Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, my colleague from Washington I think speaks within a framework of expertise that she brings to this particular amendment. I speak from the framework of a layperson who has been trying to understand this bill's pluses and minuses. I say to Senator Feingold and all colleagues, since I think there is kind of a rush to table all of the Feingold amendments, that this amendment is eminently reasonable. The Senator from Wisconsin is saying: Let's put a time limit on this. That is good. Let's have some judicial oversight. That is good as well. There are international terrorists who have killed many Americans and want to kill more Americans. There are a lot of provisions in this bill which I think are right on the money, including northern border protection which is relevant to the Chair, relevant to the Senator from Washington, and certainly relevant to the people I represent. But I also think there is no reason, in this rush to pass the bill, that we can't make some changes. These are minor changes the Senator wants to make. This just gives this piece of legislation more balance. I will say this: There is a lot that is good in this bill and a lot that is attractive to me as a Senator. When you add some of the additional security provisions that help all the people we are asked to represent in addition to the benefits--the financial help to all of the rescue workers and all of the innocent people's families, people have been murdered--there is much in this bill that is commendable. The Senator from Wisconsin is just trying to give it more balance. I say to my colleagues that I hope you will support this amendment. I want to say one other thing as well. I really believe what is good about this bill is the provisions that focus on the people whom the terrorists are basically trying to kill--Americans. What is not as good is when the reach of the bill goes too far beyond that and is too broad. The sunset provision that passed in the House is so important, so that we can continue to monitor this legislation as we move forward. I think this amendment that the Senator from Wisconsin has submitted is a step to give this piece of legislation a little more balance, and it will be more vigilant of people's civil liberties. I think it is the right step. I thank the Senator for his amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say, again, to colleagues that this amendment the Senator from Wisconsin introduced makes sure that our Federal and State laws regarding certain sensitive privacy areas are not diminished or superseded by this provision. The amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin goes to the heart of the concerns that a lot of the people we represent have. I imagine that the vote may be overwhelmingly in opposition to this amendment. That has been the pattern. Again, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for raising these questions. This is what we should be doing. I conclude this way: I really think, in part, because of the kind of questions the Senator from Wisconsin has raised--again, I am not a lawyer--in looking at this bill, Mr. President, I say to Senator Leahy, it seems to me he and others have done a great job and are doing everything possible to make this more balanced. There are so many good provisions in this bill that we need. I believe that. I hope we can keep the sunset provision, which is so essential to oversight, because I think what is good is the provisions of this legislation that focus on combating terrorism and what is not quite so good is the parts of this bill that reach way beyond that. Yes, there is a lot of good. I will support it. I will reserve final judgment of what comes out of the conference committee. I think we can make it better. I thank my colleagues, Senator Hatch included, for their work. Sometimes people can honestly disagree. I know this is important. I know where we are as a nation, but the Senator from Wisconsin has raised important concerns tonight, and others as well. I hope we do better in conference. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will consider during this Congress. The horrific loss of life and destruction that occurred on September 11, the crime against humanity, changed us as a country. The Uniting and Strengthening America Act is an opportunity to help ensure that such terrorist attacks do not occur again. We need to improve all aspects of our domestic security, including by enhancing our intelligence capacities so that we can identify possible future attacks in their planning stages and prevent them from happening. We must be vigilant and willing to invest the resources and time required to gather the information that we need to protect ourselves and our way of life. I appreciate the enormous amount of time and energy that my colleague from Vermont and others have put into this legislation. They have done their best to balance the risk of further terrorist attacks with possible risks to civil liberties. The bill updates and improves a number of existing laws, it creates important new security statutes, and it authorizes new money for programs that will bring much needed relief to victims of terrorist attacks. I have reservations about certain provisions of the bill as they might affect civil liberties. I wish that it were more tightly targeted to address only actions directly related to terrorism or suspected terrorism. And I hope that by the time it passes as a conference report the bill will contain a sunset provision. But I support the bill today as a step toward conference, and as an important and needed strengthening of our security from horrific attacks such as that of September 11. The bill expands the Regional Information Sharing Systems Program to promote information sharing among Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies in their anti-terrorism efforts. State and local law enforcement have a critical role to play in preventing and investigating terrorism, and this bill provides them benefits appropriate to such duty. The bill streamlines and expedites the Public Safety Officers' Benefits application process for family members of fire-fighters, police officers and other emergency personnel who are killed or suffer a disabling injury in connection with a future terrorist attack. And it raises the total amount of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program payments from approximately $150,000 to $250,000. This bill will also make an immediate difference in the lives of victims of terrorism and their families. It refines the Victims of Crime Act and by doing so improves the way in which its crime fund is managed and preserved. It replenishes the emergency reserve of the Crime Victims Fund with up to $50 million and improves the mechanism to replenish the fund in future years. The USA Act also increases security on our Northern Border, including the border between Canada and my State of Minnesota. It triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service and INS inspectors at the Northern Border and authorizes $100 million to improve old equipment and provide new technology to INS and the Customs Service at that border. On the criminal justice side, the bill clarifies existing ``cybercrime'' law to cover computers outside the United States that affect communications in this country and changes sentencing guidelines in some of these cases. It provides prosecutors betters tools to go after those involved in money-laundering schemes that are linked to terrorism, and it adds certain terrorism-related crimes as predicates for RICO and money-laundering. It creates a new criminal statute targeting acts of terrorism on mass transportation systems, and it strengthens our Federal laws relating to the threat of biological weapons. The bill will enhance the Government's ability to prosecute suspected terrorists in possession of biological agents. It will prohibit certain persons, particularly those from countries that support terrorism, from possessing biological agents. And it will prohibit any person from possessing a biological agent of a type or quantity that is not reasonably justified by a peaceful purpose. The bill also broadens the authority of the President to