Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do I have on our side?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't want to take too much more of my time right now, because I really want this to be a debate. I will tell you, this amendment does not say you release kids. It has nothing to do with that. And, by the way, most of the kids in these facilities have committed nonviolent crime. That needs to be said as well. I have met kids breaking and entering, theft of mopeds; you name it, they are there. What is going on right now in the country has a dramatic impact not just on these kids and not just their parents, but it has a devastating impact on minority communities. Let us finally please understand that as well. The disproportionate minority confinement, the disproportionate number of kids who are locked up, has a devastating impact on minority communities, a devastating impact on family relationships, a growing sense of anger and isolation and alienation and--my colleague from Illinois is right--distrust of the institutions in our country. This is the final point, before I hear from my colleagues on the other side. All too often these ``corrections institutions''--this needs to be said--do not correct. They are a gateway to adult prison, because a lot of kids get out, and when they get out, they have it on record that they have served time. They do not get the adequate training. They do not get the adequate support. And as opposed to any real correction that takes place, you have a lot of kids who get out of these institutions who are really, in many ways, kids who have become much hardened and with much less chance of doing well. So there is also a connection to this problem, I argue, in the fact that, roughly speaking, in 1999 one-third of all African American men between the ages of 18 and 26, or 20 and 28, are either in prison or waiting to be sentenced, or have been paroled. Five times as many African American men of this young age are in prison as are in college, in higher education, in the State of California. We have to ask ourselves what is going on. Again, we were making progress up to this legislation. We were making progress. We did something that made sense to our States. We called upon our States to really look at this problem and try to address this problem. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Exhibit 1 May 17, 1999. Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Paul D. Wellstone, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Wellstone: As the Senate is considering S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, it has come to our attention that the sponsors of S. 254 have altered the language of the Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) mandate in current federal law by removing any reference to the word minority, claiming that the law as currently written is unconstitutional. We believe this argument is without merit. There can be no serious constitutional objection to the DMC requirement in existing law. First, it does not single out members of racial minorities for any sort of distinctive treatment, nor does it impose any burdens on anyone else. The Supreme Court's decisions make it clear that constitutional questions arise, not merely from the use of racial terms in a law--for otherwise compiling census information about race would be unconstitutional--but only if there is some burden or benefit allocated on the basis of race. Cf. Anderson v. Martin, 375 U.S. 399 (1964). The DMC requirements do nothing that crosses this minimum threshold. Second, the DMC mandate is designed to identify whether unconstitutional racial discrimination is occurring in the juvenile justice system. The Supreme Court has held that practices that result in disproportionate burdens on racial minorities are unconstitutional if they have been adopted intentionally to have that effect. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976). The DMC requirements are directed at precisely that concern: They ask the states to determine whether DMC is occurring, and if it is, what its causes are. It cannot possibly be unconstitutional for Congress to direct that such an inquiry be undertaken. Cf. Hunter v. Underwood, 421 U.S. 222 (1985). We hope that this information is useful as you continue your debate on this legislation. Sincerely, Mark Tushnet, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Milner Ball, Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law; Taunya Lovell Banks, Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law; Kelley H. Bartges, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, University of Richmond Law School; Steve Berenson, Assistant Professor of Law, Shepard Broad Law Center, Nova Southeastern University; Surrel Brady, Associate Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law; Angela O. Burton, Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law; Peter Byrne, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Sheryll D. Cashin, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Sherman L. Cohn, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; John M. Copacino, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Michael Dale, Professor of Law, Shepard Broad Law Center, Nova Southeastern University; Steven Drizin, Northwestern University School of Law; John S. Elson, Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law; Dan Filler, Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law; Pamela Stanbeck Glean, Clinical Professor of Law, North Carolina Central University School of Law; Gerard F. Glynn, Visiting Professor of Law, Barry University School of Law; Martin Guggenheim, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Randy Hertz, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Paul Holland, Visiting Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Daniel Kanstroom, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Boston College Law School; Madeleine Kurtz, Acting Professor of Clinical Law, New York University School of Law; Lundy Langston, Professor of Law, Shepard Broad Law Center, Nova Southeastern University; Stephen Loffredo, Associate Professor of Law, City University of New York School of Law; Kimberly E. O'Leary, Associate Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Programs, University of Dayton School of Law; Mari Matsuda, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Denise Meyer, Professor of Law, University of Southern California Law School; Alan D. Minuskin, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Boston College Law School; Wallace J. Mlyniec, Lupo-Ricci Professor of Clinical Legal Studies, Georgetown University Law Center; Paul O'Neil, Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law; Bill Patton, Whittier School of Law; Patricia Roth, Georgetown University Law Center; Phillip G. Schrag, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Abbe Smith, Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Kim Taylor-Thompson, Professor of Clinical Law, New York University School of Law; Wendy W. Williams, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Stephen Wizner, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law, Yale Law School.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just before we go forward with this time, I understand the Senator from California is going to make a request. For just a moment, before I get started responding, could I ask unanimous consent that this time not be counted against any of ours because there may be an interruption here for another amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, we would not count this time. I am trying to be accommodating to Senators over here who may want to briefly do an amendment, and then let us use our last 10 minutes. I just want to see----

