Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to David Doleski, a fellow in my office.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from Delaware, he said about four or five times, ``in the long term.'' That is not good enough. The long term is not good enough. When I am in Minnesota, and I travel the State, no matter where I go, in town meetings, there is a huge turnout of older citizens, of senior citizens. In my State of Minnesota there are probably about 800,000 Medicare recipients, and only 35 percent have any kind of coverage at all for prescription drugs --35 percent. Two-thirds of elderly Minnesotans have no coverage; two-thirds in Minnesota have no coverage at all. It is not uncommon to meet someone who is spending $300 a month on a $1,000 monthly income. Mr. President, $300 a month on a $1,000 monthly income. It is also not uncommon to meet with people who will tell you-- actually not in a public meeting. People are a little embarrassed to do it. But if you get to meet with people individually--they cut their pills in half. The problem is it doesn't give them half the benefit. Actually, it can be quite dangerous. Or if they don't cut their pills in half, there are people who just do not take them so they can put food on the table, or if they go out and buy what they need, then they do not put food on the table. I hear my colleagues on the other side saying ``in the long run.'' In the long run? What are we waiting for? What are we waiting for? You are talking about tax cuts. I was on the floor earlier when we were discussing the Gramm amendment, which I assume will be voted down. But take that one amendment: 60 percent of the benefit goes to the top 10 percent. The average tax cut for the lowest income earners, the lowest 60 percent, earning below $38,000, would be $99. But if you have an income of over $300,000, it is a $20,000 tax cut. You are talking about $700 billion, $800 billion of tax cuts in the Republican proposal, crowding out any kind of investment like this; for example, affordable prescription drug costs for the elderly. We have another amendment, the Gramm amendment, which is class warfare. That is what it is. The people in Minnesota are scratching their heads saying: We would love to get some relief, us hard-pressed working people, but that is not what the Republican plan is. Now we have the Kennedy amendment on the floor, which I fully support, that speaks directly to the concerns and circumstances of older Americans. In my State of Minnesota, this is critically important. Only one-third of senior citizens have any prescription drug coverage at all. This is a burdensome cost. This is a health care issue. This is a public health issue. What made Medicare important--it was a huge step forward in 1965--is that it was a universal coverage program. When we extend prescription drug benefits to Medicare, we make it a universal care program. For my father and my mother, neither of whom are alive today, both of whom had Parkinson's disease, without Medicare they would have gone under. They never made any money. The kind of drugs they needed, and seniors need, for Parkinson's disease--I can talk about other diseases--they cannot afford them. I hear my good friend from Delaware say ``in the long run.'' The long run is too long. We are confronted with the urgency of now. This is a clear choice. You are either for the tax cuts, three-martini lunches, egregious breaks for large corporations, the vast amount of the money going to the highest income citizens, exploding the debt over the next 10 years and then the next 10 years it gets worse; or why don't we be fiscally responsible? Why don't we pay the debt down, make sure we support Social Security and Medicare, investment in our children, and when we support Medicare, the best thing we could do would be to make sure there is prescription drug coverage for elderly Americans. I hope there will be 99 or 100 votes for this amendment. There should be. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about my support for Senator Bingaman's amendment, which urges restoration of a portion of the Republican cuts in several key education programs. There is nothing more important to me than doing the absolute best I can--and encouraging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same--to push, push as hard as we possibly can to re-order our spending priorities so that they better reflect the real concerns and circumstances of the lives of those whom we represent who are trying to raise and educate their kids, or send them to college. Our goal should to be approve a tax plan that will send a clear, unmistakable message that this Congress cares about education, that this Congress wants to ensure sure that children come to school prepared to learn and are given every possible opportunity to grow, to succeed, to excel. It is time to end photo op politics. It is easy for all of us to get our pictures taken with young children at schools, but the question is, have we done enough? The answer: we have not. I believe my colleagues' proposal, modest as it is, moves us in the right direction. I know there are technical reasons why we couldn't actually directly transfer funding for this year in the amendment--an approach which I wanted to take--but at least this amendment sends the right signal regarding a re-ordering of our priorities. I consider this a matter of national security issue, a national priority. Making sure that the young are ready to learn is good for our democracy, or economy, and our national defense. it is our responsibility to make sure that teachers are qualified and equipped with the right tools, and that the opportunities for learning will be there in the afternoons long after the last class has been dismissed. I cannot say forcefully enough: this must be accomplished not at the expense or detriment of our children but to their collective advantage. I'm behind the proposal to shift these excessive tax breaks to a plan that would fully fund the initiative to hire 100,000 qualified teachers to reduce class sizes. It's no mystery that smaller class sizes translate into greater opportunities for children to get more individualized attention. We've heard that the size of the Republican tax bill is such that it will require significant cuts in crucial education programs. We've heard that if defense is funded at the level requested by the president, we should anticipate at 38 percent ($180 billion) cut in domestic discretionary spending. That is the worst possible news for the millions of people who rely on vital initiatives like Title I, Head Start, and the Reading Excellence program. Absolutely ludicrous. For instance, under this proposal: Nearly 6 million disadvantaged children would lose Title I services that help them meet basic academic needs; 270,000 summer jobs and training opportunities would be eliminated for low-income young people; 375,000 children would be denied Head Start services that help them come to school ready-to- learn; and 549,000 children would be cut from the Reading Excellence program, denying them the extra help they need to read well by the 4th grade. Mr. President, allow me to share some examples from my own experience. Minnesota, like most states, receives only a portion of the Title I money it desperately needs as it is. Our current allocation is about $88 million. If fully funded, we would receive approximately a quarter-billion dollars and over a hundred million additional dollars for concentration grants, according to the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning. Well, I suppose that's a start. A cut of even half a percent on a program like Title I would be disastrous. But I can see it coming. One-fourth of Minnesota's Title I dollars goes to only two cities, either to Minneapolis or St. Paul, because both cities have high concentrations of poverty. How can we expect to eliminate the learning gaps among our children when so many others are left without opportunities or options? Right now elementary and secondary education receive on average about eight percent of its funding from the federal government. It is imperative that we take bold steps to pass a tax measure that will, at the absolute least, serve to move us closer to providing the resources so badly needed in so many areas of education. But it seems clear we will not do that here. Another area that I believe is a vital component of our national infrastructure is our schools. That is why I am an original cosponsor of Senator Robb's school modernization effort that we will hear more about later. I think it too is a step in the right direction and I honestly believe it's another sure way to say to our kids, ``You matter. Your schools matter. Your future matters.'' In Minnesota alone, there is a one-point-five billion dollar unmet