry fits in. Here are their ads: Sure, the Kennedy-Dingell bill will change health care; people will lose coverage. This is outrageous. The insurance industry thinks that by pouring $100 million, or whatever, into TV ads and scaring people, they are going to be able to defeat this effort. They are wrong. The vote on this amendment, and on other amendments, and on this legislation, will be all about whether Senators belong to the insurance industry or Senators belong to the people who elected us. We should be here advocating for people, not for the insurance industry. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief because we are anxious to get on with this debate. I want to add to the words of Senator Kennedy. This debate is a very personal debate for many of us, for both Democrats and Republicans. It is really heartbreaking to sit down with a family and talk to a father whose son was denied experimental treatment for cancer and wonders whether or not his son might have lived if he had been able to obtain that treatment. It is really disheartening to meet with a railroad worker whose wife talks to you about her husband and how he is fighting cancer but how every day she is on the phone battling these insurance companies to find out whether or not they will provide coverage for the treatment. That is what this debate is really all about. I think that, by the end of the week, it is going to be really clear what the differences are between the two proposals. This Republican bill that is on the floor--the Daschle amendment--altogether covers 48 million people. But for those citizens who aren't working for a Fortune 500 company, who are small businesspeople, family farmers, and others, there is no patient protection. That is a huge difference. There is a huge difference between the 2 proposals of 115 million Americans. The Republican plan doesn't cover the 115 million Americans that the Democratic plan does. Quite often, I don't talk in terms of Democrat or Republican, but here it makes a difference. Second of all, people are so desperate to make sure that if their child needs to see a pediatric oncologist, or a parent with Parkinson's needs to see a neurologist, they will have access to that specialty care. The Republican plan does not guarantee that that will be the case. The Democratic plan makes it crystal clear to these managed care plans: Make sure you have those specialists available for people, and make sure that if it is not in your network, they will have access to whoever can provide the best care for their child or their parent. Third is the question of consumer choice and continuity of care. This Republican bill on the floor of the Senate, does not guarantee the continuity of care and doesn't give you the right, really even if you have to pay a little bit more in premium, to go outside the network of the managed care plan and take your child or your parents to the best expert or make sure your family members see the best specialist. This is called the point-of-service option. I will have an amendment that deals with that. Fourth, I heard my colleague from Maine speak about the appeals process. But, in all due respect, if people are not able to go to an independent, external appeal from these managed care plans dominated by these insurance companies and make sure that those independent panels are not picked by the companies, I don't call that independence. The Republican plan has the external appeals process controlled and dominated by the very companies that you have a grievance against. The Democratic plan provides for an independent appeals process backed by an ombudsman program that can help families. I will conclude because there are other Senators who want to speak. I think that this debate is all about representative democracy. I think this debate goes far beyond the issues at hand, although I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts; I think this is the most important debate of our session. This debate is all about whether or not the Senate belongs to the insurance companies of America or belongs to the people of Minnesota or Nevada or Massachusetts or North Dakota--the people around the country. That is what this debate is all about. I look forward to debating into these specific amendments. I hope that people in the country will be engaged. I say to all of my colleagues that I believe people will hold us accountable. This is an opportunity to do well for people. This is an opportunity to provide families with some protection. This is an opportunity to be willing to stand up against some powerful economic interests--the insurance companies of America that dominate so many of these managed care plans--and be advocates for the people we represent back in our States. Republicans, no matter what you call your plan--no matter what the acronym is--it is swiss cheese. You have too many loopholes in this plan. You don't provide protection for consumers. The people in Minnesota are not going to be in favor of an insurance company protection plan. They want it to be a Minnesota family protection plan. That is what I am going to fight for all week. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think I follow Senator DeWine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank my colleagues for speaking on this. I actually will be very brief. I just want to make one point. The Senator from Ohio is a good friend. We have worked together on many issues. I just see it a little differently. I really do believe we are talking about a health benefit that the Federal employees have negotiated. This is a part of their package. It is the same thing as the salary they make. What the Senate is trying to say to employees, or workers, is we are going to take away that benefit. We are going to take away your health benefit. From the point of view of a lot of working people and from the point of view of just thinking about it, from the point of view of employers and employees, I do not think that is what we should be doing. I do not think that is what we should be doing. I think it is a mistake in terms of what kind of respect we have for labor. I think it is a mistake in terms of the kind of respect we should have for employees. I do not think on the floor of the Senate we should try to take action to take away a benefit, a very important benefit--access to abortion services--from Federal employees. I think that is a profound mistake. I hope my colleagues will vote against this.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, not to take time, but I ask unanimous consent that Rachel Gragg and Ben Highton, who are two fellows, be granted the privilege of the floor. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michelle Vidovic be able to be on the floor of the Senate for the rest of our proceedings tonight.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will we have a recorded vote on the conference report?