Mr. WELLSTONE. OK. I guess that did not work.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There have been statements made on the floor of the Senate on this question that I want everybody in the country to know about. I want to have a chance to address these questions. We certainly will use the rest of our time. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I ask one question: Do we have a minute each, or are we not doing that?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment with Senator Kennedy. We will be joined by other Senators as well. The operative language of this amendment, to give it some context, calls upon the States to ``address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas''--we make that explicit; nobody is talking about any quotas--``the disproportionate number of juvenile members of racial minority groups who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.'' With some charts and with some numbers, I will be able to talk about this amendment, as will other Senators. I want, for the record, to make it clear that since we are in a debate about whether or not we are ready to proceed, I am on the floor with an amendment. I am ready to go. This particular amendment says that in our past juvenile justice legislation, most recently an amendment that was adopted by the Senate and the House in 1993, we said to States, including my own State of Minnesota: You have a situation where you have kids, young people, minorities incarcerated all out of proportion to the percentage of the population in your State. So that if you have, let's say, a 7 or 8 or 10 percent minority population but, in your juvenile justice system or correctional facilities, close to 40 or 50 percent of the kids incarcerated are kids of color, what we said back in 1993, based upon some very good work by some very good people in this field was, States, please take a look at your situation. Please collect the data. Please look at the why of this and see what kind of strategies and programs you can develop and implement to improve upon the situation. That is what this is all about. For some reason in this bill that is before us, this language has been dropped. There are some 40 States that are working on this. There are some States that are doing a very good job, but as a Senator, I am not about to let the Senate turn the clock back. I am not about to let us, all of a sudden, say that we no longer are interested in calling upon States to deal with this problem of disproportionate minority confinement. I do not think we should do so. We cannot pass quotas. We never should. We cannot tell States how many kids should be incarcerated, for what crimes and all the rest. What we can say is when you have disproportionate minority confinement, when you have a situation where all too many times kids of color are given much stiffer sentences for having committed the same offenses as white kids, we want to know what is going on. What this legislation does--and it purports to be juvenile justice legislation--is take the justice out. It takes the justice out. The justice would be to make sure there is no discrimination. The justice would be to make sure there is fairness. The justice would be to make sure there is justice. The reason I mention this is that not only do the kids of color all too often find themselves way out of proportion to their numbers in the State to be incarcerated but also to wind up in adult facilities. Moreover, these corrections facilities, if you want to call them corrections facilities, all too often become the gateway to kids then being imprisoned in adult life. It is astounding, but in 1999, going into a new century, one-third of all African American men, I think ages 20 to 26, are either in prison or on parole or they are waiting to be sentenced. I did not make an argument here on the floor of the Senate that we should not hold all citizens, regardless of color of skin, accountable for crimes committed. That is not my argument. But my argument is, when we have some concern about possible discrimination, then let's at least be willing to study the problem. I see my colleague coming in. I want to, when the Senator from Utah gets settled in, try to explain the situation. I will give my colleague time to catch his breath. I say to Senator Hatch, I did not want to ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment because I did not see anybody on the other side. I was saying to the Chair that I am ready to go forward with an amendment, this one dealing with disproportionate minority confinement, because I know you want to move the bill forward. I have been in contact with Senator Kennedy, and if you are ready, I am certainly ready to debate it, and we will try to do it within a reasonable time limit.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me say to my colleague that I think I will continue to, rather than go into a quorum call, speak about the subject matter.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That might help. I want to make it crystal clear that I am ready to go forward with this amendment. I am not asking unanimous consent that I be able to send this amendment to the desk because I guess until we have this agreement, then it most likely would be rejected. But I am ready for debate on this amendment. Let me just say that when we get into the thick of this debate, I want to just bring to the attention of Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, the strong support, the strong passionate support for this amendment on the part of the civil rights community in this country, broadly defined, on the part of children's organizations, broadly defined, and on the part of lawyers and people who have been down in the trenches working with kids for years. This is an extremely important amendment that speaks to a fundamental flaw in this legislation. So, for the record, I am ready to offer this amendment. I will wait for the majority leader to come out. I ask my colleague from Utah, who is leaving, could I ask unanimous consent that when we go to amendments on the juvenile justice bill, that this be the first amendment up?