impose sanctions on the Taliban regime. Regarding criminal penalties for those convicted of terrorist acts, it provides a fair definition of what constitutes ``terrorism'' and ensures that penalties more closely reflect the offenses committed by terrorists. Again, I'd like to thank my colleague from Vermont and others who worked on these penalty provisions. The administration's initial proposal was too broad in this area, and the current bill provides a fair alternative. I strongly support these needed provisions. Still, I do have concerns about the possible effect on civil liberties of the bill's measures to enhance electronic surveillance and information sharing of criminal justice information, while at the same time reducing judicial review of those actions. I also hope that the bill's provisions to expand the Government's ability to conduct secret searches, as well as searches under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, will not be abused. I believe we will need to monitor the use of new authorities provided to law enforcement agents to conduct surveillance of internet communications. The same is true of the bill's changes to laws allowing the sharing of confidential criminal justice information with various Federal agencies. I would prefer the requirement of judicial review before disclosure, which is contained in the House version of this bill. Likewise, I believe the House of Representatives' decision not to include this bill's expansion of the Government's ability to conduct secret, or so-called ``Sneak-n-Peek,'' searches, was correct. I hope the safeguards against abuse we have added in our bill--such as the prohibition against the Government seizing any tangible property or stored electronic information unless it makes a showing of reasonable necessity, as well as the requirement that notice be given within a reasonable time of the execution of a sneak-n-peak warrant--will prove sufficient. The bill broadens the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, by extending FISA surveillance authority to criminal investigations, even when the primary purpose is not intelligence gathering. The bill limits this ability by authorizing surveillance only if a significant purpose of it is to gather intelligence information. I hope this new FISA authority will be used for the purpose of investigating and preventing terrorism or suspected terrorism, and not for other domestic purposes. Mr. President, we have done our best in this bill to maximize our security while minimizing the impact some of these changes may have on our civil liberties. Nearly all of us have probably said since September 11 that if that day's terror is allowed to undermine our democratic principles and practices, then the terrorists will have won a victory. We should pass this bill today. And we should also commit ourselves to monitoring its impact on civil liberties in the coming months and years. I believe a sunset provision that ensures that review is essential. The bill before us today is good, but there are provisions that are too broad. There are parts that should be more narrowly focused on combating terrorism. I hope these are the concerns that will be addressed in conference. Mr. President, our challenge is to balance our security with our liberties. While it is not perfect, I believe we are doing that in this bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to read this resolution to make sure it is now a formal part of the Record. It was adopted last night. I submitted this resolution on behalf of all Senators, but let's make sure it is a formal part of the Record: Whereas the Capitol is an important symbol of freedom and democracy across the United States and throughout the world, and those who safeguard the Capitol safeguard that freedom and democracy; Whereas millions of people visit the Capitol each year to observe and learn the workings of the democratic process; Whereas the United States Capitol Police force was created by Congress in 1828 to provide security for the United States Capitol building; Whereas, today the United States Capitol Police provide protection and support services throughout an array of congressional buildings, parks, and thoroughfares; Whereas the United States Capitol police provide security for Members of Congress, their staffs, other government employees, and many others who live near, work on, and visit Capitol Hill; Whereas the United States Capitol Police have successfully managed and coordinated major demonstrations, joint sessions of Congress, State of the Union Addresses, State funerals, and inaugurations; Whereas the United States Capitol Police have bravely faced numerous emergencies, including three bombings and two shootings (the most recent of which in 1998 tragically took the lives of Private First Class Jacob `J.J.' Chestnut and Detective John Michael Gibson); Whereas the horrific events of September 11, 2001 have created a uniquely difficult environment, requiring heightened security, and prompting extra alertness and some strain among staff and visitors; Whereas the U.S. Capitol Police force has responded to this challenge quickly and courageously, including by facilitating the evacuation of all of the buildings under their purview, as well as the perimeter thereof; Whereas the United States Capitol Police Department has since instituted 12-hour, 6-day shifts, requiring that officers work 30 hours of overtime each week to ensure our continued protection; Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate, That-- (1) the Senate hereby honors and thanks the United States Capitol Police for their outstanding work and dedication, during a period of heightened security needs on the day of September 11, 2001 and thereafter; (2) when the Senate adjourns on this date they shall do so knowing that they are protected and secure, thanks to the commitment of the United States Capitol Police. I wanted that to be printed in the Record so we can get that to the officers who have provided us with this help. We owe a great debt to them.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may follow Senator Murray.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be brief. I feel as though every day I have been speaking on the same issue. I think I am a cosponsor of the Hollings airline safety bill. It is a fine bill. I ask unanimous consent, in case I am not, to be a cosponsor of the Carnahan amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I say to Senator Hollings I can do this in 1, 2, 3 order. Senator Murray, I appreciate her statement. She has an awful lot of hard-pressed workers in her State. I appreciate her advocacy for working families in Washington. To Senator Hollings, he has given enough speeches to deafen all the gods about how the industry gets back on its feet when people feel safe to fly, and aviation safety is the first priority. He is absolutely right, and this is a critically important piece of legislation. I look forward to passing it. We will have passed an important piece of legislation for our country. Then the third point I want to make is that I heard the Senator from Texas--and I am sorry she is not here now, so I won't go into big debate. I heard her talk about the need to not have extraneous amendments, and then I heard her reference the Carnahan amendment. I will tell you something. The 4,500 Northwest employees who are out of work right now believe they are extraneous. They believe they are central--central to their families, central to our communities, central to Minnesota, and central to our country. I would like to say to Senators who are opposed to this amendment or blocking this amendment, if you were to have a poll--I am just about positive of this--anywhere in the country and asked whether or not people think in addition to our helping the industry we ought to help employees, 90 percent of the people would say, ``Of course.'' Of course, you should help working families. You helped the industry; now you should help the employees and, of course, this should be a priority. As a matter of fact, one of the biggest criticisms--and there are not a lot of criticisms people have right now about what we are doing in the Congress--one of the criticisms is how can you bail out the industry and not help the employees? When I hear my colleagues say this is an extraneous amendment--tell that to the men, women, and children who are hurting right now. We help people when they are flat on their backs. We provide the support to them. The Carnahan amendment does three things scaled down. I wish it was even more comprehensive, but it is extremely important. It extends the unemployment benefits, it provides the job training, and it provides--the Senator from Massachusetts is always the leader on health care issues--up to 12 months 100-percent payment of COBRA payments, which employees cannot afford when they are out of work otherwise. This is a lifeline for these employees. It is extremely important. It is the right thing to do. Frankly, if this is the dividing line between Democrats and some Republicans, so be it. I would rather there be 100 Senators who are for this. I sure do not mind having a spirited debate about whether or not we should be helping these employees. I sure do not mind being on their side. That is what they expect from us.