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the DeWine amendment, which comes after Y2K is dispensed with, I be able to bring my amendment to the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today because I am concerned that there is a growing national crisis in America. Although we do not know its exact dimensions, the early evidence is extremely troubling. Nearly three years ago, against my objections, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the welfare reform law. The stated purpose of the law was to move people off welfare and toward economic self- sufficiency. By now, we all know that the welfare caseloads have dramatically declined. The welfare caseloads are at their lowest point in nearly 30 years. Since welfare reform became law, 1.6 million families have left the welfare rolls. Approximately 4.6 million are no longer receiving cash assistance. Clearly, the law has been successful at moving people off welfare. On this basis, nearly everyone is jumping at the opportunity to proclaim welfare reform as a ``success.'' But, Mr. President, I have my doubts. How can we call welfare reform a success without knowing what has happened to these people after leaving welfare? How can we call it a success without knowing how people are doing? Mr. President, declining caseloads do not answer the fundamentally important questions. They don't tell us if families are moving toward economic self-sufficiency. They don't tell us if people have been able to escape poverty. They don't tell us if mothers have been able to find work. They don't tell us if children have food and are covered by health insurance. Mr President to be honest, the declining welfare caseloads tell us very little. We should not be trumpeting the success of welfare reform before we know about the living conditions of the people who have been moved off welfare. And right now, no one seems to know. Over and over again I have asked my colleagues if they know of any research demonstrating that the decrease in the number of families receiving assistance means that people are escaping poverty, but no one has produced such a study. No one! My fear is that these people are simply disappearing. Mr. President, we've got a similar problem with the recent reports about Food Stamps. Lately we've been hearing a lot about the plunge in Food Stamp participation. Over the last four years the number of people using food stamps dropped by almost one-third, from 28 million to 19 million people. Some want to interpret this decline as an indication of diminished need. But, just like the decline in welfare rolls, there are important questions that are left unanswered. I hope that the drop means that fewer people are going hungry. But, I have my doubts. If people are no longer needy, then how can we account for the fact that 78 percent of cities surveyed by the United States Conference of Mayors for its Report on Hunger reported increases in requests for emergency food in 1998? If people are no longer needy, then how can we explain why Catholic Charities USA reported early this year that 73 percent of dioceses had increases of as much as 145 percent in requests for emergency food assistance compared to a year before. Mr. President, how can we account for these findings without questioning whether the reformers' claims of success are premature? What is going on here? A story from the New York Times suggests one troubling explanation: ``[One welfare recipient was told] incorrectly . . . that she could not get food stamps without welfare. So, though she is scraping by raising a family of five children and sometimes goes hungry, she has not applied [for food stamps]. . . . `They referred me to the food pantry,' she said. `They don't tell you what you really need to know. They tell you what they want you to know.'' (4/17/99). Mr. President, I am here today to propose an amendment. It is an amendment that I hope will receive widespread support. It is simple and straightforward. It will help us find out how people who have left welfare are doing. It will provide us with the information we need in order to properly evaluate the success or failure of welfare reform. Mr. President, the 1996 welfare law sets aside $1 billion for ``high- performance'' bonuses. Currently, the money is awarded to states using a formula that takes into account state effectiveness in increasing employment among TANF recipients. My amendment would add three more criteria: Food stamp participation among poor children, The proportion of families leaving TANF who are covered by Medicaid or child health insurance, and The number of children in working poor families who receive some form subsidized child care. In other words, states would have to provide this information in addition to the job entry, job retention, and earnings data they already must provide in their high-performance bonus applications. Mr. President, some of my colleagues might suggest that these additional requirements will be too difficult for the states to meet. I will address this issue in detail in a little while. Right now, let me just reassure everyone that no state will be required to conduct any new surveys. In fact, no state will have to collect any new data. All that my amendment will require is that states report data they already have. Mr. President, as I have already suggested, I am here today because of my deep concern for the millions of Americans who struggle each day to get by. These are the people who worry about: How to keep a roof over their families' heads, How to get food in their children's stomachs, How to earn a wage that pays their bills, and How to obtain medical help when they are sick. I am especially concerned about our nation's children who all too often are the innocent victims of poverty. Mr. President, we live in the richest country in the world. We live in a country that has experienced what many call ``an unprecedented period of prosperity.'' But Mr. President, this prosperity has not extended to all families and their children. While our country is supposedly doing so well, we've got about 14 million--That's one in five--children who live in poverty. And, 6.5 million children live in extreme poverty. Their family income is less than one-half the poverty line. This poverty has profoundly terrible consequences on the lives of these children. On the basis of research, we now know that poverty is a greater risk to children's overall health status than living in a single parent family. A baby born poor is less likely to be alive to celebrate its first birthday than a baby born to an unwed mother, a high school dropout, or a mother who smoked during pregnancy. Mr. President, poor children must walk a gauntlet of troubles, that begin even before they are born and often last a lifetime. Not only are poor children more likely to die during childhood, they are: More likely to have low birth weights and be born premature; More likely to be deaf; More likely to be blind; More likely to have serious physical or mental disabilities, and More likely to suffer from stunted growth. Mr. President, I am worried that welfare reform is making these problems worse. I think that we really need to pay attention to the quality of people's lives not just to the numbers of people on assistance. Mr. President, the purpose of my amendment is to help us to understand at a national level what is happening in our country in the wake of welfare reform. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure this out and have come to the conclusion that what we currently know is not sufficient. I am not alone in this belief. One of the organizations I work is called NETWORK. It's a National Catholic Social Justice lobby. The people at NETWORK wrote the following in their recent report on welfare reform: Even though government officials are quick to point out that national welfare caseloads are at their lowest point in 30 years, they are unable to tell us for the most part what is happening to people after they leave the welfare rolls-- and what is happening to people living in poverty who never received assistance in the first place. Mr. President, although we lack a national portrait, some of the research I read about what is going on in the states deeply concerns me. For example: In Alabama, a professor found that intake workers gave public assistance applications to only 6 out of 27 undergraduate students who requested them, despite state policy that says that anyone who asks for an application should get one. In Arizona, after holding fairly steady from 1990 to 1993, the number of meals distributed through Arizona's statewide food-charity network has since risen 50 percent. In California, tens of thousands of welfare beneficiaries are dropped each month as punishment. In total, half of those leaving welfare are doing so because they did not follow the rules. In Florida, more than 15,000 families left welfare during a typical month last year. About 3,600 reported finding work, but nearly 4,200 left because they were punished. The