need for school construction. Our average school is over 50 years old. Eighty-five percent of Minnesota schools report a need to upgrade or rebuild their building just to achieve ``good'' overall condition. Sixty-six percent report at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor like air quality, ventilation, acoustics, heating, or lighting. My staff and I have visited nearly a hundred schools over the past eight months and we've heard stories of pathetic conditions throughout the state. I know many of you have heard these stories in your own states. In my state, for example, Two Harbors High School, which is on the north shore of Lake Superior is representative. Two Harbors is a thriving community, but each day its students must enter a facility that can't meet some of their most basic educational needs. Three separate studies were conducted to assess Two Harbors' facilities. The studies identified twenty-seven critical needs that are characteristic of so many of our schools. The original facility is sixty years old. The facility does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. There are no teacher offices. The school does not permit the separation of middle level and senor high school level students. The list is extensive. I know we've heard it all before--the crumbling schools, the lousy physical environments, and the resulting distractions that once again detract from our children's ability to learn. The question is ``When are we going to wake up and actually do something about it?'' Mr. President, I could go on but the time for talk is long past. The time for pondering our next move is over. The time to move and to move deftly is at hand. My colleagues' proposal urges a major transfer of funding that goes straight to the heart of where our priorities ought to be. It calls for a real investment in real people, people who truly deserve it. Smaller class sizes. Access to quality education at an early age. A fairer share for individuals with disabilities. Help for low and middle income students who deserve every opportunity to attend college. These are some of the most fundamental elements in a strong education system that values all its children, leaving none of them behind. What is the Republican alternative? Denying our children access to the very things that would prepare them for healthy, happy, productive lives in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in recognition of the anniversary of the Purple Heart Medal. This medal has been given to U.S. soldiers for wounds received in military action ever since George Washington invented the award during the Revolutionary War. Recipients of this award have demonstrated courage and love of country. Many of its recipients have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom. We must never forget the sacrifices made by Americans who have fought for our democracy and prosperity. In celebration of this anniversary and to stand as a permanent token of America's gratitude for the sacrifices made by recipients of this distinguished medal, a memorial will be dedicated at Fort Snelling National Cemetery in the great State of Minnesota on August 7, 1999. I wish to publicly thank those who made the memorial a reality, and I especially wish to publicly thank those veterans who have earned the Purple Heart Medal by giving selflessly for democracy and our country.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, President Clinton visited some of the poorest communities in our country and he spoke eloquently of our obligations to America's most disadvantaged children. Now, with our economy booming and record surpluses, we have a chance to do better for all of our children. This budget fails America's children. I want to speak as loudly and boldly as I can about this reconciliation bill, first about the Republican proposal, and then about what we are proposing as Democrats. If you look at the non-Social Security surplus, about three-quarters of it really assumes cuts in future domestic spending. The Republican proposal on the floor does not restore any of these cuts. In fact, they add another cut of roughly $200 billion. The Republican plan would require a 38-percent cut in domestic spending in the year 2009, and the Republican tax bills are loaded with corporate welfare for multinational corporations, banks, insurance companies, Wall Street securities firms, and tax giveaways for the wealthy. That is a disappointment. It is a very harsh budget. But even the Democratic plan fails to fully fund or restore these cuts. Senate Democrats have reserved $290 billion of the surplus to soften the blow on our discretionary priorities like education, but we still allow cuts of several hundred billion dollars. In our plan, with our $300 billion of tax cuts, we do not make up the assumed cuts in our domestic priorities either. Since defense spending will go up, and there will be spending for transportation which also will go up significantly over the next 10 years, our other domestic priorities will be squeezed even more. How can we, as Democrats, say we are for addressing the needs of America's children, for fighting poverty, for fully funding Head Start, for equal access to quality education, for helping working families afford the cost of health care and child care, for cleaning up the environment, for community policing, and for veterans' health care, when we are assuming domestic spending cuts of several hundred billion dollars? Something has to give. To use the old Yiddish proverb, you can't dance at two weddings at the same time. I do not understand this. There are 14 million children who are poor in our country--14 million. There are 6.5 million children who live in households with income of one-half the poverty level. Close to one out of every four children in our country under the age of 3 are growing up poor. Close to 50 percent of children of color under the age of 3 are growing up poor. And now we are being told by both parties--the Republican Party much more so than the Democratic Party--but both parties, that we cannot afford to renew our national vow of equal opportunity for every child? Where in these proposals do we, as a Senate representing the United States of America, live up to our national vow of equal opportunity for every child? Right now, in Early Head Start, for children age 3 or younger, 1 percent of the children who could be helped and given a head start are able to get this assistance. We are funding this program at a 1 percent level. For the Republicans, you have $800 billion of tax cuts. You make no investment in any of these areas. Your budget and your proposal will lead to Draconian, really brutal cuts in these programs. Not only will we not be doing anything to make sure poor children have a chance in America, to make sure that there is equal opportunity for every child, but the proposal of the majority party will be making cuts in these programs. And to the Democratic Party, my party, we have a better proposal. It is less harsh. But there has to be some connection between the convictions we profess and the budgets we propose, and a willingness to fight for them. At some point, the chasm between our words and our actions becomes too wide. If we do not fight hard enough for the things we stand for at some point, we have to recognize we really do not stand for them. We really do not stand for them. I cannot believe with record economic performance, that the Republican Party can come to the floor of the Senate with a proposal that calls for $800 billion of tax cuts, most of them flowing to our wealthiest citizens, but with a proposed 38-percent cut in Head Start, child care, community policing, and cleanup of the environment. And to my party, I cannot believe the Democrats come out with a proposal where we, too, are essentially proposing cuts in some of these key domestic priorities. Why did we become involved in politics? What do we believe in? What are our values? Can we not at least make some investment to make sure every child, no matter the color of skin or income of family, urban or rural, or boy or girl, will have a chance to reach her full potential and his full potential? What ever happened to the Democratic Party's strong commitment to equal opportunity for every citizen? I do not see it in these proposals. We ought not to be talking about tax cuts that benefit the most affluent citizens, when we cannot even live up to our national vow of equal opportunity for every child. I hope we will do better as we move forward in this debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York. I actually was going to come down here and take a little bit of time to prepare for this, but I will just do this off the top of my head. I want to say to the Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, I come to the floor