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am not going to take long. I know there are other colleagues who are going to want to speak, but I do want to talk about where we are right now in this Senate Chamber. I want to try to do that not in an abstract way but in relation to what is happening throughout the country and, particularly, I want to talk about my State of Minnesota. Yesterday we had a field hearing in Minnesota. It was a formal hearing of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training of which I am lucky enough to chair. It was just absolutely packed with people. I am not sure that is good news. I think it was packed with people because we have had a sharp economic downturn, and it affects a broad section of the population in Minnesota and around the country. I said yesterday that I cannot remember--and I think I said this to the distinguished Presiding Officer--another time in my adult life when I ever felt as if our country was facing three challenges or crises and all at the same time. One of them has to do with the world that we live in--military action, use of force in Afghanistan. I have said back home that I very much want this action to be successful. I think it is terribly important that it is with the most careful targeting. I think it is essential that we do everything we know how to do to minimize the loss of innocent civilian life. I pray for the men and women of our armed services, and, frankly, I pray no innocent Afghan, or anyone else, is killed in this process. I had a chance to talk with the Ambassador to Pakistan today and was asking her how things were going in her country. And she, too, talked about how it is so important that what we do militarily, and in many other ways, we do in the right way. Whatever we do has to be consistent with our own values. That means, above and beyond the use of force, dealing with the humanitarian crisis, dealing with the massive hunger and starvation in Afghanistan, and doing everything we can to minimize the loss of civilian life. Then there is the whole question of physical security in our own country. Today Chairman Kennedy and the HELP Committee had very powerful hearings. The distinguished Chair testified about his work and some of his legislation as to what we need to do to better defend our own homeland. Then there is economic security. What I rise to discuss briefly is my indignation about some of the opposition and delay. Quite often, one person's political truth is another person's political horror. We are all different, and political truth can be illusive. We have different ideas. People of good conscience can disagree. That always is the case, including now as well. I have to say I don't really know how any Senator, Democrat or Republican, can go home, after we have provided $15 billion of help for the airline industry--which we should have done; I don't think they are playing Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling in--now and be unwilling to provide the employees with help. Senator Carnahan has an amendment, in which a number of us have joined--it makes all the sense in the world--extending unemployment insurance to a full year, picking up the cost of COBRA or helping people get Medicaid assistance--when you lose your job, the other thing that is so terrifying in our country is, you lose your health care coverage for yourself and your loved ones--making sure that that is there, making sure the funding is there for training. I am just amazed at the opposition to this amendment. I am amazed that we have been having to go through cloture votes, and now people want to burn up yet more time. For my own point of view, I don't think we should move. Senator Hollings is right that one of the best ways to get this industry back on its feet is to have people think they are safe. God knows the whole notion of federalizing the security forces is what the vast majority of people are for. That is apparently being opposed. There are other colleagues who talk about Amtrak and say there has to be a commitment to that as part of our transportation system. They are right. What I want to relate today is what Senator Dayton and other colleagues from Minnesota, Democrats and Republicans, heard at our field hearing, which was all the employees, 4,500 people out of work, who were asking: What about us? You helped the industry. Fine. But what about working families? What about us? I said about a week ago now that I believe the people values are coming out in the country. September 11 and beyond, people really are very committed to helping one another. I can't quite figure out why that has not extended to the Senate. There will be plenty of discussion about this in the Chamber, but as far as I am concerned, this is the place we draw the line. This airline security bill has to pass. If there is opposition to federalizing part of the security forces, so be it; we will vote on it. If there is opposition to providing the help to employees I just outlined, the Carnahan amendment, then we will vote on it. If there is opposition to other amendments, then we will vote on them. I just can't, for the life of me, understand the opposition. I can't understand why we wouldn't want to help people flat on their back. Frankly, I don't want to go back home to Minnesota and face these employees and tell them that Congress was unwilling to provide the help. I thank the majority leader and the whip, Senator Reid, for their commitment. I am committed to this fight. We are unified as a country. There is no question about it. We have to be our own best selves. To me, part of being your own best self is to speak out and advocate for people you love and believe in who need help. That is what we are talking about right now.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is true. I did offer an amendment, and I was hoping that every single Senator would support it. I thought on Thursday or Friday maybe the whip could help me out. I actually submitted it. I didn't want to make a big hoo-ha about it. I wanted to thank the Capitol Police and thought maybe we would pass it by unanimous consent. Then we could send it out and let everyone know we have expressed our appreciation. My understanding is, it has been blocked; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will not speak much longer. Let me say to the whip--who, by the way, also was a member of the Capitol Police, the only one in the Senate--I thank him. I don't even want to make a big deal of this. In fact, I am almost embarrassed about it. This now is going to become a point of contention? I am a pretty good rabble-rouser. I didn't think this would be something on which we would have to go this far. My hope is that it will pass. I say to the whip that I would like to get his help, that if this doesn't clear today, then I will prepare an amendment. I would love to have the whip's support and do it with him. We will just come out here and have a debate, I suppose, if Senators are opposed to the resolution of support. Above and beyond that, we are talking about a lot of Capitol Police. They are working 6 days a week, 12 hours a day. Frankly, the whip discussed this with me. Above