state doesn't know what happened to almost 7,500 others. In Georgia, nearly half of the homeless families interviewed in shelters and other homeless facilities had lost TANF benefits in the previous 12 months. In Iowa, 47 percent of those who left welfare did so because they did not comply with requirements such as going to job interviews or providing paperwork. And in Iowa's PROMISE JOBS experiment, the majority of families punished for failure to meet welfare-to-work requirements told researchers that they didn't understand those requirements. In my own State of Minnesota, care managers found that penalized families were twice as likely to have serious mental health problems, three times as likely to have low intellectual ability, and five times more likely to have family violence problems when compared with other recipients. In the Mississippi Delta, workfare recipients gather at 4 a.m. to travel by bus for two hours to their assigned work places, work their full days, and then return--another two hours--home each night. It is no surprise, therefore, that they are having trouble finding child care during these nontraditional hours, and for such extended days. In New York, a September 1998 survey found that 71 percent of former recipients who last received TANF in March 1997 did not have any employer-reported earnings. In a rural Appalachian community in Ohio, there is a lack of jobs at decent wages that has resulted in dramatic increases in requests for food. The Congressional Hunger Center tells us that, ``As people are being moved off of the rolls in rural areas, there is very little support structure to help them become self-sufficient--government programs are unavailable due to time limits, there is little private industry in the area, and neighbors struggle to get by on their own.'' And then there is the so-called success story in Wisconsin. Only one in four families that permanently leave welfare have incomes above the poverty line. The typical recipient actually lost income during the year after leaving welfare. Only one in three of those who left welfare increased their economic resources. In La Crosse, Wisconsin, the number of children sleeping in Salvation Army homeless shelters shot up by 50 percent between 1994 and 1996. In contrast, the number of homeless men--a group that is largely unaffected by welfare changes--rose by only one percent during the same period. And, a recently released study by the Institute for Wisconsin's Future says that the number of families in extreme poverty jumped from about 1,700 in 1989 to 11,200 in 1997. Mr. President, clearly we need to be careful about pronouncing welfare reform a ``success'' simply because the caseloads are down. People are continuing to suffer and struggle to meet their basic needs. Mr. President, I have already discussed the dramatic decline in welfare caseloads. Let me remind everyone that the caseload decline has not been matched by a similar decline in poverty indicators. I think we need to know, on a national level, what's going on. The research we do have suggests that moving people off of welfare is not having the intended effect of putting them on the road to economic self-sufficiency. The NETWORK study reports that people continue to experience severe hardship. For example: Nearly half of the respondents report that their health is only ``fair'' or ``poor.'' 43% eat fewer meals or less food per meal due to cost. 52% of soup kitchen patrons are unable to provide sufficient food for their children. Even the working poor are suffering as 41% of those with jobs experienced hunger. Mr. President, NETWORK is not the only group out there trying to find out what is going on. In another study, seven local agencies and community welfare monitoring coalitions in six states compared people currently receiving welfare to those who stopped getting welfare in the last six months. The data show that people who stopped getting welfare were: Less likely to get food stamps; Less likely to get Medicaid; More likely to go without food for a day or more; More likely to move because they couldn't pay rent; More likely to have a child who lived away or was in foster care; More likely to have difficulty paying for and getting child care, and; More likely to say ``my life is worse'' compared to six months ago. The National Conference of State Legislatures' analyzed 14 state studies with good information about families leaving welfare. It found: Most of the jobs [that former recipients get] pay between $5.50 and $7 an hour, higher than minimum wage but not enough to raise a family out of poverty. So far, few families who leave welfare have been able to escape poverty. And then there is the recent study by Families USA, which presents a very troubling set of findings. It reports: over two-thirds of a million low-income people--approximately 675,000--lost Medical coverage and became uninsured as of 1997 due to welfare reform. The majority (62 percent) of those who became uninsured due to welfare reform were children, and most of those children were, in all likelihood, still eligible for coverage under Medicaid. Moreover, the number of people who lose health coverage due to welfare reform is certain to grow rather substantially in the years ahead. Mr. President, sometimes with all these numbers and studies we lose sight of the fact that they are based on the lives of real people-- people who want the best for themselves and their children. But, we must not forget this reality. Here is the story of one family that one of the Sisters in the NETWORK study workeed with: Martha and her seven year-old child, David, live in Chicago. She recently began working, but her 37-hour a week job pays only $6.00 an hour. In order to work, Martha must have childcare for David. Since he goes to school, she found a sitter who would receive him at 7 a.m. and take him to school. This sitter provided after school care as well. When Sister Joan sat down with Martha to talk about her finances, they discovered that her salary does not even cover the sitter's costs. The Families USA Report tells us the following story: Terry (This is not her real name) had been on welfare for about two years when she got a job at McDonald's. Working 30 hours a week, Terry earned $600 a month. When she told her welfare caseworker about her new job, Terry and her 5-year-old son, James, were cut off of cash assistance and Medicaid. Her Food Stamps stopped, too, although she was promised they would continue. When Terry left welfare for work, no one told her that she was eligible for Transitional Medicaid. And her son James should have continued to receive Medicaid until Terry earned at least $1,200 a month--twice as much as she made at her job at McDonald's. Mr. President, these three cases I just mentioned are about families where a parent is working. There is an even scarier situation--families that neither receive government assistance nor have a parent with a job. We don't know for certain how large this population is, but in the NETWORK study 79% of the people were unemployed and not receiving welfare benefits. Of course this study was focused on the hardest hit and therefore overestimates the overall percentage of former recipients who are unemployed. But, it still represents a 50% increase over the level it found before welfare reform. How are these families surviving? Mr. President, I am deeply concerned and worried about them. They are no longer receiving aid and they don't have jobs. They are literally falling through the cracks and disappearing. I call these families, which are composed primarily of women and their children, The Disappeared Americans. We must find out what is going on. That is why this amendment is so important. It will provide us with valuable information we need in order to be responsible policymakers. Mr. President, this is not the first time I have come to the floor of the US Senate to offer an amendment designed to find out what is happening to poor