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask a question first? I am sorry. I do not intend to take a lot of time. Is there a time limit on this amendment tonight?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this amendment goes right to the heart of this legislation. If we are serious about youth violence, one of the things we want to do is help kids before they get into trouble. This amendment would authorize grant money which would go to the community level for counselors and courts and schools and health care providers and teachers and battered women programs to provide support and help to those children who witness violence in their homes. We have focused on the violence against the adult--usually the woman, I am very sorry to say. But one of the things I found around the country, I say to my colleagues, is that we have not provided the support for kids. If you care about this issue of family violence, and if you care about trying to get more support for children who witness this and see it all the time and then cannot do well in school and are in trouble, then you need to support this amendment. In the bill right now, the language is not specific; it is very weak. It just simply talks about kids at risk, but it does not focus specifically on the problem of violence in homes and the effects on children who witness this violence. This is one of the best amendments we could support. For those of you who have done this work dealing with the issues of family violence, for those of you who care about reducing violence in families and supporting children, this is really an important amendment. I hope it will have strong support.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from North Carolina, I was thinking to myself that one of the things that rarely gets written about regarding politics, and it is almost the thing I have enjoyed the most about being a Senator, is the kind of friendships that develop here. Senator Helms and I are not exactly in agreement on most issues, and Admiral Nance and I weren't in agreement on most issues, but I tell you something, I came to love that man and I will never forget him. I agree with what everybody has said about his impact on the Senate. I think it started a couple of years ago; I would be walking with a bad knee and Bud would ask me how I was doing. We would start talking, and then we would talk more. It came to the point, Senator Helms, where I just decided--I never had a chance to know the admiral in the same way Senator Helms knew him as a dear friend, or the way some of my other colleagues have known him over the years--I just reached the conclusion that this was a man I really believed in. I hope and pray he felt the same way about me. I think he represented the very best of treating people well, the best of being willing to stand up for what you believe in, the best of patriotism, the best of public service. As far as I am concerned, there are certain people you meet whom you never forget. They are with you for the rest of your life. I celebrate this man's life. In all the work I will get a chance to do as a Senator or as a teacher, or whatever I do, I will always try--I will never succeed--to live up to Bud's example.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am ready with an amendment. I inquire as to what the situation is right now on the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I actually will not ask unanimous consent because there is nobody here on the majority party side. I want to go forward with an amendment on the juvenile justice bill, but I guess I will wait until Senator Hatch comes to the floor. I will, therefore, speak a little about an amendment I will offer. That way, it certainly will not be tricky or sneaky on my part.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, while we are waiting, let me just repeat a little bit of what I said yesterday. I have been speaking with some other Senators about this as well. While I understand that we have a very crowded schedule, I do believe that the Senate should take some time this week to discuss or to debate our military action in Kosovo. I have spoken now for the last several weeks about this. I will not repeat all that I have said. Next time I come to the floor with specific proposals and ideas, I hope to be able to do that with other Senators. And I see my colleague from Washington is on the floor, so I am going to yield in about 30 seconds, if I can. But quite apart from what specific proposals I want to make as a Senator about where we are and where I believe we must go as a nation, I want to make a larger point right now, which is I believe the Senate ought to be debating this question. I believe we should have full discussion and full debate. One thing I am certain of--and I mentioned this yesterday--when we voted on authorizing airstrikes, I asked my colleague, Senator Biden, what is the purpose? I read yesterday from the Record; and in the Record it was stated hopefully to be able to stop the slaughter, hopefully to be able to get Milosevic to the bargaining table, and to degrade the military force. I think in light of the last 8 weeks and what has happened, in many ways the objectives have changed. The objectives have changed. The bombing is more than just degrading the military force. It has a different set of goals. I am not even right now going to argue about the pluses and the minuses of all that. I think it is irresponsible for the Senate not to take up this question and not to have positive--not hateful, not demagogic--really thoughtful, substantive discussion and debate. I know we have other business right now, but I am going to come back very soon and try to push this question much harder. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Murray and Senator Schumer in introducing the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. Battered women face tremendous economic barriers when they leave their abusive relationships and set out to make a new life for themselves and their children. Our bill addresses the numerous and critical issues that victims of domestic violence face as they try to escape the violence in their lives. I know that Senator Murray joins me in applauding Senator Biden's efforts in crafting legislation to reauthorize the programs in the Violence Against Women Act. As I and many of my colleagues have heard from folks back home, these programs have provided invaluable and life saving resources to battered women and their families. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the bipartisan bill that Senator Biden has developed to build on the success of VAWA I and expand those programs. As a result of VAWA I, we now have an infrastructure in place that helps the community respond to this violence. VAWA provides the resources to enable local law enforcement and the courts prosecute those who batter women. And many other programs are now in place to help women leave their abusers. But, when a woman does take the initial step to leave her abuser and seek help, she is beginning a journey that is filled with obstacles, largest of which are economic. All to often battered women stay with their abuser because of the economic support he provides for her and her children. Now that we have begun to build an infrastructure that provides for the initial immediate needs of shelter and legal services, we need to look at the bigger picture. We must provide economic supports that allow battered women to provide for themselves and their children, and keep them safe after they leave temporary shelters. That is the reason Senator Murray and I are introducing the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. The Battered Women's Economic Security Act addresses the economic obstacles women who are victims of domestic violence face when trying to leave their abuser. For example, finding affordable and safe housing is critical for all battered women and their children, but particularly for low-income women. A 1998 report funded by the Ford Foundation found that of all homeless women and children, 50 percent of them are fleeing domestic violence. Let me say that again, half of all homeless women and children leave their home because the violence there threatens their lives. Not only are over half of homeless women fleeing violence, but too many of them do not find shelter that they need. A report from the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that homeless shelters are finding an increasing need for women and children. Of that growing need, 1 out of every 3 families that shows up at a homeless shelter is turned away, and ends up on the street for the night. It is simply unacceptable for us to allow women and children, who are fleeing violence, to be turned out into the streets. When are we as a society going to stand up and say no more? Without safe shelter, women and their children will continue to stay in violent relationships because at least they have a roof over their heads. Such a situation is shameful in such a prosperous country as our own, and in such a booming economy as this one. Our bill makes sure that money goes directly to shelters for victims of domestic violence so that the people who are directly involved with helping battered women can help them find new housing. We also made sure that our bill provided resources to find that new housing by boosting the McKinney Homeless Act to provide funding for battered women and their children. Anyone who has known someone fleeing a violent relationship or has talked to advocates knows that safe shelter and housing are the first and immediate needs. But women cannot stay in shelters or transitional housing indefinitely. Women also need to find work to keep them on that path to independence and safety. Our bill protects women in the workplace so that they can keep their job and continue to deal with the multitude of issues that arise when a woman flees a violent relationship. All too often, domestic violence follows women to work. According to recent studies, between 24 and 30 percent of women surveyed had lost their job, due at least in part, to domestic violence. Many victims lose their jobs because of their batterer's disruptive behavior. Many miss work because they are beaten. Others miss work because their abusers force them to stay home. Many companies are poorly educated about the impact of domestic violence on women at work. Employers may fail to grant sufficient time off to attend civil or criminal legal proceedings or for safety planning. Some battered women find themselves penalized by their abuser's actions when employers dismiss or otherwise sanction employees once they learn they are in an abusive relationship One study found that 96% of the women who were working while involved in an abusive relationship had problems at work. Problems run the gamut from being late to missing work to having difficulty performing their job. More than 50 percent of these women reported being reprimanded at work for such problems and more than a \1/3\ of them said they had lost their jobs as a result. Our bill allows women to use the Family and Medical Leave Act to take time off to deal with the problems arising from leaving a violent relationship. Women need to deal with the court and legal system when they file for protective orders. Many times women need counseling for themselves and their children to support them as they establish a life separate from their batterers. Allowing women to use the FMLA to take this necessary time off will help women become more productive workers and give then the financial independence they need to begin a new, violence free life. Not only do we need to provide women with the flexibility that they need, but need to ensure that their rights are protected should they unfairly lose their job. This bill prohibits discrimination against an employee based on her status or experience as a victim of domestic violence. It recognizes that we need not only policies that prohibit discrimination, but teeth to give those policies some bite. Our bill would give women the legal means to challenge any discrimination they may have faced as a result of being a victim of domestic violence. As many of you know, we are still struggling to get all sectors of society to understand that domestic violence affects all aspects of a battered woman's life. Too many times women who have applied for health insurance are denied or charge exorbitant rates when insurance companies find out that they are victims of domestic violence. This is outrageous! Insurance discrimination penalizes victims of domestic violence for the actions of their abusers. Our bill makes sure that this form of discrimination will not be allowed. VAWA I took the first step in dedicating federal resources to addressing the domestic violence crisis, but its focus is law enforcement and emergency response. We need to go to the next level to truly end violence against women. We need to address their economic needs and problems. I believe our legislation meets this test and will eliminate many of the economic barriers that trap women and children in violent homes and relationships. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senator Murray and Senator Schumer in introducing the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. Battered women face tremendous economic barriers when they leave their abusive relationships and set out to make a new life for themselves and their children. Our bill addresses the numerous and critical issues that victims of domestic violence face as they try to escape the violence in their lives. I know that Senator Murray joins me in applauding Senator Biden's efforts in crafting legislation to reauthorize the programs in the Violence Against Women Act. As I and many of my colleagues have heard from folks back home, these programs have provided invaluable and life saving resources to battered women and their families. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the bipartisan bill that Senator Biden has developed to build on the success of VAWA I and expand those programs. As a result of VAWA I, we now have an infrastructure in place that helps the community respond to this violence. VAWA provides the resources to enable local law enforcement and the courts prosecute those who batter women. And many other programs are now in place to help women leave their abusers. But, when a woman does take the initial step to leave her abuser and seek help, she is beginning a journey that is filled with obstacles, largest of which are economic. All to often battered women stay with their abuser because of the economic support he provides for her and her children. Now that we have begun to build an infrastructure that provides for the initial immediate needs of shelter and legal services, we need to look at the bigger picture. We must provide economic supports that allow battered women to provide for themselves and their children, and keep them safe after they leave temporary shelters. That is the reason Senator Murray and I are introducing the Battered Women's Economic Security Act. The Battered Women's Economic Security Act addresses the economic obstacles women who are victims of domestic violence face when trying to leave their abuser. For example, finding affordable and safe housing is critical for all battered women and their children, but particularly for low-income women. A 1998 report funded by the Ford Foundation found that of all homeless women and children, 50 percent of them are fleeing domestic violence. Let me say that again, half of all homeless women and children leave their home because the violence there threatens their lives. Not only are over half of homeless women fleeing violence, but too many of them do not find shelter that they need. A report from the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that homeless shelters are finding an increasing need for women and children. Of that growing need, 1 out of every 3 families that shows up at a homeless shelter is turned away, and ends up on the street for the night. It is simply unacceptable for us to allow women and children, who are fleeing violence, to be turned out into the streets. When are we as a society going to stand up and say no more? Without safe shelter, women and their children will continue to stay in violent relationships because at least they have a roof over their heads. Such a situation is shameful in such a prosperous country as our own, and in such a booming economy as this one. Our bill makes sure that money goes directly to shelters for victims of domestic violence so that the people who are directly involved with helping battered women can help them find new housing. We also made sure that our bill provided resources to find that new housing by boosting the McKinney Homeless Act to provide funding for battered women and their children. Anyone who has known someone fleeing a violent relationship or has talked to advocates knows that safe shelter and housing are the first and immediate needs. But women cannot stay in shelters or transitional housing indefinitely. Women also need to find work to keep them on that path to independence and safety. Our bill protects women in the workplace so that they can keep their job and continue to deal with the multitude of issues that arise when a woman flees a violent relationship. All too often, domestic violence follows women to work. According to recent studies, between 24 and 30 percent of women surveyed had lost their job, due at least in part, to domestic violence. Many victims lose their jobs because of their batterer's disruptive behavior. Many miss work because they are beaten. Others miss work because their abusers force them to stay home. Many companies are poorly educated about the impact of domestic violence on women at work. Employers may fail to grant sufficient time off to attend civil or criminal legal proceedings or for safety planning. Some battered women find themselves penalized by their abuser's actions when employers dismiss or otherwise sanction employees once they learn they are in an abusive relationship One study found that 96% of the women who were working while involved in an abusive relationship had problems at work. Problems run the gamut from being late to missing work to having difficulty performing their job. More than 50 percent of these women reported being reprimanded at work for such problems and more than a \1/3\ of them said they had lost their jobs as a result. Our bill allows women to use the Family and Medical Leave Act to take time off to deal with the problems arising from leaving a violent relationship. Women need to deal with the court and legal system when they file for protective orders. Many times women need counseling for themselves and their children to support them as they establish a life separate from their batterers. Allowing women to use the FMLA to take this necessary time off will help women become more productive workers and give then the financial independence they need to begin a new, violence free life. Not only do we need to provide women with the flexibility that they need, but need to ensure that their rights are protected should they unfairly lose their job. This bill prohibits discrimination against an employee based on her status or experience as a victim of domestic violence. It recognizes that we need not only policies that prohibit discrimination, but teeth to give those policies some bite. Our bill would give women the legal means to challenge any discrimination they may have faced as a result of being a victim of domestic violence. As many of you know, we are still struggling to get all sectors of society to understand that domestic violence affects all aspects of a battered woman's life. Too many times women who have applied for health insurance are denied or charge exorbitant rates when insurance companies find out that they are victims of domestic violence. This is outrageous! Insurance discrimination penalizes victims of domestic violence for the actions of their abusers. Our bill makes sure that this form of discrimination will not be allowed. VAWA I took the first step in dedicating federal resources to addressing the domestic violence crisis, but its focus is law enforcement and emergency response. We need to go to the next level to truly end violence against women. We need to address their economic needs and problems. I believe our legislation meets this test and will eliminate many of the economic barriers that trap women and children in violent homes and relationships. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask my colleague for 2 minutes to respond to what has been said here?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be offering a number of amendments to this piece of legislation. First of all, I want to give these amendments a little bit of context. I came to the floor last week ready to offer these amendments. We had a whole series of other amendments, many of them dealing with gun control and other important amendments, we wanted to debate. I always said to my colleagues I was ready, willing, and able to go forward with amendments that I thought would dramatically improve this legislation. I want to outline some of these amendments and then go to the amendment which is before the Senate. The first amendment would allow States to use the new juvenile justice delinquency prevention block grant funds ``for services to juveniles with serious mental and emotional disturbances in need of mental health services'' before they land in the juvenile justice system. This amendment also allows States to make the decision to use the JJDP block grant funds for ``projects designed to provide support to State and local programs designed to prevent juvenile delinquency by providing for assessment by qualified mental health professionals of incarcerated juveniles who are suspected to be in need of mental health services'' who need an individual treatment plan, and so forth. Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this language is very similar to what is actually in the House bill. I am trying to say we ought to allow States to use the block grant funds for a couple of different things. No. 1, on the front end of this system, you have a kid--and this happens to be an area in which I have done a fair amount of work-- struggling with mental illness. You want to be in a position to be able to use this money to identify this child with this particular problem and get the child into the kind of treatment that is needed as an alternative to incarceration. We have entirely too many kids locked up who probably shouldn't be-- not probably; who shouldn't be--locked up in the first place. I met some of these kids, kids who stole a moped or kids charged with breaking and entering. They have never committed a violent crime, they have a whole history of struggling with mental illnesses, but these kids weren't identified. There was no way of assessing this and providing these kids with some treatment as an alternative. We want to make sure we have specific language that provides funds for services to juveniles with serious mental and emotional disturbances, to juveniles in need of mental health services, before they land in the juvenile justice system. It seems to me that any piece of juvenile justice legislation would want to include this language. The second thing, it is absolutely brutal, it is absolutely harsh, it is absolutely unconscionable, that there are so many kids locked up in these facilities ages 11, 12, and 13 who struggle with mental illness and don't get any treatment. Again, we want to make sure that we allow States to use these JJDP block funds to do a much better job of assessing the kid's needs once that kid is incarcerated, figuring out what kind of individualized treatment plan will make sense and make sure the kids are treated. I am sick and tired of the stigma about mental illness. It is pretty horrible to see what can happen to kids. I think what many of my colleagues absolutely have to realize is that many children--and there are children who wind up in these facilities--really are brutalized. They are brutalized. They are not even in a position to defend themselves, and they receive no treatment at all. I am going to go on and come back to this amendment. The second amendment I will be introducing is an amendment which allows States to use block grant funds for implementation of the training of justice system personnel. This comes out of the Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act I introduced in January, a bill I have been working on for about a year. Again, basically what this says to States is, if you want to use these block grant funds to make sure a lot of the individuals who are in our juvenile justice system--from the judges, to the probation officers, to school officials, to a whole bunch of other people--are trained so they can recognize kids who are struggling with these mental problems, then you should be able to do so. Often you do not have people within this juvenile justice system who have the training to recognize a child who is struggling with mental illness, who needs treatment for that illness. What this amendment says is let's allow States to use some of this block grant money for such training. Again, I will go into this amendment in detail later on, but I find it difficult to believe this is an amendment that would not be accepted to a piece of legislation called juvenile justice. The third amendment I am going to introduce has to do with children who witness domestic violence. This area of work for me has become the opposite of academic. I do a lot of this work with my wife Sheila. It is based upon all sorts of women and children who have been victims of family violence. As I said before on the floor of the Senate, roughly speaking, about every 15 seconds a woman is battered in her home. A home should be a safe place. All too often, children are battered as well. The connection to this legislation is that if you ask judges what the files look like of kids who appear in their court at 13, 14 years of age, quite often those judges will talk about the violence in the homes. We have not done a good job. We are beginning to focus on the need to provide support for women. That was the Violence Against Women Act on which Senator Biden and Senator Murray and many others provided a tremendous amount of leadership as did Senator Hatch. But what we have not recognized is the effects of this violence against the parent--and all too often that is the woman--on the children. Even if the child himself or herself is not battered--and quite often that happens--they see it all the time. When they come to school, quite often they cannot do well. Often it is not recognized by school authorities. So this amendment, which is extremely relevant to this legislation, would provide a comprehensive intersystem approach to limiting the effects of domestic violence on the lives of children. This is an amendment, again, on which I will go into great detail, that will provide the funds for our Nation to do a better job at the community level, to bring together all the