and beyond just the resolution saying ``thank you for your support,'' the other point is the additional resources. With all due respect, there will have to be additional resources to go to them for them to be able to do this job. I thought when I came back that this resolution would have been passed. I wouldn't have thought there would have been any controversy. I thought we then could notify the police. Now what we will do is talk about it for a day or so. We will keep asking who is holding it up. We will keep asking why. It is hardly a way to say thank you to the police. And if necessary, we will have an amendment on it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was actually thinking about reading some of the descriptions and testimony of some of the people who spoke yesterday. Let me just say one more time that on this one, we don't budge until we get the help for the employees. That is all there is to it. If that is the difference between Democrats and Republicans, so be it. That would make me proud to be a Democrat. If it does not end up being the difference between Democrats and Republicans and we do it in a bipartisan way, all the better. But we are not waiting any longer. I am not going back home again this weekend trying to explain to people how in the world the Senate could not provide them some support. My final point is, the truth is, we need to be doing this business and more because, frankly, we have something else that is ahead of us, which is all the other people in Minnesota and in the country who have been affected, all of the other people who are losing their jobs, whether it be in the tourism industry, hotel/restaurant, related to tourism, whatnot, whether it be small businesses, or whether it be people in high-tech. There are a lot of people right now who are out of work. A lot of small businesses lost some of their business, and they never had a lot of capital to rely on in the first place. So I just say to colleagues that we are in a serious recession in our country. These are hard economic times. We need to put a stimulus package together next week. We need to have the stimulus package large enough to make a difference. It has to be something that focuses on getting money into the hands of consumers--those who will make purchases right away. It has to take effect within the next couple of months, frankly, to really make a difference. There are a lot of people who, A, could use the help and, B, this would put purchasing power back into the economy. Unemployment benefits need to be extended and improved. There is the health care coverage for people and child care expenses, and there is the workforce development and work training that is so important. There are ways in which we can invest in rebuilding crumbling schools and affordable housing and creating jobs at the same time. There is a whole lot we need to do, and we need to do it now. That is part of the crisis that is staring us in the face. Yet we are in morning business for another 2 hours this afternoon. I just wanted to make it clear that--and I think I am speaking for other Democrats--we are not giving any ground on getting help to the aviation employees and others, and we are going to do it this week on this bill. We are not going to give any ground on safety, and we are going to pass this bill this week. We are also going to move on and get serious about an economic stimulus package as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to talk about something that is very familiar to the Presiding Officer: the meetings that the Senator and I have had with airline employees back home. The most recent meeting was a rally at the Capital. We have made the commitment to these workers that we want to help the industry. We want the industry to get back on its feet. That is critically important and what everybody wants. We also believe the help has to be there for the employees. By the way, Mr. Richard Anderson, the CEO of Northwest Airlines, dropped by the other day and left me a letter of support. He has come out as CEO of Northwest firmly, squarely, behind getting assistance to the employees. Maybe this has been said on the floor. I have been at briefings today, one of which was superb, with Secretary of State Powell, about whom I cannot say enough good things in terms of his wisdom and his hopes for how we proceed now in the aftermath of September 11. I cannot believe some of my colleagues are opposing moving to the floor with this airline safety bill in part because they are not committed to this package of benefits for employees. They don't want to see it happen. I will get people angry at me, and later we will have debate. I will be pleased to debate people later. To me, it is heartless. When people are flat on their backs, you help them. That is part of what government is for. I say to the Presiding Officer, Senator Dayton, I felt on Sunday, beyond speaking at a rally, you sometimes get the sense that people are reaching out to you. It is not so much to shake your hand, it is not to beg you, but to reach out for help. The handshake was more, in our State, a reaching out for help. It is frightening to be out of work and to not know how you will support your family. We have this package to extend the unemployment benefits up to a year, and actually improve the U.I. with more benefits, and calling on States to increase what they will pay out, with the Federal Government providing the money. And in this nightmare situation, which we don't have to deal with, Senators, but if we did, if we were out of work, we would sure want the help. When you lose your job and then in a couple of months you lose your health care benefits, you cannot afford what is called the COBRA program. The idea was to help families provide for health care, to be able to afford the coverage and not be without any coverage. For God's sake, how much longer do Senators think we should wait? I am not going to go after the industry, I don't think they were crying uncle. Frankly, as someone who has been a severe critic of Northwest Airlines--I never been able to get along with them--I give Mr. Anderson credit. I have had some of the employees say: He might care about us. I give him a lot of credit. Several flight attendants on a flight said that to me. The truth of the matter is, they were ready, they had their array of lobbyists, et al, up here. We put the package through, and we were told: If you don't indemnify us--several carriers said--we will shut down Monday, a week ago. We didn't want that to happen. But now we have employees out of work, what is it, 4,500 in our State, or thereabouts. We have Senators who do not want this bill coming to the floor. First, we have to take the steps on airline safety--no question about it--now. But it is absolutely appropriate to also, in the same legislation, talk about Amtrak. It is part of the transportation system. It is related. But the other part of it is the employees. I say to the Presiding Officer, I don't know if I will feel empty, depressed, or just furious and angry, to go back home this weekend and see some of those same employees who are going to be saying: Why? Why? Why the delay? Why can't you help us? That is what I say to some of my colleagues. What is going on here? In all due respect, this should be a no-brainer. We should have the airline safety bill out. We have amendments; people can vote for or against the amendments. But it is not business as usual. This is not a business-as-usual time. This is not a typical time in our country. I say to Senators, I know if you are thinking: In all due respect, Paul, don't be gratuitous; it is not like anyone needs to tell us that, given what happened to our country on September 11 and the murder of so many people. I get the impression that maybe on the economic hard times and what has happened to people in their own lives here on the economic security part, there are a number of Senators who I don't think get it. They don't get it. I have not had a chance to talk to the majority leader. I assume we will file cloture, have a vote, and force this issue. If people don't want to vote for assistance for the aviation employees, let them vote no. I think it would be pretty hard to sleep if you were to cast such