people in this country. Last month I offered a similar amendment and it lost by one vote. Although 50 Senators voted against it, not one spoke in opposition. Not a single Senator rose to debate me on the merits of the measure. At that time, I promised and I would return to the Senate floor with the amendment, and today I am fulfilling my promise. Since I first offered the amendment, we have received some valuable input about the best way to gather the kind of data we need to understand on a national level what is going on. In the original amendment, states would have been required to conduct new studies to track all former TANF recipients. In the version of the amendment I offer today, states can simply rely on administrative data that they already collect. For example, in order to provide Medicaid and child health insurance data, states would just have to do a match between their TANF and Medicaid/CHIP computer systems. And, if states choose not to apply for the TANF bonus money, they would only need to provide data on a valid sample of former recipients, not the entire population. In other words, Mr. President, we have reworked the amendment to make it significantly less burdensome of the Secretary of HHS and the states. Frankly, with these changes, I don't see a reason why anyone would vote against this amendment. If there is going to be opposition, I expect that we will have a debate. Let's identify our differences and debate them. Mr. President, let me wrap things up by reminding us all that it is our duty and our responsibility to make sure that the policies we enact for the good of the people actually are doing good for them. Evaluation is one of the key ingredients in good policy making and it does not take a degree in political science to realize what anyone with common sense already knows: When you try something new, you need to find out how it works. As policy makers--regardless of our ideology or intuitions--it is our role to ensure that the programs we enact to provide for American families' well-being are effective and produce the outcomes we intend. We need to know what is happening with the families who are affected by welfare reform. We need to know whether reform is, in fact, effectively helping low income mothers and their children build a path to escape poverty and move toward economic self-sufficiency. As I have already explained, the data we do have does not provide us with all the information we need. We need to go beyond simply assuming that welfare and food stamp declines are ``good'' news. The Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal once said, ``Ignorance is never random.'' Sometimes we choose not to know what we do not want to know. In the case of welfare reform, we must have the courage to find out.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Children Who Witness Domestic Violence Protection Act. My legislation, which I am joined by Senator Murray in offering today, is a comprehensive first step towards confronting the impact that witnessing domestic violence has on children. This bill addresses the issue from multiple perspectives, including mental health, education, child protection services, supervised visitation centers, law enforcement, and crisis nurseries. There are many facets to the serious problem we have with violence in our country. The evening news brings violent images from around the world into our homes every day. We also witness through various media the violent images or hear stories of violence that has occurred in our own communities and in our schools like Columbine High. Images of violence bombard our children from the movies, video games, or from television programs. But there is a type of violence in the lives of America's children that is not in the spotlight. Increasingly, children are witnessing real-life violence in their homes. In fact, it is in their own homes that many children witness violence for the first time. Over 3 million children are witnessing violence in their homes each year, and it is having a profound impact on their development. Frequently, these children are physically injured by the violence. But always, they carry with them lasting emotional sears from having been exposed to the threat and trauma of injury, assault or killing. This exposure to domestic violence changes the way children view the world. It may change the value they place on life itself. It affects their ability to learn, to establish relationships, and to cope with stress. Witnessing domestic violence has such a profound impact on children, placing them at high risk for anxiety, depression, and, potentially, suicide. Further, these child victims may exhibit more aggressive, antisocial, and fearful behaviors. They are also at greater risk of becoming future offenders. Studies indicate that children who witness their fathers beating their mothers suffer emotional problems, including slowed development, sleep disturbances, and feelings of helplessness, depression and anxiety. Many of these children exhibit more aggressive, anti-social, fearful and inhibited behaviors. They also show lower social competence than other children. Children from homes where their mothers were abused have also shown less skill in understanding how others feel and in examining situations from the other's perspective when compared to children from non-violent households. Even one episode of violence can produce post-traumatic stress disorder in children. Exposure to family violence, many studies suggest, is the strongest predictor of violent delinquent behavior among adolescents. It is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of chronically violent adolescents have witnessed extreme parental conflict. Recent studies have demonstrated that up to 50% of children who come before the juvenile dependency court on allegations of abuse and neglect have been exposed to domestic violence in their homes. In a Justice Department funded study of children in Rochester, NY, children who had grown up in families where domestic violence occurred were 21 percent more likely to report violent delinquency than those not so exposed. Children exposed to multiple forms of family violence reported twice the rate of youth violence as those from nonviolent families. A 1994 survey of 115 mothers in the waiting room of Boston City Hospital's Primary Care Clinic found that by age 6, one in ten children had witnessed a knifing or shooting. An additional 18 percent of the children under six had witnesses pushing, hitting or shoving. Half of the reported violence occurred in the child's home. Many children actually see their father, stepfather, or mother's boyfriend not only beat their mothers but rape them as well. Although some parents believe that they succeed in shielding their children from the batterer's aggression, children often provide detailed accounts of the very events which adults report they did not witness. Reports by children and by adults of their memories of childhood experience indicate that parents severely underestimate the extent to which their children are exposed to violence. Children who witness domestic violence are traumatized and need support. Who is a child going to turn to when their mother is the victim of their father? Who is a child going to talk to when their sibling has emotionally shut down and no longer speaks? Who is a child going to go to for help when they need assistance? Children have the right to know that what is happening in their home is wrong. Children have the right to feel that we are about their safety.' This bill addresses the issue from multiple perspective including mental health, education, children protection services, supervised visitation centers, law enforcement, and crisis nurseries. There are some creative programs in this country that are forging partnerships in their communities to meet the needs of traumatized children. I have visited such programs in Boston, San Francisco and Minnesota. More must be done. To