different adults who come in contact with these children, and get some support to these children. I do not know how to put it except this way: You can have the smallest class size, you can have the best teachers, you can have the best technology, but if that child has been in a home where that child has seen his mother beaten up over and over and over again, the chances are that child is in trouble. The chances are that child may not be able to do well in school. And the chances are right now we have a whole lot of people, from school officials to law enforcement officials, you name it, who will not recognize that. We need to figure out ways of enabling adults in the community to recognize children who are going through this, and we need to figure out a way to provide more support for these children. The fourth amendment is an amendment of which I am very proud. I have a lot of different support for it, from the Conference of Mayors to the American School Health Association. This amendment would provide for 100,000 new school counselors, plus school psychologists and school social workers. This would be Federal funds matched by funds from States and local school districts. It is very simple. There is no be-all, there is no end-all, but when I marshal evidence for this amendment I think my colleagues are going to be shocked at the extent to which we have really no infrastructure of support for so many of these kids when it comes to mental health services. We do not have enough counselors. We do not have enough school psychologists. We do not have enough social workers. We cannot even begin to help a lot of kids who need somebody to whom they can go. So, again, I think this amendment is right on point. Finally, I will have an amendment that will take some time, which is indirect to this legislation, which is the welfare recipient accountability amendment. There are two other amendments. Just to put colleagues on notice on this, what I want to say is--and I, unfortunately, will be able to marshal a lot evidence--now that we are beginning to get the fragmentary reports of what is going on with the welfare bill, we are finding, for the majority of women who are off welfare, a dramatic reduction in the welfare roll is not equal to a dramatic reduction in poverty. The majority of these women are working at jobs, the prevailing wage of which is less than they were receiving before. In a lot of cases, these children are not getting decent child care. Therefore, I have to worry about where these kids are going to go. Let's at least call on Health and Human Services to require States to provide us with the data as to where these women and children are: What kind of jobs do they have at what kind of wages? What is the situation with their children? We ought to know. We ought to know. Tomorrow, this amendment, I think, will cause a major debate. I hope there will be overwhelming support for it. There really were close to 400 votes in the House of Representatives, I believe. One of the flaws of this legislation is to take out the language that deals with disproportionate minority confinement. I will spend a lot of time on the floor tomorrow, with Senator Kennedy, on this question, because right now this piece of legislation takes us backwards. It takes us backwards from the current situation, or from what the House of Representatives has proposed, which is we want to know about the ``why'' of disproportionate minority confinement. We want to know why so many children of color are the ones who are picked up, so many children of color wind up in the court system, so many of them wind up in these so-called correctional facilities--all out of proportion to number of crimes committed. We do have to come to terms with race in America. The fact of the matter is the disproportionate minority confinement language right now has enabled some States to do some very good work. States on their own--on their own because of Federal legislation--are doing some very good analysis of why we have so many of these kids of color in these facilities. This legislation would basically stop that effort. This legislation takes us backwards. It is a huge mistake. I have not seen the civil rights community more focused on trying to get an amendment agreed to than this amendment. I look forward to this debate. I think it is extremely important. Mr. President, let me, then, introduce the first two amendments that I am hoping will be noncontroversial. They are drawn from the Mental Health Juvenile Justice Act. Again, this legislation I introduced several months ago received the support of over 40 organizations. They go all the way from the American Bar Association to the Children's Defense Fund, to district attorneys' offices, to State judges, probation, and police officers, you name it. Right now, S. 254 pays only lip service to the problem of children with mental illness in our juvenile justice system. These amendments have teeth, providing States with grants to fund programs to keep children who struggle with mental illness out of the juvenile justice system altogether and to identify and treat those who are in it. Elie Wiesel once said: More than anything--more than hatred and torture--more than pain--do I fear indifference. We must be diligent and not allow ourselves to be indifferent to children's misery, particularly those children who may be sick, difficult, and test our patience, our understanding and our compassion. Yet, we have become in our country, I fear, deeply indifferent to how we treat juveniles in the justice system who live in this shadow of mental illness. Each year, more than 1 million youth come in contact with the juvenile justice system and more than 100,000 of these youth are detained in some type of jail or prison. These people are overwhelmingly poor and a disproportionate number of them are children of color. By the time many of these children are arrested and incarcerated, they have a long history of problems in their very short lives. As many as two-thirds suffer from mental or emotional disturbance; 1 in 5, 20 percent, has a serious disorder; many have substance abuse problems and learning disabilities; most of them come from troubled homes. The ``crimes'' of these children vary. While some have committed violent crimes--and we have to hold a child or an adult accountable for a violent crime--some have committed petty theft or skipped school. Still others have simply run away from home to escape physical or sexual abuse from parents or other adults. The vast majority of children who are in these juvenile justice facilities have not committed a violent crime. In fact, despite popular opinion, most of the children who are locked up are not violent. Justice Department studies show that 1 in 20 youth in the juvenile justice system has committed a violent offense--1 in 20 of youth in the juvenile