to fully support his initiative, what he is trying to do. I think what the Senator from New York is saying is that we have a proposal on the floor, the Republican proposal, which after the first decade is essentially going to explode the debt, and that really this is the height of folly. I will not get at all demagogic right now, but I will say this. I do not mean that other times when I speak that I am demagogic. I don't mean that at all. I will say this. When I hear the discussion about how we need to give the surplus back to people, give it back to the taxpayers, I say to myself--and I think this is what Senator Moynihan is trying to say, not just to the Senate but to the country--I say to myself, this is actually not true. Whatever we have by way of surpluses, assuming that our economic performance will continue to be as good over the decades to come, that surplus belongs to our children and grandchildren. We built up this debt. We saddled this debt on them. We ought to make sure that whatever we do doesn't explode the debt after 2010, that we make sure Medicare and Social Security will be available for them, and we make sure our children and grandchildren will have the same opportunities we have had. What the Senator from New York is doing with this point of order, his challenge right now to the majority party's plan, is to essentially say this. The people of our country, the vast majority of people in Minnesota, New York, and all across the country, are very intelligent about this. The last thing they want to see us do is explode the debt again. They don't want to see us do it because they don't want to see us go into more debt as a nation. They don't want to see their children saddled with more debt. There is one other point, which is a political point and also an ideological point. If we pass this proposal, the Republican plan--and I believe the President must veto it--as we look to the second 10 years, we are going to have such an explosion of deficits and debt that will make it impossible for us to move forward on any of the initiatives that do in fact give more opportunities to children, to allow some of the investments we should make--not unwise investments, but investments in education, investments in child care, investments in economic development, investments in our urban communities, investments in our rural communities. This Republican initiative will explode the debt. It is fiscally irresponsible. It will put us in a straitjacket where we as a country will not be able to make any of the wise investments we should make in education for our children and our grandchildren. This is a critically important initiative, I say to the Senator from New York, and I fully support his action. This vote is probably as important a vote as we are going to have over the next couple of days. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from New York, the point he just made is profoundly important. We do not have a right to make this decision for our children. The next century belongs to them. We do not have a right to make this decision for other Democrats and Republicans who are in the Senate to serve and represent people. This is fiscally irresponsible. It explodes the debt, and it puts us in an absolute straitjacket whereby we will be incapable of making any of the investments we all say we are for to make this a better country. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will ensure that private health insurance companies cover the costs for drug and alcohol addiction treatment services at the same level that they pay for treatment for other diseases. The purpose of this bill is to end discrimination in insurance coverage for drug and alcohol addiction treatment. This bill, entitled Fairness in Treatment: The Drug and Alcohol Addiction Recovery Act of 1999, offers the necessary provisions to provide this assurance. For too long, the problem of drug and alcohol addiction has been viewed as a moral issue, rather than as a disease. Too often, a cloak of secrecy has surrounded this problem, causing people who have this disease to feel ashamed and afraid to seek treatment for their symptoms for fear that they will be seen as admitting to a moral failure, or a weakness in character. We have all seen portrayals of alcoholics and addicts that are intended to be humorous or derogatory, and only reinforce the biases against people who have problems with drug and alcohol addiction. I cannot imagine this type of portrayal of someone who has another kind of chronic illness, a heart problem, or who happens to carry a gene that predisposes them to diabetes. It has been shown that some forms of addiction have a genetic basis, and yet we still try to deny the serious medical nature of this disease. We think of those with this disease as somehow different from us. We forget that someone who has a problem with drugs or alcohol can look just like the person we see in the mirror, or the person who is sitting next to us at work or on the subway, or like someone in our own family. In fact, it is likely that most of us know someone who has experienced drug and alcohol addiction, within our families or our circle of friends or coworkers. Alcoholism and drug addiction are painful, private struggles with staggering public costs. A study prepared by The Lewin Group for the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, estimated that the total economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse to be $246 billion for 1992. Of this cost, $98 billion was due to drug addiction to illicit drugs and other drugs taken for non-medical purposes. This estimate includes addiction treatment and prevention costs, as well as costs associated with related illnesses, reduced job productivity or lost earnings, and other costs to society such as crime and social welfare programs. The study also determined that these costs are borne primarily by governments (46 percent), followed by those who abuse drugs and members of their households (44 percent). According to this same study, private health and life insurance companies bear only 3.2 percent of the costs of drug abuse and 10.2 percent of the costs of alcohol abuse. The health effects resulting from alcohol addiction can be very serious, even fatal. A 1996 article in Scientific American estimated that excessive alcohol consumption causes more than 100,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. Of these deaths, twenty-four per cent are due to drunken driving, eleven percent are homicides, and eight percent are suicides. Alcohol contributes to cancers of the esophagus, larynx, and oral cavity, which account for seventeen percent of these deaths. Strokes related to alcohol use account for another nine percent of deaths. Alcohol causes several other ailments, such as cirrhosis of the liver. These ailments account for eighteen percent of the deaths. We know that addiction to alcohol and other drugs contribute to other problems as well. Addictive substances have the potential for destroying the person who is addicted, their family, and their other relationships. We know, for example, that fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. If the woman who was addicted to alcohol could receive proper treatment, fetal alcohol syndrome for her baby would be 100 percent preventable, and more than 12,000 infants born in the U.S. each year would not suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, with its irreversible physical and mental damage. We know too of the devastation caused by addiction when violence between people is one of the consequences. A 1998 SAMHSA report outlined the links between domestic violence and substance abuse. We know from clinical reports that 25-50% of men who commit acts of domestic violence also have substance abuse problems. The report recognized the link between the victim of abuse and use of alcohol and drugs, and recommended that after the woman's safety has been addressed, the next step would be to help with providing treatment for her addiction as a step toward independence and health, and toward the prevention of the consequences for the children who suffer the same abuse either directly, or indirectly by witnessing spousal violence. People who have the disease of addiction can be found throughout our society. According to the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse published by SAMHSA, nearly 73 percent of all illegal drug users in the United States are employed. This number represents 6.7 million full- time workers and 1.6 million part-time workers. Although many of these workers could and should have insurance benefits that would cover treatment for this disease, they do not. In addition to the health problems resulting from the failure to treat the illness, there are other serious consequences affecting