address the devastating impact that witnessing domestic violence has on the mental health of children, my legislation provides nonprofit agencies with the funds needed to design and implement multi-system interventions for child witnesses. This partnerships would involve the courts, schools, health care providers, child protective services, battered women's programs and others. Promoting collaboration and coordination among all the professionals involved can broaden the community's response to the child. This response would include developing and providing: Guidenace to evaluate the need of child witnesses; safety and security procedures for child witnesses and their families; counseling and advocacy for families of child witnesses; mental health treatment services; and outreach and training to community professionals. My legislation also encourages collaboration between domestic violence community agencies and schools to provide educational programming and support services for students and staff. Domestic violence agencies will work with schools to provide: Training for school officials about domestic violence and its impact on children; educational programming and materials on domestic violence for students; and support services, such as counselors, for students and school officials. Among the many detrimental impacts of witnessing domestic violence, children exposed to domestic violence are at high risk for learning difficulties and school failure. Research indicates that children residing in shelters show significantly lower verbal and quantitive skills when compared to children nationally. These deficits, when coupled with the impact on children's behavioral and emotional functioning, demand that schools be able to understand and address the needs of children who have witnessed domestic violence. Further, service providers continue to find that the occurrence of domestic violence could be detected sooner if various points of contact with the family had been better trained to recognize the indicators of such family violence. Children cannot always compartmentalize traumatic events--instead the domestic violence comes to school with each and every child witness. It undermines their school performance, and their relationship with other children. This legislation also addresses domestic violence and the people who work to protect our children from abuse and neglect. There is a significant overlap between domestic violence and child abuse. In families where one form of family violence exists, there is a likelihood that the other does, too. In a national survey, researchers found that 50 percent of the men who frequently assaulted their wives also frequently abused their children. The problem is that Child Protective Services and domestic violence organizations have separately set up programs to address one of these forms of violence, yet few address both when they occur together in families. My bill creates incentives for local governments to collaborate with domestic violence agencies in administering their child welfare programs. Under my legislation, funds will be awarded to States and local governments to work collaboratively with community-based domestic violence programs to: Provide training to the staff, supervisors, and administrators of child welfare service agencies and domestic violence programs, including staff responsible for screening, intake, assessment, and investigation of reports of child abuse and neglect; assist agencies in recognizing that the overlap between child abuse and domestic violence places both children and adult victims in danger; develop relevant protocols for screening, intake, assessment, investigation, and interventions; and increase the safety and well- being of child witnesses of domestic violence as well as the safety of the non-abusing parent. Another important part of my legislation is funding to increase the availability of supervised visitation centers. Since domestic violence often escalates during separation and divorce, and visitation is frequently used as an opportunity for abuse, this provision is designed to shield children from further exposure to violence. It creates a grants program which domestic violence service providers can apply for on a competitive basis to create family visitation centers. Use of these centers can minimize stressful and potentially dangerous interactions among family members. In addition, the centers provide judges with a further tool to deal with problematic visitations when there has been a history of violence. On July 3, 1996 5 year old Brandon and 4 year old Alex were murdered by their father during an unsupervised visit. Their mother Angela was separated from Kurt Frank, the children's father. During her marriage, Angela was physically and emotionally abused by Frank, and Frank had hit Brandon and split open his lip when he stepped in front of his mother during a domestic violence incident. Angela had an Order of Protection against Kurt Frank, but during custody hearings her request for her husband to only receive supervised visits was rejected. Kurt Frank murdered his two sons during an unsupervised visit. We must do better for the 3 million children witnesses still living out there. Law enforcement officers are those who find traumatized children hiding behind doors, beneath furniture, in closets. They are generally the first to arrive and their ability to recognize and address the needs of the children is critical. This bill provides further training to law enforcement officers regarding the appropriate treatment of children who have witnessed domestic violence. Police officers will be trained in child development and issues related to domestic violence so that they may: Recognize the needs of children who have witnessed domestic violence; meet children's immediate needs at the scene of the crime; and establish a collaborative working relationship between police officers and local domestic violence service agencies. Families faced with domestic violence also need a safe place for their children during times of crisis. This legislation provides funds to States to assist private and public agencies and organizations to provide crisis nurseries for children who are abused, neglected, at risk of abuse or neglect, or who are in families receiving child protective services. Nurseries will be available to provide a safe place for children and to alleviate the social and emotional stress among children and families impacted by domestic violence. In conclusion, we must pass this legislation for children who are traumatized by what they have seen. We must pass this legislation for children like Brandon and Alex who deserve to have our protection from harm. Please join me in the protection of children who witness domestic violence. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Children Who Witness Domestic Violence Protection Act. My legislation, which I am joined by Senator Murray in offering today, is a comprehensive first step towards confronting the impact that witnessing domestic violence has on children. This bill addresses the issue from multiple perspectives, including mental health, education, child protection services, supervised visitation centers, law enforcement, and crisis nurseries. There are many facets to the serious problem we have with violence in our country. The evening news brings violent images from around the world into our homes every day. We also witness through various media the violent images or hear stories of violence that has occurred in our own communities and in our schools like Columbine High. Images of violence bombard our children from the movies, video games, or from television programs. But there is a type of violence in the lives of America's children that is not in the spotlight. Increasingly, children are witnessing real-life violence in their homes. In fact, it is in their own homes that many children witness violence for the first time. Over 3 million children are witnessing violence in their homes each year, and it is having a profound impact on their development. Frequently, these children are physically injured by the violence. But always, they carry with them lasting emotional sears from having been exposed to the threat and trauma of injury, assault or killing. This exposure to domestic violence changes the way children view the world. It may change the value they place on life itself. It affects their ability to learn, to establish relationships, and to cope with stress. Witnessing domestic violence has such a profound impact on children, placing them at high risk for anxiety, depression, and, potentially, suicide. Further, these child victims may exhibit more aggressive, antisocial, and fearful behaviors. They are also at greater risk of becoming future offenders. Studies indicate that children who witness their fathers beating their mothers suffer emotional problems, including slowed development, sleep disturbances, and feelings of helplessness, depression and anxiety. Many of these children exhibit more aggressive, anti-social, fearful and inhibited behaviors. They also show lower social competence than other children. Children from homes where their mothers were abused have also shown less skill in understanding how others feel and in examining situations from the other's perspective when compared to children from non-violent households. Even one episode of violence can produce post-traumatic stress disorder in children. Exposure to family violence, many studies suggest, is the strongest predictor of violent delinquent behavior among adolescents. It is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of chronically violent adolescents have witnessed extreme parental conflict. Recent studies have demonstrated that up to 50% of children who come before the juvenile dependency court on allegations of abuse and neglect have been exposed to domestic violence in their homes. In a Justice Department funded study of children in Rochester, NY, children who had grown up in families where domestic violence occurred were 21 percent more likely to report violent delinquency than those not so exposed. Children exposed to multiple forms of family violence reported twice the rate of youth violence as those from nonviolent families. A 1994 survey of 115 mothers in the waiting room of Boston City Hospital's Primary Care Clinic found that by age 6, one in ten children had witnessed a knifing or shooting. An additional 18 percent of the children under six had witnesses pushing, hitting or shoving. Half of the reported violence occurred in the child's home. Many children actually see their father, stepfather, or mother's boyfriend not only beat their mothers but rape them as well. Although some parents believe that they succeed in shielding their children from the batterer's aggression, children often provide detailed accounts of the very events which adults report they did not witness. Reports by children and by adults of their memories of childhood experience indicate that parents severely underestimate the extent to which their children are exposed to violence. Children who witness domestic violence are traumatized and need support. Who is a child going to turn to when their mother is the victim of their father? Who is a child going to talk to when their sibling has emotionally shut down and no longer speaks? Who is a child going to go to for help when they need assistance? Children have the right to know that what is happening in their home is wrong. Children have the right to feel that we are about their safety.' This bill addresses the issue from multiple perspective including mental health, education, children protection services, supervised visitation centers, law enforcement, and crisis nurseries. There are some creative programs in this country that are forging partnerships in their communities to meet the needs of traumatized children. I have visited such programs in Boston, San Francisco and Minnesota. More must be done. To address the devastating impact that witnessing domestic violence has on the mental health of children, my legislation provides nonprofit agencies with the funds needed to design and implement multi-system interventions for child witnesses. This partnerships would involve the courts, schools, health care providers, child protective services, battered women's programs and others. Promoting collaboration and coordination among all the professionals involved can broaden the community's response to the child. This response would include developing and providing: Guidenace to evaluate the need of child witnesses; safety and security procedures for child witnesses and their families; counseling and advocacy for families of child witnesses; mental health treatment services; and outreach and training to community professionals. My legislation also encourages collaboration between domestic violence community agencies and schools to provide educational programming and support services for students and staff. Domestic violence agencies will work with schools to provide: Training for school officials about domestic violence and its impact on children; educational programming and materials on domestic violence for students; and support services, such as counselors, for students and school officials. Among the many detrimental impacts of witnessing domestic violence, children exposed to domestic violence are at high risk for learning difficulties and school failure. Research indicates that children residing in shelters show significantly lower verbal and quantitive skills when compared to children nationally. These deficits, when coupled with the impact on children's behavioral and emotional functioning, demand that schools be able to understand and address the needs of children who have witnessed domestic violence. Further, service providers continue to find that the occurrence of domestic violence could be detected sooner if various points of contact with the family had been better trained to recognize the indicators of such family violence. Children cannot always compartmentalize traumatic events--instead the domestic violence comes to school with each and every child witness. It undermines their school performance, and their relationship with other children. This legislation also addresses domestic violence and the people who work to protect our children from abuse and neglect. There is a significant overlap between domestic violence and child abuse. In families where one form of family violence exists, there is a likelihood that the other does, too. In a national survey, researchers found that 50 percent of the men who frequently assaulted their wives also frequently abused their children. The problem is that Child Protective Services and domestic violence organizations have separately set up programs to address one of these forms of violence, yet few address both when they occur together in families. My bill creates incentives for local governments to collaborate with domestic violence agencies in administering their child welfare programs. Under my legislation, funds will be awarded to States and local governments to work collaboratively with community-based domestic violence programs to: Provide training to the staff, supervisors, and administrators of child welfare service agencies and domestic violence programs, including staff responsible for screening, intake, assessment, and investigation of reports of child abuse and neglect; assist agencies in recognizing that the overlap between child abuse and domestic violence places both children and adult victims in danger; develop relevant protocols for screening, intake, assessment, investigation, and interventions; and increase the safety and well- being of child witnesses of domestic violence as well as the safety of the non-abusing parent. Another important part of my legislation is funding to increase the availability of supervised visitation centers. Since domestic violence