a vote. I say to the Presiding Officer, I remember 4 or 5 days after September 11, I was coming back here and talking to some of the employees and saying, hello, how are you, to a woman while checking in; the woman said: All right; I'm hanging in there. I realized what she was talking about was not September 11. She was talking about herself because she knew they would be out of work. My first reaction was: Why wouldn't you be focused on September 11 and the slaughter of people in the country? Then I said to Sheila: Wait a minute; she was not wrong to react that way. She had to be concerned about what would happen to her and her family. She knew she would be out of work. These workers are asking us for help. I would like to smoke out Senators, have Senators over the next 2 days come out here and debate and tell us why they don't want to support an amendment, if that is the case. I have to make this distinction. I can some see Senators saying: Well, of all people, Paul, over the years, it is not like you haven't come out here and slowed things up and used your leverage. I understand that. Frankly, I don't know what the cause is here. Maybe I am just being self-righteous. I don't, frankly, know what the cause is. If the cause is, as I suspect, there are some Senators who don't want to see this package go through, then I say, just come on out here and ``have at it,'' make your arguments, and let's vote. We have a lot going on in terms of unity and Members of both parties feeling so strongly about what happened. All of us, I think, have a lot of concerns. It is hard not to every day worry about, What next not to worry about? What kind of action are we going to take? What kind of military action? What will be the reaction? Will we be successful? Will we be able to hold the people who committed this act of murder accountable? Can we minimize the loss of life of helpless civilians? I pray so. What will happen in Pakistan? What about other Middle East countries? What about our own country? Will there be other attacks? Will our people be protected? What is happening to the economy? The truth is, we should, by tonight, be near getting this bill done, and then we have to put together another economic stimulus package. I do not know, but I think maybe our party, I say to the Presiding Officer, is a little bit too timid. I think we have to put together a significant stimulus package. I think part of it can be tax rebates, especially for the people who pay the Social Security tax who did not get any help. Let's put some money in the hands of people who are going to go out and spend it--do it. We should be extending the unemployment insurance, the health care benefits as well, and definitely help small business. There is no doubt in my mind that a lot of small businesses are really taking it on the chin. There are child care expenses. There is affordable housing. There are some things we can do that are like a marriage. Let's put some money in affordable housing. I have my own ideas. I will not go through specifics today. I think I will tomorrow. Rebuilding crumbling schools--all of it has immense potential. And, frankly, we have to get onto that as well. There is a whole lot we need to do, and the sooner the better. I guess I think the unity can apply to a lot of the challenges ahead. But I just find this refusing to proceed--maybe I am just coming on one of these weeks where Monday we were supposed to deal with the mental health bill, not an unimportant piece of legislation. I am not going to try to mix agendas. I will just say again the mental health equitable treatment legislation is bipartisan. I have been fortunate enough to be joined on this effort with Senator Domenici. There are 65 supporting Senators. We could have done it in several hours with debate on amendments. It was blocked. By the way, there are going to be huge mental health issues, lots of struggles for families. Nobody should doubt that. I have done a lot of work with Vietnam vets with PTSD. I have seen it. There is going to be so much of that. And the fact is, once you say you have to provide the same coverage for people dealing with this illness as with that, then you have the care following the money. Then you get some good care out of this. That was blocked. I have been trying to get to some legislation that passed the House unanimously. It seems small. But there is not anything I care more about. It is for families dealing with a disease called Duchenne's disease. Senator Cochran has been helping on it. It is muscular dystrophy for children, little boys, a problem with a recessive gene. It is Lou Gehrig's disease, and for these little children there is no hope; there is no future. It is a very cruel disease, if you know Lou Gehrig's disease. It takes everything away from these children and then they die. These families, they are so young when you meet them and the children are so young and they are just trying to get some focus in the Centers for Disease Control, NIH, some centers for excellence. We have bipartisan support. My understanding is, again, some Senators do not want to let that go through on unanimous consent. There are things we can do that are good things for people that should not be that controversial, that we should be able to do. Maybe part of what I am doing today is just expressing my overall frustration. But I will say again, there is no more important piece of legislation than this aviation safety bill. I think the Presiding Officer, his suggestions about having the Guard involved and giving some people reassurance--the President is taking that up. I am proud of the Senator from Minnesota. Thank you for getting that idea out there. I think it will be adopted. It is part of what we will do in this transition period. And then there are a lot of other proposals that make a whole lot of sense: federalizing the workforce, having highly trained people. I was talking with Senator Hollings and he said a lot of people who now do the security work, they should really have first priority to get the job training. It is not as if we just bash people and say: You are gone. Some are very qualified--with the training. Others may not be able to do the work. There are other features as well. But the other part of it is I never dreamed we would have such a hard time getting help to the workers, to the employees. Maybe there is something wrong with the way my mind works. I am sure there are other colleagues who think so. But to me it is like 2 plus 2 equals 4. Yes, you help out the industry. Yes, we had to do it under emergency conditions. Yes, the next step is to make sure the employees, all the people who have been part of this industry, get help. They are out of work. And there is opposition to this. It is obvious. I guess we are basically at a point where we are going to file for cloture, have a vote on it, and I suppose this will go over to next week. If so, fine. But as far as I am concerned--I have heard the Presiding Officer say this--I am getting to the point now where I think we are going to have to be here quite a long time this fall. We have a lot of work to do. If it is going to be delayed, things are going to have to extend on. There is an education bill--the same kind of interesting issue where for some reason there is a lot of opposition to providing the resources to which I think we made a commitment to schools. I would say to Senator Dayton, the Presiding Officer, my guess is--and I think we should do this--this Monday we are going to have the hearing together and focus on the terrorist attack, the recession, and their effect on the Minnesota population. I think there will come a time where we probably should just focus on education. Just imagine what is going to happen with the State budgets that are going to contract, whether there will be the resources for the schools. Imagine the number of kids who will be eligible soon for the free- and reduced-cost lunch program. Imagine the struggles families are going to have. By the way, we could help these families if we could get some of these benefits out there to them. I think that ties in to another issue the Presiding Officer has worked on and been very outspoken on, directly correlated to whether or not we are going to keep the