the workplace, such as lost productivity, high employee turnover, low employee morale, mistakes, accidents, and increased worker's compensation insurance and health insurance premiums--all results of untreated addiction problems. Whether you are a corporate CEO or a small business owner, there are simple, effective steps that can be taken--including providing insurance coverage for this disease, ready access to treatment, and workplace policies that support treatment-- that can reduce these human and economic costs. We know from the outstanding research conducted at NIH, through the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, that treatment for drug and alcohol addiction can be effective. That is the major finding from a NIDA-sponsored nationwide study of drug abuse treatment outcomes. The Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) tracked 10,000 people in nearly 100 treatment programs in 11 cities who entered treatment for addiction between 1991 and 1993. Results showed that for all four treatment types studied, there were reductions in the use of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana after treatment. Moreover, treatment resulted in other positive changes in behavior, such as fewer psychological symptoms and increased work productivity. We must do more to prevent this illness and to treat those who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. Over the past few years, the principle of parity in insurance coverage for alcohol and drug rehabilitation and treatment has received the strong support of the White House, ONDCP Director General Barry McCaffrey, Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Former President and Mrs. Gerald Ford, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Kaiser Permanente Health Plans, and many leading figures in medicine, business, government, journalism, and entertainment who have successfully fought the battle of addiction with the help of treatment. Hearings held last year by the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions highlighted the recent major advances in scientific information about the disease; the biological causes of addiction; the effectiveness and low cost of treatment; and many painful, personal stories of people, including children, who have been denied treatment. We know that the failure of insurance companies to provide treatment can sometimes have devastating results. The New York Times recently highlighted the tragic suicide of a young man who desperately sought inpatient treatment care for his drug addiction and fought for 8 months to have the plan authorize the treatment that was in fact included in as part of his benefits. The authorization came through--but too late-- he had died three weeks earlier from a drug overdose. This kind of denial of care for addiction treatment is not at all unique--the 1998 Hay Group Report on Employer Health Care Dollars Spent on Substance Abuse showed that from 1988 through 1998 the value of substance abuse treatment benefits decreased by 74.5%, as compared to a 11.5% decrease for overall health care benefits. Addiction to alcohol and drugs is a disease that affects the brain, the body, and the spirit. We must provide adequate opportunities for the treatment of addiction in order to help those who are suffering and to prevent the health and social problems that it causes. This legislation will take an important step in this direction by requiring that health insurance plans eliminate discrimination for addiction treatment. The costs for this are very low. A 1999 study by the Rand Corporation found that the cost to managed care health plans is now only about $5 per person per year for unlimited substance abuse treatment benefits to employees of big companies. A 1997 Milliman and Robertson study found that complete substance abuse treatment parity would increase per capita health insurance premiums by only one half of one percent, or less than $1 per member per month--without even considering any of the obvious savings that will result from treatment. Several studies have shown that for every $1 spent on treatment, more than $7 is saved in other health care expenses, and that these savings are in addition to the financial and other benefits of increased productivity, as well as participation in family and community life. Providing treatment for addiction also saves millions of dollars in the criminal justice system. But for treatment to be effective and helpful throughout our society all systems of care--including private insurance plans--must share this responsibility. This legislation does not mandate that health insurers offer substance addiction treatment benefits. What it does is prohibit discrimination by health plans who offer substance addiction treatment from placing unfair and life-threatening limitations on caps, access, or financial requirements for addiction treatment that are different from other medical and surgical services. We must move forward now to vigorously address the serious and life- threatening problem of drug and alcohol addiction in our country. It is long past time that insurance companies do their fair share in bearing the responsibility for treating this disease. I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will ensure that private health insurance companies cover the costs for drug and alcohol addiction treatment services at the same level that they pay for treatment for other diseases. The purpose of this bill is to end discrimination in insurance coverage for drug and alcohol addiction treatment. This bill, entitled Fairness in Treatment: The Drug and Alcohol Addiction Recovery Act of 1999, offers the necessary provisions to provide this assurance. For too long, the problem of drug and alcohol addiction has been viewed as a moral issue, rather than as a disease. Too often, a cloak of secrecy has surrounded this problem, causing people who have this disease to feel ashamed and afraid to seek treatment for their symptoms for fear that they will be seen as admitting to a moral failure, or a weakness in character. We have all seen portrayals of alcoholics and addicts that are intended to be humorous or derogatory, and only reinforce the biases against people who have problems with drug and alcohol addiction. I cannot imagine this type of portrayal of someone who has another kind of chronic illness, a heart problem, or who happens to carry a gene that predisposes them to diabetes. It has been shown that some forms of addiction have a genetic basis, and yet we still try to deny the serious medical nature of this disease. We think of those with this disease as somehow different from us. We forget that someone who has a problem with drugs or alcohol can look just like the person we see in the mirror, or the person who is sitting next to us at work or on the subway, or like someone in our own family. In fact, it is likely that most of us know someone who has experienced drug and alcohol addiction, within our families or our circle of friends or coworkers. Alcoholism and drug addiction are painful, private struggles with staggering public costs. A study prepared by The Lewin Group for the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, estimated that the total economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse to be $246 billion for 1992. Of this cost, $98 billion was due to drug addiction to illicit drugs and other drugs taken for non-medical purposes. This estimate includes addiction treatment and prevention costs, as well as costs associated with related illnesses, reduced job productivity or lost earnings, and other costs to society such as crime and social welfare programs. The study also determined that these costs are borne primarily by governments (46 percent), followed by those who abuse drugs and members of their households (44 percent). According to this same study, private health and life insurance companies bear only 3.2 percent of the costs of drug abuse and 10.2 percent of the costs of alcohol abuse. The health effects resulting from alcohol addiction can be very serious, even fatal. A 1996 article in Scientific American estimated that excessive alcohol consumption causes more than 100,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. Of these deaths, twenty-four per cent are due to drunken driving, eleven percent are homicides, and eight percent are suicides. Alcohol contributes to cancers of the esophagus, larynx, and oral cavity, which account for seventeen percent of these deaths. Strokes related to alcohol use account for another nine percent of deaths. Alcohol causes several other ailments, such as cirrhosis of the liver. These ailments account for eighteen percent of the deaths. We know that addiction to alcohol and other drugs contribute to other problems as well. Addictive substances