often escalates during separation and divorce, and visitation is frequently used as an opportunity for abuse, this provision is designed to shield children from further exposure to violence. It creates a grants program which domestic violence service providers can apply for on a competitive basis to create family visitation centers. Use of these centers can minimize stressful and potentially dangerous interactions among family members. In addition, the centers provide judges with a further tool to deal with problematic visitations when there has been a history of violence. On July 3, 1996 5 year old Brandon and 4 year old Alex were murdered by their father during an unsupervised visit. Their mother Angela was separated from Kurt Frank, the children's father. During her marriage, Angela was physically and emotionally abused by Frank, and Frank had hit Brandon and split open his lip when he stepped in front of his mother during a domestic violence incident. Angela had an Order of Protection against Kurt Frank, but during custody hearings her request for her husband to only receive supervised visits was rejected. Kurt Frank murdered his two sons during an unsupervised visit. We must do better for the 3 million children witnesses still living out there. Law enforcement officers are those who find traumatized children hiding behind doors, beneath furniture, in closets. They are generally the first to arrive and their ability to recognize and address the needs of the children is critical. This bill provides further training to law enforcement officers regarding the appropriate treatment of children who have witnessed domestic violence. Police officers will be trained in child development and issues related to domestic violence so that they may: Recognize the needs of children who have witnessed domestic violence; meet children's immediate needs at the scene of the crime; and establish a collaborative working relationship between police officers and local domestic violence service agencies. Families faced with domestic violence also need a safe place for their children during times of crisis. This legislation provides funds to States to assist private and public agencies and organizations to provide crisis nurseries for children who are abused, neglected, at risk of abuse or neglect, or who are in families receiving child protective services. Nurseries will be available to provide a safe place for children and to alleviate the social and emotional stress among children and families impacted by domestic violence. In conclusion, we must pass this legislation for children who are traumatized by what they have seen. We must pass this legislation for children like Brandon and Alex who deserve to have our protection from harm. Please join me in the protection of children who witness domestic violence. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will shortly send a modified amendment to the desk. In the time I have, let me speak on a topic I think is related to this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I send my modified amendment No. 1123 to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robin Goodman and Howard Kushlan, who are interns in my office this summer, and John Bradshaw, who is a fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 the pending amendment be laid aside. I say to my colleague from Kentucky, I will speak on an amendment I am going to offer just to save us time so we can move along today.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1123 (Purpose: To combat the crime of international trafficking and to protect the rights of victims)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I will discuss one of the most horrendous human rights violations of our time--the trafficking of human beings, which is particularly prevalent among women and children, for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced slavery. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill, the International Trafficking of Women and Children Victim Protection Act of 1999, which addresses this issue. This legislation was cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Snowe, Murray, Harkin, and Torricelli. Today I am going to offer an amendment, which I will send to the desk shortly, to the foreign ops bill, which is basically this piece of legislation. If adopted, this amendment will put the Senate on record as opposing trafficking for forced prostitution and domestic servitude and acting to check it before the lives of more women and more girls are shattered. Trafficking in human beings is one of the fastest growing international trafficking businesses. Women and girls seeking a better life, a good marriage, a lucrative job abroad, unexpectedly find themselves forced to work as prostitutes or in sweat shops. Seeking this better life, they are lured by local advertisements for good jobs in foreign countries at wages they could never imagine at home. Every year, the trafficking of human beings for the sex trade affects hundreds of thousands of women throughout the world. That is hard to believe. Every year the trafficking of women and girls for sex trade affects hundreds of thousands of women or, for that matter, girls throughout the world. The U.S. Government estimates that 1 million to 2 million women and girls are trafficked annually around the world. According to experts, between 50 and 100,000 women are trafficked each year into the United States alone. They come from Thailand, Russia, the Ukraine, and other countries in Asia and in the former Soviet Union. Although trafficking has been a problem in some Asian countries, it was not until the breakup of the Soviet Union that a sex trade in that region began to flourish. This appalling trade has grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade. Trafficking is induced by poverty, lack of economic opportunities for women, the horrendous low status of women in many cultures, and the rapid growth of sophisticated and ruthless international crime operations. Trafficking rings exploit and abuse poor, vulnerable women in the devastated economies of Russia, the Ukraine, and other countries in Central Europe, where women are unable to find jobs to sustain themselves and their families. As many of you know, I am deeply concerned about what has taken place in Russia today. I am deeply concerned about it because I believe what happens in Russia, for better or for worse--and I hope it will be for better--will crucially affect the quality, or lack of quality, of our lives, our children's lives, and our grandchildren's lives. I suppose I am also concerned because my father was a Jewish immigrant who fled Russia. In that country, we know that some 6.5 million women are unemployed, and 2.5 million children are not in school but they are in the streets. These women and children are vulnerable to international organized crime that preys on the jobless, the destitute, the desperate, and the naive. Upon arrival in countries far from their homes, these women from Russia and the Ukraine, and many other countries, are often stripped of their passports, held against their will in slave-like conditions, and sexually abused. It is just unbelievable that this is exactly what is happening. Rape and intimidation and violence are commonly employed by the traffickers to control their victims and to prevent them from seeking help. Through physical isolation and psychological trauma, traffickers and brothel owners imprison women in a world of economic and sexual exploitation that imposes a constant threat of fear and deportation, as well as violent reprisals by the traffickers themselves to whom the women must pay ever growing debts. Many brothel owners actually prefer foreign women--women who are far from help and home who do not speak the language--precisely because it is so easy to control them. Most of these women never imagined the life of hell they would encounter, having traveled abroad to find better jobs or to