IDEA program mandatory funding and fund it or get the money for title 1. There are things we can do now, colleagues, that will help people. I will finish this way: The two things that have most inspired me, if that word can be used, given what we have been through as a nation, is, A, the wisdom of people in Minnesota and around the country who were not--I said this to Secretary of State Powell, and I think everybody would agree--the people are not impatient. They are not bellicose. They are not sayings ``Bombs away.'' People are very well aware of how difficult this will be. They want to have it done in the right way. They want it to be consistent with our values. They do not want to see the kind of military action that will lead to massive loss of innocent civilians. They want to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. They don't want people to be starving to death, people who have nothing to do with the Taliban and nothing to do with terrorism. And the other thing is I think a lot of what I would call ``people values'' have come out. I don't know if I can remember another time in my adult life where I have seen people so involved in helping other people. Part of it, of course, is to help all the people who have lost loved ones in New York and those lost on the plane that went down in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon and D.C. and Virginia and surrounding areas. But I think it goes beyond that. If there is one good thing you can point to, it is that I think people really are thinking more about ways in which they can help other people. Call it a sense of community or whatever you want to call it. I can't for the life of me figure out why that hasn't yet reached the Senate. Where are the people values? How can we continue to delay helping these employees who are out of work in the aviation industry? How can we delay putting together a package? We call it economic stimulus, but the truth of the matter is, the best thing you can do in an economic stimulus package is also get help to people flat on their back who can use the money to consume because they have tried to make ends meet. I have amendments. We have all worked together on the Carnahan package. I thank the Senator from Missouri for her fine work. We want to see that passed. I think some of us have other amendments. We want to get to an economic stimulus package. There is a lot of work to do here: Education, and appropriations bills. I hope the whole question of prescription drug costs for elderly people doesn't just get completely put off. Frankly, those problems are no less compelling. I don't think I am exaggerating the point if I say that it is not going to be easy on a lot of working families if they have to end up with hard times and continue to have to help their parents and grandparents with prescription drug costs. It all gets tied in together. It is all about communities. It is all about families. It is all about our being a family. It is all about how to help people. There were a lot of people who campaigned on this issue. Senator Dayton of Minnesota probably campaigned as effectively on this issue as anybody in the country. It is not as if these issues go away. It is all a part of what we need to do in the country. If I wanted to be kind of ``Mr. Economist,'' I would say: My God, elderly people are paying half their monthly budget on prescription drug costs. Help them out so it is affordable, so they can have some money to consume with. There are lots of things we can do that sort of represent a good marriage of helping people, which also will enable people to consume, and which will also help our economy. We need to do it now. We should do it for humanitarian reasons. We should do it out of a sense that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers. We should do it with a sense of ``there, but for the grace of God, go I.'' We should do it for economic reasons and national security reasons. Here I am at 5 minutes to 5 on the floor of the Senate, and no one is here because moving to the airline safety bill has been blocked. Outrageous. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, regarding the Capitol Hill police, I will try to write a resolution and have it passed by the Senate, I hope they will do the same on the House side. I want to thank the Capitol Hill police for what they have been doing for us. I think my colleagues are aware, but sometimes in the rush of war it is easy to forget. Many of the Capitol Police are putting in 17- and 18-hour days. You can see the exhaustion on their faces. I have been thanking the officers individually when I walk by, and they are very gracious, but it is almost as if they are saying: Well, it is hard, but we want to do this. We owe a real debt of gratitude to them. I will try to bring a resolution to the floor tomorrow and have that passed. It would mean a lot. I think all Senators are very grateful. Those are long days and weeks. They are doing the extra work for the security for all of us.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to address the subject of our Nation's security needs in the context of the Defense authorization bill presently before the Senate. I believe we must provide the best possible training, equipment, and preparation for our military forces, so they can effectively carry out whatever peacekeeping, humanitarian, war-fighting, or other missions they are given. They deserve the targeted pay raises of 5-10 percent and deferred maintenance for base housing included in this bill. For many years running, those in our armed forces have been suffering from a declining quality of life, despite rising Pentagon budgets. The pressing needs of our dedicated men and women in uniform, and those of their families, must be addressed as they mobilize for duty in response to the attacks of September 11th. This bill does largely address those needs, and I will vote for it today. Even so, I have a number of concerns about the bill, especially about its missile defense provisions. The initial committee language would have cut total funding for missile defense programs from $8.3 billion to $7 billion. In addition, it would have required that President Bush return to Congress with a specific request for funds for any missile defense tests that would violate the ABM Treaty, with congressional approval then required to spend those funds. I am disappointed that this language was removed. I oppose the plan to deploy a national missile defense shield for many reasons. The crucial question is whether a missile shield will make the United States more or less secure. After studying the matter carefully, I have concluded that deploying a missile shield is likely to make us less secure, and that we would be better off using these funds to finance key anti-terrorism initiatives. The new funding language in the bill allows the President to choose between missile defense research and development and combating terrorism. I believe that fighting terrorism should take priority over missile defense, and should receive most or all of the new funding. I further believe that spending to combat terrorism is more important than digging silos at Fort Greely, AK. Crews there have already begun construction of a 135-acre missile field and are planning to begin building silos in the Spring of 2002. Russian officials have said they would view construction of the Fort Greely missile silos as a violation of the ABM Treaty. Moreover, Moscow has said it would react to U.S. treaty withdrawal by abandoning all arms and nonproliferation treaties with Washington and might respond to the missile shield by putting multiple nuclear warheads on some of its missiles. Is it worth jeopardizing the system of stable nuclear deterrence that has worked for almost 40 years to build a very costly system that we don't know will work? I believe it is urgent that we strongly support the renewed efforts of Senator Levin and others to require the President to seek congressional approval before spending funds for missile tests that would breach the ABM Treaty. I believe in maintaining a strong national defense. We face a number of credible threats in the world today, including terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We must make sure we carefully identify the threats we face and tailor our defense spending to meet them. We could do a better job of that than this bill does, and I hope that as we move to conference, the committee will make every effort to transfer funds from relatively low-priority programs to those designed to meet the urgent and immediate anti-terrorism and defense needs of our forces.