have the potential for destroying the person who is addicted, their family, and their other relationships. We know, for example, that fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. If the woman who was addicted to alcohol could receive proper treatment, fetal alcohol syndrome for her baby would be 100 percent preventable, and more than 12,000 infants born in the U.S. each year would not suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, with its irreversible physical and mental damage. We know too of the devastation caused by addiction when violence between people is one of the consequences. A 1998 SAMHSA report outlined the links between domestic violence and substance abuse. We know from clinical reports that 25-50% of men who commit acts of domestic violence also have substance abuse problems. The report recognized the link between the victim of abuse and use of alcohol and drugs, and recommended that after the woman's safety has been addressed, the next step would be to help with providing treatment for her addiction as a step toward independence and health, and toward the prevention of the consequences for the children who suffer the same abuse either directly, or indirectly by witnessing spousal violence. People who have the disease of addiction can be found throughout our society. According to the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse published by SAMHSA, nearly 73 percent of all illegal drug users in the United States are employed. This number represents 6.7 million full- time workers and 1.6 million part-time workers. Although many of these workers could and should have insurance benefits that would cover treatment for this disease, they do not. In addition to the health problems resulting from the failure to treat the illness, there are other serious consequences affecting the workplace, such as lost productivity, high employee turnover, low employee morale, mistakes, accidents, and increased worker's compensation insurance and health insurance premiums--all results of untreated addiction problems. Whether you are a corporate CEO or a small business owner, there are simple, effective steps that can be taken--including providing insurance coverage for this disease, ready access to treatment, and workplace policies that support treatment-- that can reduce these human and economic costs. We know from the outstanding research conducted at NIH, through the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, that treatment for drug and alcohol addiction can be effective. That is the major finding from a NIDA-sponsored nationwide study of drug abuse treatment outcomes. The Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) tracked 10,000 people in nearly 100 treatment programs in 11 cities who entered treatment for addiction between 1991 and 1993. Results showed that for all four treatment types studied, there were reductions in the use of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana after treatment. Moreover, treatment resulted in other positive changes in behavior, such as fewer psychological symptoms and increased work productivity. We must do more to prevent this illness and to treat those who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. Over the past few years, the principle of parity in insurance coverage for alcohol and drug rehabilitation and treatment has received the strong support of the White House, ONDCP Director General Barry McCaffrey, Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Former President and Mrs. Gerald Ford, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Kaiser Permanente Health Plans, and many leading figures in medicine, business, government, journalism, and entertainment who have successfully fought the battle of addiction with the help of treatment. Hearings held last year by the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions highlighted the recent major advances in scientific information about the disease; the biological causes of addiction; the effectiveness and low cost of treatment; and many painful, personal stories of people, including children, who have been denied treatment. We know that the failure of insurance companies to provide treatment can sometimes have devastating results. The New York Times recently highlighted the tragic suicide of a young man who desperately sought inpatient treatment care for his drug addiction and fought for 8 months to have the plan authorize the treatment that was in fact included in as part of his benefits. The authorization came through--but too late-- he had died three weeks earlier from a drug overdose. This kind of denial of care for addiction treatment is not at all unique--the 1998 Hay Group Report on Employer Health Care Dollars Spent on Substance Abuse showed that from 1988 through 1998 the value of substance abuse treatment benefits decreased by 74.5%, as compared to a 11.5% decrease for overall health care benefits. Addiction to alcohol and drugs is a disease that affects the brain, the body, and the spirit. We must provide adequate opportunities for the treatment of addiction in order to help those who are suffering and to prevent the health and social problems that it causes. This legislation will take an important step in this direction by requiring that health insurance plans eliminate discrimination for addiction treatment. The costs for this are very low. A 1999 study by the Rand Corporation found that the cost to managed care health plans is now only about $5 per person per year for unlimited substance abuse treatment benefits to employees of big companies. A 1997 Milliman and Robertson study found that complete substance abuse treatment parity would increase per capita health insurance premiums by only one half of one percent, or less than $1 per member per month--without even considering any of the obvious savings that will result from treatment. Several studies have shown that for every $1 spent on treatment, more than $7 is saved in other health care expenses, and that these savings are in addition to the financial and other benefits of increased productivity, as well as participation in family and community life. Providing treatment for addiction also saves millions of dollars in the criminal justice system. But for treatment to be effective and helpful throughout our society all systems of care--including private insurance plans--must share this responsibility. This legislation does not mandate that health insurers offer substance addiction treatment benefits. What it does is prohibit discrimination by health plans who offer substance addiction treatment from placing unfair and life-threatening limitations on caps, access, or financial requirements for addiction treatment that are different from other medical and surgical services. We must move forward now to vigorously address the serious and life- threatening problem of drug and alcohol addiction in our country. It is long past time that insurance companies do their fair share in bearing the responsibility for treating this disease. I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I might not even need to take that much time. First of all, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his comments. I was thinking about what he said. When I was a college teacher, I used to talk a bit about Birch Bayh, some of the Senators who took strong, principled stands. The Senator mentioned other great Senators, but I think the Senator represents a really wonderful tradition. I think what Senator Bayh said at the very end of his remarks is what is most important to me. I was thinking about when I ran for the Senate from Minnesota. It would be an honor to be a Member of the House of Representatives; the Presiding Officer was a Member of the House of Representatives. As a Senator, you could do a much better job of being an advocate for the people in your State, because the rules of the Senate were such that you could come to the floor, even if it was you alone --maybe others would not agree with you, but hopefully you could get a majority--if you thought the Senate was in a disconnect with the people, to the concerns and circumstances of people you represented, to express your concerns. I just mention a gathering I was at the Dahl farm in northwest Minnesota. It is a huge problem in Arkansas, too. Farmers showed up, coming from a long distance away. It was a desperate situation. In the Senate you can come to the floor and say: I have to come to the floor and fight for family farmers. I have to come to the floor to talk about comprehensive health care. I have to come to the floor and figure out a vehicle whereby I can talk about ending this discrimination when it comes to people who are struggling with mental illness. I have to come to the floor to talk about poor children in America. I have to come to the floor to talk about veterans health care and the gap in veterans health care in Minnesota and around the country. The great thing about being a Senator is you can come to the floor with an amendment and you can fight for it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is true.