see the world. Many, in their naivete, believed that nothing bad could happen to them in rich and comfortable countries such as Switzerland, Germany, or the United States. Others who were less naive but desperate for money and opportunity are no less hurt by the traffickers' brutal grip. Last year, First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke powerfully of this human tragedy. She said: I have spoken to young girls in northern Thailand whose parents were persuaded to sell them as prostitutes, and they received a great deal of money by their standards. You could often tell the homes of where the girls had been sold because they might even have a satellite dish or an addition built on their house. But I met girls who would come home after they had been used up, after they had contracted HIV or AIDS. If you've ever held the hand of a 13-year-old girl dying of AIDS, you can understand how critical it is that we take every step possible to prevent this happening to any other girl anywhere in the world. I also, in the Ukraine, heard-- The Ukraine actually was where my father was born-- of women who told me with tears running down their faces that young women in their communities were disappearing. They answered ads that promised [them] a much better future in another place and they were never heard from again. We have had women from the Ukraine in our office, in face-to-face meetings, talking about the awful problem of women and young girls being exploited, leaving the Ukraine, coming to countries such as ours, and then finding themselves in this kind of situation. These events are occurring not just in far off lands but in the United States as well. Earlier this spring, 6 men admitted, in a Florida court, to forcing 17 women and girls, some as young as 14, into a prostitution slavery ring. The victims were smuggled into the United States from Mexico with the promise of steady work, but, instead, they were forced into prostitution. The ring was discovered when two 15-year-old girls escaped and went to the Mexican consulate in Miami. According to recent reports by the Justice Department, teenage Mexican girls were also held in slavery in the Carolinas and forced to submit to prostitution. In addition, Russian and Latvian women were forced to work in night clubs in Chicago. According to charges filed against the traffickers, the traffickers picked up the women upon their arrival at the airport, seized their documents and return tickets, locked them in hotels, and beat them. This is in our country. The women were told that if they refused to dance nude in various nightclubs, the Russian mafia would kill their families. Further, over 3 years, hundreds of women from the Czech Republic who answered advertisements in Czech newspapers for modeling were ensnared in an illegal prostitution ring. Because the victims of international trafficking are frequently unfamiliar with the laws, cultures, and languages of the countries to which they have been trafficked, these victims often find it difficult or impossible to report the crimes that have been committed against them or to assist in the investigation and the prosecution of such crimes. Further, victims do not have legal immigration status in the countries into which they are trafficked, so the victims are often punished more harshly than the traffickers themselves. Trafficking in women and girls is a human rights problem. This is a human rights amendment that requires a human rights response. Trafficking is condemned by human rights treaties as a violation of basic human rights and as a slavery-like practice. Women who are trafficked are subject to other abuses--to rape, to beatings, to physical confinement--which are squarely prohibited by human rights law but are happening all around the world. The human abuses continue in the workplace in the forms of physical and sexual abuse, debt bondage and illegal confinement, and all are prohibited. But the practices go on. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to be free from slavery and involuntary servitude, arbitrary detention, degrading or inhuman treatment, as well as the right to protection by law against these abuses. The United Nations General Assembly has passed three resolutions during the last 3 years recognizing that international traffic in women and girls is an issue of pressing international concern involving numerous violations of fundamental human rights. The United Nations General Assembly is calling upon all governments to criminalize trafficking, to punish its offenders, while not penalizing its victims. Fortunately, the global trade in women and children is receiving far greater attention by governments and nongovernment organizations following the U.N. World Conference on Women in Beijing. The President's Interagency Council on Women is working hard to mobilize a response to this problem. Churches and synagogues, and nongovernment organizations are fighting the battle daily, but much, much, much more must be done. This amendment provides a human rights response to the problem. It has a comprehensive and integrated approach focused on prevention, protection, and assistance for the victims and prosecution of the traffickers. I am going to highlight a few of the provisions in the amendment. One, it sets an international standard for governments to meet in their efforts to fight trafficking and assist victims of this human rights abuse. It calls on the State Department and Justice Department to investigate and take action against international trafficking. In addition, it creates an Interagency Task Force in the Office of the Secretary of State to Monitor and Combat Trafficking and directs the Secretary to submit an annual report to the Congress on international trafficking. The annual report would, among other things, identify states engaged in trafficking, the effort of those states to combat trafficking, and whether their government officials are complicit in the practice. Corrupt government or law enforcement officials sometimes directly participate and benefit in the trade of women and girls. Corruption also prevents prosecution of the traffickers. On a national level, as I look to this amendment, it ensures that our immigration laws do not encourage rapid deportation of trafficked women, a practice which effectively insulates traffickers from ever being prosecuted for their crimes. Trafficking victims are eligible for nonimmigrant status valid for 3 months. If the victim pursues criminal or civil actions against a trafficker or if she pursues an asylum claim, she is provided with an extension of time. Furthermore, it provides that trafficked women should not be detained but instead receive the needed services, the safe shelter, and the opportunity to seek justice against her abuser. Finally, this amendment provides much-needed resources to programs assisting trafficking victims here at home and abroad. We must commit ourselves to ending the trafficking of women and girls and to building a world in which women and children are no longer subjected to horrendous abuses. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I have worked on this bill for a long time with a lot of groups and organizations. I believe this will have strong bipartisan support. I have tried to respond to a variety of different concerns. I say to my colleague from Vermont, as long as he doesn't think this is in the spirit of buttering him up, I view him as a champion in human rights work. I really believe this is consistent with his work. I think we ought to have this kind of response. I thought, in order to save time, I would speak on this amendment. I know there are other amendments that are on the floor. I wonder whether I might send this amendment to the desk so that we will have it for consideration.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Illinois. I have another amendment that I could introduce, but for now, I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.