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today, with Senator Murray, that would address one of the most challenging and tragic crimes in our society. This bill is the Children Who Witness Domestic Violence Act. It is a comprehensive first step towards confronting the impact of domestic violence on children. This bill addresses the issue from multiple perspectives by providing funds for several key programs. The bill would support multi-system interventions for children who witness domestic violence by providing nonprofit agencies with funding to bring various service providers together to design and implement intervention programs for children who witness domestic violence. These working partnerships would take advantage of local resources such as counselors, courts, schools, health care providers and battered women's programs to best address the needs of children in violent homes. The bill would also create opportunities for domestic violence community agencies and elementary and secondary schools to work together to address the needs of children who witness and experience domestic violence. For example, domestic violence agencies could work with schools to provide domestic violence training to school officials and to students so they can make appropriate referrals and can understand how witnessing domestic violence impacts children's behavior and achievement. The groups could provide anger management and other educational programming to students so they can learn about and deal with the problem as they experience it. The bill would also provide training to child welfare, and where appropriate, to court and law enforcement personnel to assist them in recognizing and treating domestic violence as a serious problem threatening the safety and well being to both children and adults. Training would include teaching staff to recognize the overlap between child abuse and domestic violence and to better identify the presence of domestic violence in child welfare cases. Staff would also be taught how to increase the safety and well-being of child witnesses of domestic violence as well as the safety of the non-abusing parent so that children can stay with their non-abusing parent when it is safe to do so. The bill would provide funds to shelters so they can run programs to address the physical, emotional and logistical needs of children who stay there. The bill also would give funds to States to assist private and public agencies and organizations in expanding crisis nurseries-- temporary respite care for children who are at risk of abuse in their homes. Such nurseries have proven effective in preventing child abuse and in keeping families together in a safe way, when possible. Finally, the bill would fund comprehensive research to investigate the link between domestic violence and child abuse, the link between childhood exposure to domestic violence and violent behavior in youth and adults, and other key issues that can provide insight into appropriate remedies for this devastating problem. Mr. President, I introduce this legislation today, because, as I have said before, nowhere is violence more isolated from view, more difficult to combat and more far reaching in its impact than violence in the home. To turn a blind eye to the suffering of the victims of domestic violence and their children is to be, however unwittingly, complicitous in the crime because it is out of sight and behind closed doors that domestic violence thrives. This bill reflects the fact that the effects of domestic violence extend far beyond the moment when violence occurs. One of the most compelling marks that violence against women leaves is on our children. I am reminded of the voice of Quinese Robinson, a teenager from Minneapolis, who just last year, came home to find that her mother's husband had brutally murdered her mother. Quinese simply said, ``My Mom is the most important person in our life. When he killed her, he basically killed all four of us, because we do not have a mother.'' This is one story among millions. It is estimated that as many as 10 million children witness violence in the home each year, and much of this violence is repetitive. As many as 70 percent of children who witness domestic violence are also victims of child abuse. If we are serious about helping children and reducing youth violence, we cannot ignore the impact of domestic violence on children. Studies indicate that children who witness their fathers beating their mothers suffer emotional problems, including slowed development, sleep disturbances, and feelings of hopelessness, depression, and anxiety. Many of these children exhibit more aggressive, anti-social, and fearful behaviors. They also show lower social competence that other children. Children in homes where their mothers were abused have also shown less skill in understanding how others feel when compared to children from non-violent households. Even one episode of violence can produce post-traumatic stress disorder in children. Children who witness domestic violence are at higher risk of suicide. Jeffrey Edleson and others at the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse at the University of Minnesota collected multiple studies on the devastating results of this trauma. The examples are painful, but they deserve telling. One 4 year old girl named Julie witnessed her father stab her mother to death. In describing the event, Julie consistently placed her father at the scene of the crime and recounted her father's efforts to clean up after the crime. She could not describe her father's actions but when the district attorney saw Julie stabbing a pillow and crying ``Daddy pushed Mommy down,'' he was sure that the father had committed the crime. A child who was being treated at San Francisco General Hospital saw his father cut his mother's throat. For a period of time after the crime, the child could not speak. Not surprisingly, Edleson found that children growing up in violent families are more likely to engage in youth violence and that the social and economic risk factors for youth violence correspond to the risk factors for domestic violence and child abuse. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the U.S. Dept. of Justice identifies family violence as a major risk factor in the lives of serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. It is estimated that as many as 40 percent of violent juvenile offenders come from homes where there is domestic violence. In addition to increasing violence, witnessing domestic violence directly hinders school achievement. Child witnesses have higher incidences of impaired concentration, poor school attendance, being labeled an underachiever, and difficulties in cognitive and academic functioning. As this overwhelming research indicates, domestic violence and violence against women permeate our entire society. People who try to keep family violence quiet and hidden behind the walls of the home ignore its tragic echoes in the hearts and minds of our children, in our schools, on the streets and in our human relationships. In the face of this devastating situation, I call on my colleagues to say to these child witnesses around the country, that they will not suffer in silence, for that is what their abusers want them to do. Their cries will not be muffled behind closed doors and by the fear inflicted by abusive parents. We need to provide these children with a way out of violence and a way to deal with the pain of violence. This bill represents a modest step to address this devastating problem. I urge my colleagues, in the names of all of these children, to support this critical legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today, with Senator Murray, that would address one of the most challenging and tragic crimes in our society. This bill is the Children Who Witness Domestic Violence