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is part of the genius of the Senate and the way Senators have conducted themselves over the years.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the reason I am going to vote against this resolution is, to be very direct--I am not full of hatred about this; I am just making a political point, and we do make political points on the floor of the Senate--when I look at the context of what has been going on here, I am in profound opposition to what the majority leader and the majority party have been doing, which is to sort of what we call fill up the tree, basically denying Senators the right to come to the floor with amendments, to try to make sure we don't have to debate tough and controversial questions, to try to make sure we can't move forward agendas that we, as Senators, think are important to the people of our States. I am absolutely opposed to what I think is being done here. Therefore, I think this resolution fits into that pattern of trying to stifle dissent, trying to stifle a minority opinion, trying to stifle individual Senators from coming to the floor and doing their absolute best to be the strongest possible advocates for the people of their States. That is why I am voting against this resolution. It is sort of two issues. One is the question that the Senator from Nevada spoke on, which is, what is the role of the Senate in relation to the House of Representatives, in relation to making sure that we have respect for minority rights, so on and forth, what is the role of the Senate as a deliberative body, as a debate body. The other issue, which is even more important to me, is whether or not I can, as a Senator, do the best possible job for the people of my State. That is why I am going to oppose this resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. This is an area in which the Presiding Officer has done a lot of work. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his good work on veterans issues. Mr. President, on June 15th I sent letters to each of the twenty-two VISN Directors of the VA health care system to ask for data on how their network would be affected by the President's flat-lined budget. I conducted this survey because the stories coming from rank and file VA staff and veterans who I had talked with were horrible: Veterans with PTSD waiting months to get treatment; Veterans living in fear that facilities would be closed and access to care would be cut off; VA nurses working mandatory overtime, frequent back to back shifts because of staffing shortages. But I wasn't getting complete answers in Washington. So to find the truth I went to the VISN Directors themselves. By the middle of July, all 22 VISN Directors had responded. I am pleased to say that overall their responses were very candid. They took my letters in the spirit that I intended: to understand the stakes involved in the VA health care budget debate here in Washington. Many of these directors showed real courage in responding as frankly as they did. My staff summarized the responses in a report. I think the findings should be of great concern to every one of my colleagues. I can best describe the results in two points: 1. The legacy of the Clinton administration's budget will be fewer VA staff, offering fewer services, and treating fewer Veterans. 2. The House and Senate cannot buy off the nations veterans by adding a few hundred million dollars to the President's budget. Only full funding will restore the VA to a capacity America's veterans deserve. Let me be specific: The report finds that: 20 VISNs would have funding shortfalls under the Clinton Budget: As many as 10,000 employees would be cut under the Clinton budget: 19 of the 22 VISNs indicated that staff reductions would be necessary under the Clinton administration fiscal year 2000 budget. One VISN indicated that under the President's budget it would need to reduce employment by 1,454 FTEEs, a cut of 15.4 percent of that VISN's workforce. 10 VISNs would reduce patient workload under the Clinton budget: Only one VISN said it could treat more veterans this year than last year under this budget. 71,129 fewer veterans would be served under the Clinton budget: One VISN reported that it may need to eliminate services to as many as 17,000 veterans. And this number is only the total from the 6 VISNs who gave us an estimated number. Again. Four other VISNs said they would treat fewer veterans. But even an increase of $500 million above the President's budget would not reverse this trend. On the contrary, this report shows that an increase of such a small amount would still require hard choices and in some cases reductions in services, staff, and veterans served. At least 12 VISNs would have short falls under Clinton budget plus $500 million: the largest deficit for an individual VISN was $100 million. At least 13 VISNs would reduce staffing under the Clinton budget plus $500 million--in one VISN by over 1,100 employees. At least 38,155 fewer veterans would be served under the Clinton budget plus $500 million: Again, only one VISN said it could positively increase services to veterans under this scenario. One VISN said it would still turn away 9,600 veterans. Veterans health care is at a crossroads. While the nation's twenty- two VISNs have struggled valiantly to do more with a shrinking budget, the results of this survey suggest that urgent action is required to reverse what has become a funding crisis in VA health care--even as America's veterans population becomes older and more reliant on VA services. Spending decisions made by Congress in the next few months will determine whether predictions made by the 22 VISNs become reality or a disaster narrowly averted. This funding crisis will affect the World War II veteran, who has to drive 6 hours to get care because funding problems prevented the VA from opening a community based out-patient clinic in his area. This funding crisis will affect the VA nurse who has to work 16 hour shifts because hiring enough nurses is too expensive. It is outrageous that with federal budget surpluses 20 VISNs will run a deficit. It is outrageous that staff will be cut, or furloughed while being asked to work harder and longer hours. It is outrageous that over 71,000 fewer sick and disabled veterans would be treated by the VA next year even as they get older. These veterans need more health care not less. But this story doesn't begin with my report. It is really a continuation of a battle begun 13 years ago with the release of the first Independent Budget by the major veterans groups. It is the continuation of a battle fought by Senator Johnson in the Budget Committee--to provide full funding for veterans. And of a battle Tim and I fought on the floor on the Senate to provide full funding for veterans in the Senate budget resolution--a fight that we won with a unanimous vote to increase VA funding to the level recommended by the independent budget. But let me be clear, this is also a fight we must carry on to Appropriations. What this report suggests is that we are through cutting the fat out of the VA budget. There is nothing left to pare but bone and muscle. The VA has reached its fighting weight and has plunged dangerously below. We've squeezed just about as much money out of the system as we possibly can. People on the front lines of veterans health care-- whether care providers or recipients--know that the VA health care system is desperately short of resources. I worry that my friend Lyle Pearson, of North Mankato, decorated for his service in WWII, disabled vet, who receives care at VA facilities in Minnesota, will not get the care he needs if the flat-line budget is not improved. I worry that veterans across the nation will be caught between increasing need and flat-lined funds. Veterans in Bangor, Maine are concerned because a VA inspector general report noted that their outpatient clinic had a 10 month backlog of new patients. Things were so bad last Fall that the clinic couldn't see walk-in patients or urgent-care patients, and there was a four month wait to see the clinic's part-time psychiatrist. Veterans in Iowa are facing the possible closure of one of their three major veterans hospitals because of budget shortfalls. The last chance for veterans this year is VA/HUD appropriations. But we still don't know what the funding level will be the VA/HUD appropriations bills. In two and a half months, fiscal 1999 will end and we still don't even have a start on funding FY 2000. The