justice system has committed violent offenses. Jails in the juvenile justice centers are often found unprepared to deal with the mentally ill. For instance, medication is not given when it should be given or it is not properly monitored or guards may not know how to respond to a disturbed youth who is just not capable of standing in line for orderly meals. As a result, many of these children are disciplined and put in solitary confinement. What is happening to these troubled children--and this is why I want my colleagues to accept this amendment; this is why I have been waiting days for this amendment--is a national tragedy. All across the country, we are criminalizing mental illness of children, and we are dumping emotionally disturbed kids into juvenile prisons. What this amendment says is we at least allow States to take the block grant money to do a better job of assessing these children when they get into trouble, and if these children are struggling with mental illness or struggling with emotional problems and they have not committed a violent crime, let us at least make sure we provide some diversionary programs, some community-based treatment, as opposed to incarcerating these children. This comes right from this juvenile justice mental health legislation. We ought to pass this amendment, I say to my colleagues. What is happening to these troubled children is a national tragedy. Why do so many youth with mental illness end up in the juvenile justice system? Children with mental disorders often behave in ways that bring them in conflict with family members, with authority figures and peers. Over the last 10 years, the public attitude toward juvenile crime has grown tougher. Consequently, the juvenile justice system is casting a wider net. A growing fear and intolerance of children who misbehave or commit nonviolent offenses have pushed children into the juvenile justice system who would not have ended up there in earlier times. At the same time, our country has failed to invest adequately in services and programs that can reduce the need for their incarceration. These include mental health services. The warning signs for delinquency are well known: School failure, drug and alcohol abuse, family violence and abuse, and poverty. Yet, we have failed to put in place community prevention, screening, and early intervention services for those children who are most at risk. Proper mental health treatment can prevent or reduce the offending, but many, many, many communities do not have adequate services for children and their families. Let me read a couple of examples. Matthew--and I am not going to use the full name--Matthew I. has a history of mental health problems. He has received services from the public mental health center and has been hospitalized several times in private psychiatric institutions. One night in 1996, Matthew heard voices telling him to run away from home. He listened to the voices, and in the process of running away, he stole two bicycles. Matthew was arrested and charged with theft. He was sentenced to the Swanson Correctional Center for Youth. While in Swanson, Matthew was beaten and witnessed guards abusing other youths. Matthew received disciplinary tickets for falling asleep. His psychotropic medications made him sleepy, so he stopped taking his medicine. Without his medication, Matthew was impulsive and had difficulty following orders. So, again, he received disciplinary tickets. Despite continued requests from his mother, Matthew did not receive an evaluation by a psychiatrist until he attempted suicide. After the suicide attempt, Matthew saw the psychiatrist in 6-week to several- month intervals. He did not receive mental health counseling services. Matthew made several suicidal attempts after the first one. After almost 2 years of confinement in the juvenile prison, Matthew is now at home. That is one example. This is from Shannon Robshaw, executive director of the Mental Health Association in Louisiana. Daron R. was physically and sexually abused by his babysitters from infancy to age 7. He has marks on his face where this couple threw rocks at him and hit him with a broom. Daron is a brilliant child and categorized by the school as ``gifted.'' Daron is explosive and has a hard time controlling his temper. He is impulsive and has difficulty following directions. Now 10 years old, Daron has a history of psychiatric hospitalization and is taking several medications. In September 1998, he became uncontrollable at home and was sentenced to Jetson Correctional Center for Youth. At his mother's request, Daron's school psychologist attempted to assist him by participating in a telephone conference call. During this conference, she was told Jetson did not have to provide educational services for gifted children. In Jetson, Daron had problems so the guards responded by throwing the 10-year-old against the wall. The psychologist asked if the guards were trained in passive restraint and was told no. Daron's mother and psychologist took pictures of the bruises on Daron's body. Daron was released to a State mental hospital last Christmas. A final example--and when people come back tomorrow, I am going to get colleagues to listen before we vote on this amendment. These are children's lives. Travis M. was charged with stealing a bicycle. I met him. Travis M. was charged with stealing a bicycle and sentenced to Tallulah Corrections Center for Youth for 3 months. Fourteen at the time, Travis had been hospitalized for psychiatric problems three times, the most recent only 1 month before being sentenced to Tallulah. Travis was labeled with attention deficit disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and mild mental retardation. Travis takes three psychotropic medications. At Tallulah, Travis was unable to successfully complete the boot camp and received numerous disciplinary tickets for not following orders and for falling asleep. These tickets extended his sentence by a year and a half. While at Tallulah, Travis was abused by guards and saw guards beat others. Travis witnessed guards putting a hit out on youths. While at Tallulah, Travis contemplated suicide and was told by a guard to ``go ahead, that will be one less to deal with.'' Eighteen months after being placed in Tallulah, Travis was released. Now he suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome and has flashbacks of his violent experience in Tallulah. (Mr. LUGAR assumed the Chair.)

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague that I do not intend to take a long time. It depends on what my colleague means by a ``time agreement.''

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah for his graciousness. Privilege Of The Floor I ask unanimous consent that Rachel Gragg and Ben Highton be permitted privilege of the floor during the discussion of the juvenile justice bill.