Act. It is a comprehensive first step towards confronting the impact of domestic violence on children. This bill addresses the issue from multiple perspectives by providing funds for several key programs. The bill would support multi-system interventions for children who witness domestic violence by providing nonprofit agencies with funding to bring various service providers together to design and implement intervention programs for children who witness domestic violence. These working partnerships would take advantage of local resources such as counselors, courts, schools, health care providers and battered women's programs to best address the needs of children in violent homes. The bill would also create opportunities for domestic violence community agencies and elementary and secondary schools to work together to address the needs of children who witness and experience domestic violence. For example, domestic violence agencies could work with schools to provide domestic violence training to school officials and to students so they can make appropriate referrals and can understand how witnessing domestic violence impacts children's behavior and achievement. The groups could provide anger management and other educational programming to students so they can learn about and deal with the problem as they experience it. The bill would also provide training to child welfare, and where appropriate, to court and law enforcement personnel to assist them in recognizing and treating domestic violence as a serious problem threatening the safety and well being to both children and adults. Training would include teaching staff to recognize the overlap between child abuse and domestic violence and to better identify the presence of domestic violence in child welfare cases. Staff would also be taught how to increase the safety and well-being of child witnesses of domestic violence as well as the safety of the non-abusing parent so that children can stay with their non-abusing parent when it is safe to do so. The bill would provide funds to shelters so they can run programs to address the physical, emotional and logistical needs of children who stay there. The bill also would give funds to States to assist private and public agencies and organizations in expanding crisis nurseries-- temporary respite care for children who are at risk of abuse in their homes. Such nurseries have proven effective in preventing child abuse and in keeping families together in a safe way, when possible. Finally, the bill would fund comprehensive research to investigate the link between domestic violence and child abuse, the link between childhood exposure to domestic violence and violent behavior in youth and adults, and other key issues that can provide insight into appropriate remedies for this devastating problem. Mr. President, I introduce this legislation today, because, as I have said before, nowhere is violence more isolated from view, more difficult to combat and more far reaching in its impact than violence in the home. To turn a blind eye to the suffering of the victims of domestic violence and their children is to be, however unwittingly, complicitous in the crime because it is out of sight and behind closed doors that domestic violence thrives. This bill reflects the fact that the effects of domestic violence extend far beyond the moment when violence occurs. One of the most compelling marks that violence against women leaves is on our children. I am reminded of the voice of Quinese Robinson, a teenager from Minneapolis, who just last year, came home to find that her mother's husband had brutally murdered her mother. Quinese simply said, ``My Mom is the most important person in our life. When he killed her, he basically killed all four of us, because we do not have a mother.'' This is one story among millions. It is estimated that as many as 10 million children witness violence in the home each year, and much of this violence is repetitive. As many as 70 percent of children who witness domestic violence are also victims of child abuse. If we are serious about helping children and reducing youth violence, we cannot ignore the impact of domestic violence on children. Studies indicate that children who witness their fathers beating their mothers suffer emotional problems, including slowed development, sleep disturbances, and feelings of hopelessness, depression, and anxiety. Many of these children exhibit more aggressive, anti-social, and fearful behaviors. They also show lower social competence that other children. Children in homes where their mothers were abused have also shown less skill in understanding how others feel when compared to children from non-violent households. Even one episode of violence can produce post-traumatic stress disorder in children. Children who witness domestic violence are at higher risk of suicide. Jeffrey Edleson and others at the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse at the University of Minnesota collected multiple studies on the devastating results of this trauma. The examples are painful, but they deserve telling. One 4 year old girl named Julie witnessed her father stab her mother to death. In describing the event, Julie consistently placed her father at the scene of the crime and recounted her father's efforts to clean up after the crime. She could not describe her father's actions but when the district attorney saw Julie stabbing a pillow and crying ``Daddy pushed Mommy down,'' he was sure that the father had committed the crime. A child who was being treated at San Francisco General Hospital saw his father cut his mother's throat. For a period of time after the crime, the child could not speak. Not surprisingly, Edleson found that children growing up in violent families are more likely to engage in youth violence and that the social and economic risk factors for youth violence correspond to the risk factors for domestic violence and child abuse. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the U.S. Dept. of Justice identifies family violence as a major risk factor in the lives of serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. It is estimated that as many as 40 percent of violent juvenile offenders come from homes where there is domestic violence. In addition to increasing violence, witnessing domestic violence directly hinders school achievement. Child witnesses have higher incidences of impaired concentration, poor school attendance, being labeled an underachiever, and difficulties in cognitive and academic functioning. As this overwhelming research indicates, domestic violence and violence against women permeate our entire society. People who try to keep family violence quiet and hidden behind the walls of the home ignore its tragic echoes in the hearts and minds of our children, in our schools, on the streets and in our human relationships. In the face of this devastating situation, I call on my colleagues to say to these child witnesses around the country, that they will not suffer in silence, for that is what their abusers want them to do. Their cries will not be muffled behind closed doors and by the fear inflicted by abusive parents. We need to provide these children with a way out of violence and a way to deal with the pain of violence. This bill represents a modest step to address this devastating problem. I urge my colleagues, in the names of all of these children, to support this critical legislation.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I probably need about 20 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct, although I want to respond to Senator Byrd's statement.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have been here a long time, and I asked unanimous consent to follow Senator Levin. I will speak and try to cover the topic, and then I will yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Gerrity and Cindy Connolly, two fellows in my office, be allowed to be on the floor during the consideration of S. 1438.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. I also say to my colleague, I believe Senator Kerry from Massachusetts, and also the majority leader, Senator Daschle--all of them----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Did yeomen work.