bills have not been marked up by the committee. This is unacceptable. If veterans funding is allocated in the dark of night in a last minute omnibus spending bill, I fear the veteran will be short changed. Bring the VA/ HUD bill to the floor. If there isn't enough money in it for veterans, we'll amend it to add more. A story in the July 18th edition of the Richmond Times Dispatch quotes in chairman of the VA/HUD appropriations Subcommittee as saying that the budget situation that we face this year is very tough. That same article says that VA health care might be facing a $1 billion cut. I've heard that rumor. I've heard the rumor that veterans will get an increase. Well let me start a rumor this morning that veterans can take to the bank: I give notice now to my colleagues that I will be on the floor of the Senate offering an amendment to VA/HUD appropriations the first opportunity I get if the funding is not enough. The veteran has borne the pain of budget cuts for too long. Tax cuts should come after relief for veterans. Defense buildups should come after relief for veterans. Let's make the veteran the priority again. This is a fight to make VA health care the gold standard for health care again. It is a fight to keep a promise to the veteran: If you served your country your nation will stand up for you. If you were injured you will be healed. If you are disabled, the country will raise you up--not cast you aside. I call on my colleagues to join me and the veterans in this fight. It will take every U.S. Senator and every Member of the House. It will take the VFW, the DAV, the PVA, the AMVETS, and the Vietnam Vets and all the other groups besides. Most importantly, America's veterans must demand it. Veterans need to hear the call one more time. Together we can restore the funds and keep our covenant with the veteran. Mr. President, today the Vice President announced that the White House is going to be asking for another $1 billion. Veterans organizations last week--I thank them--came together with us and presented this data. We said there are huge problems in the country; a lot of veterans aren't going to get the care they need and the care that they deserve. The Vice President stated the White House is going to ask for an additional $1 billion. I thank the Vice President for his announcement. That helps. However, we are going to have to do a lot better. That still leaves us with a $2 billion shortfall. To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and to the White House and to the Vice President, I say that the veterans community is organizing. It is good grassroots politics. They are going to hold us all accountable. We will have to do a lot better.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to speak today on the distressing human rights situation in Burma. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, held their Annual Ministerial Meeting in Singapore this weekend. And this week Secretary Albright will be in Singapore for the ASEAN regional forum and the Post-Ministerial Conference. It is essential that during all of these meetings serious attention is focused on the worsening human rights situation in Burma. We haven't heard much about Burma in the media recently. There have been no major news events in Burma recently to grab the attention of the world: No Tiananmen Square scale massacres, no Kosovo scale dislocations, no bloody street clashes like we've seen in East Timor or Iran. But in Burma today something equally chilling is proceeding, out of the world's view: A slow, systematic strangling of the democratic opposition. Since last fall, the ruling military regime has detained, threatened and tortured opposition party members in increasing numbers. At least 150 senior members of the opposition National League for Democracy are being held in government detention centers. 3,000 political prisoners are held in Rangoon's notorious Insein prison. The regime has forced or coerced nearly 40,000 others to resign from the opposition party in recent months. In a videotape smuggled out of Burma in April and delivered to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, the leader of the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, said government repression had worsened greatly in the past year on a scale ``the world has not yet grasped.'' She said on the tape: ``What we have suffered over the last year is far more than we have suffered over the last six or seven years.'' According to one Western official, the regime intends to do nothing less than eradicate the opposition ``once and for all.'' Mr. President, most of this repression takes place quietly, through intimidation, arrests at night and other activities out of the public eye. The Burmese regime carefully controls access to the country for journalists. So we have no video footage of the repression and only scant reporting from a few brave journalists and human rights workers. But just because we cannot see what is going on in Burma does not mean we can ignore it. It is all the more important for us to speak about the situation there and show our support for the forces of democracy and human rights. In July 1997, when Burma became a full ASEAN member, ASEAN countries claimed that such a move would encourage the regime--the so-called State Peace and Development Council, or SPDC, to improve its human rights record. In fact the opposite has been true. As the Washington Post put it in a recent editorial: ``ASEAN's logic was familiar: Engagement with the outside world would persuade Burma's dictators to relax their repressive rule. The verdict on this test case of the engagment theory thus far is clear: The behavior of the thugs who run Burma has worsened, and so has life for most Burmese.'' Not only has the SPDC stepped up its repression of the opposition party, the National League for Democracy, it has intensified its campaign of oppression against the country's ethnic minoriites. The regime has increased forcible relocation programs in the Karen, Karenni, and Shan States. The use of forced labor in all seven ethnic minority states continues at a high level, and forced portering occurs wherever there are counter-insurgency activities. Amnesty International has just issued three new reports which describe in compelling detail the harsh, relentless mistreatment of farmers and other civilians of ethnic minority groups in rural areas. Let me read a few brief passages from these excellent, detailed reports: In February 1999, Amnesty International interviewed recently arrived Shan refugees in Thailand in order to obtain an update on the human rights situation in the central Shan State. The pattern of violations has remained the same, including forced labor and portering, extrajudicial killings, and ill-treatment of villagers. Troops also routinely stole villagers' rice supplies, cattle, and gold, using them to sell or to feed themselves. According to reports, Army officers do not provide their troops with adequate supplies so troops in effect live off the villagers. One 33 year-old farmer from Murngnai township described the relationship between the Shan people and the army: Before, I learned that the armed forces are supposed to protect people, but they are repressing people. If you can't give them everything they want, they consider you as their enemy . . . it is illogical, the army is forcing the people to protect them, instead of vice-versa. Amnesty International also reports similar abuses in Karen state: Karen refugees interviewed in Thailand cited several reasons for leaving their homes: Some had previously been forced out of their villages by the Burmese army and had been hiding in the forest. They feared being shot on sight by the military because they occupied ``black areas'' where the insurgents were allegedly active. Many others fled directly from their home villages in the face of village burnings, constant demands for forced labor, looting of food and supplies, and extrajudicial killings at the hands of the military. These human rights violations took place in the context of widespread counter-insurgency activities against the Karen National Union (KNU) one of the last remaining armed ethnic minority opposition groups still fighting the military government. Guerilla fighting between the two groups continues, but the primary victims are Karen civilians. Civilians are at risk of torture and extrajudicial executions by the military, who appear to automatically assume that they supported or were even members of the KNU. Civilians also became sitting targets for constant demands by the army for forced labor or portering duties. As one Karen refugee explained to Amnesty International, ``Even though we are civilians, the military treats us like their enemy.'' A similar situation exists in Karenni State. Three-quarters of the dozens of Karenni refugees interviewed by Amnesty International in February 1999 were forced by the military to work as unpaid laborers. They were in effect an unwilling pool of laborers which the military drew from to work in military bases, build roads, and clear land. When asked why they decided to flee to Thailand, many refugees said that forced labor duties made it impossible for them to survive and do work to support themselves. Several of them also mentioned that forced labor demands had increased during 1998. Unpaid forced labor is in contravention of the International Labor Organization's (ILO) Convention No. 29, which the government of Burma signed in 1955. The ILO has repeatedly raised the issue with the government and in June 1996 took the rare step of appointing a Commission of Inquiry. In August 1998 the Commission published a comprehensive report, which found the government of Burma ``. . . guilty of an international crime that is also, if committed in a widespread or systematic manner, a crime against humanity.'' Mr. President, I am under no illusion that the military regime in Burma will reform overnight and end its human rights abuses. But I think it is critically important that we keep the world's attention focused on the terrible repression of democracy and abuse of ethnic minorities going on there. I hope our message of concern, backed by the invaluable reporting done by Amnesty International, will get through somehow to the Burmese people and to their courageous leader, Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. ASEAN member countries are gathering in Singapore currently for a series of meetings. We need to encourage them to develop a new strategy for dealing with the SPDC's intransigence regarding human rights. Now that criticism of fellow ASEAN members is no longer completely taboo, I hope some of the ASEAN countries that have improved their own human rights records will take the initiative to prod the Burmese to move in the right direction. The ASEAN regional forum (ARF), which deals with Asian security issues, will meet at the same time and should address this as a security problem. Western nations, including the U.S., who will also be present at the ARF should work closely with all concerned countries to encourage the SPDC to improve its human rights record. Even if we don't see quick improvement, those of us who care deeply about human rights have a duty to keep the plight of the Burmese people before the world community. I am committed to doing that, and I hope my colleagues will join me in pressing the Burmese regime for real, measurable improvements in these areas.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment that I offer, with the support of Senator Murray, is an amendment which is really based upon a piece of legislation we have introduced titled ``Children Who Witness Domestic Violence Protection Act.'' We have come to the floor, Democrats and Republicans alike, and we have talked about the destructive effect of some of the violence that children see on television or children see at the movies. Unfortunately, an awful lot of children see the most graphic violence in their homes, and they are affected by it. It depends upon, really, whose study you put the most emphasis on, but somewhere between 3 million and 5 million children in our country all too often are essentially victims of violence in their homes. In about 50 percent of the cases, when a man batters a woman, the children are also battered. Just imagine, colleagues, what it would be like over and over and over again to see your mother beaten up, battered. Just think of the effect it would have on you. Actually, this is an area in which I have tried to do a lot of work. I would say my wife Sheila has really been my teacher. She knows more than I do, and her education comes from what lots of people around the country who have worked in this area for a very long time have taught her. But one of the missing pieces, which in no way, shape, or form takes away the emphasis on the effect of this violence on women--sometimes men; most all the time women--one of the missing pieces has been the effect of this violence in homes on the children. Let me give you some examples. Julie is a 4-year-old girl. She was the only witness to her divorced mother's fatal stabbing. Several months earlier, at the time of the divorce, Julie's father had publicly threatened to kill his ex-wife. Although the father lacked an alibi for the night of the crime, there was no physical evidence linking him to the homicide. In describing the event, Julie consistently placed her father at the scene and recounted her father's efforts to clean up prior to leaving. Only after the district attorney saw Julie stabbing a pillow, crying, ``Daddy pushed mommy down,'' did he become convinced that the father, indeed, was the murderer. This is from the work of Jeff Edelson, who actually is a Minnesotan and does some of the most important work in the country. There is no more graphic example of: What do you think the effect on the child is from seeing this? Dr. Okin and Alicia Lieberman at San Francisco General Hospital are currently treating a 6-year-old boy who observed his father fatally sever his mother's neck. At the beginning of the treatment, he was unable to speak. Jason, who did not visually witness his parents fighting, described hearing fights this way: ``I really thought somebody got hurt. It sounded like it. And I almost started to cry. It felt really, I was thinking of calling, calling the cops or something because it was really getting, really big banging and stuff like that.'' These are voices of children in the country. A lot of the work for this amendment comes from some people who have done very distinguished work in this country. Betsy McAlster Groves at Boston Hospital is treating a 3-year-old girl, Sarah, who was brought in by her maternal grandmother. Sarah was having nightmares and was clinging and anxious during the day. Her mother had been fatally shot while Sarah was in the same room in their home. A home is supposed to be a safe place for our children. Betsy is also treating two boys, ages 5 and 7, whose mother brought them in after they witnessed their father's assault on her. The father was arrested over the weekend and was in jail. The mother was unable to tell the sons the truth, instead claiming that their father had taken a trip to Virginia. What I am saying to you is that these children do not need to turn on the evening news. They do not need to see the violence in the movies or on television. It occurs right in their own homes. What I am also saying is that this has a very destructive effect on many children, a profound effect, placing them at high risk for anxiety, depression, and, potentially, suicide. Furthermore, these children themselves may become more violent as they become older. Exposure to family violence, a good number of the experts in the country suggest, is the strongest predictor of violent, delinquent behavior among adolescents. It is estimated somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of chronically violent adolescents have witnessed extreme parental conflict. It is an important point. When you talk to your judges, and they talk about some of the kids they are dealing with, they will tell you that in a very high percentage of the cases these children have come from homes where either they themselves have been beaten up or battered or they have seen it, they have witnessed it. Usually it is their mother they have seen beaten up. Let me tell you about Tony and Sara from Minnesota. Tony is 10 years old and his sister Sara is 8. Tony and Sara were severely traumatized after seeing their father brutally attack their mother. They were forced to watch their father drag their mother out to the driveway, douse her with gasoline, and hold a flaming match inches from her. Tony and Sara are not the only children in our country who are terrified by violence that they see on almost a daily basis. This amendment, which is based upon work with Senator Murray, is a comprehensive first step toward confronting the impact of domestic violence on children. I just want to summarize it because it is my hope that there will be strong support for this on both sides of the aisle. First of all, what we want to do, based upon, again, work we have seen in Minnesota, we have seen in Boston, we have seen in San Francisco, seen around the country, is we want to make sure we develop partnerships between the courts and the schools, the health care providers, the child protective services, and the battered women's programs. When communities apply for funding, the first thing we are going to say is, yes, make this happen at the community level, but do not have different agencies with different mandates. You guys have to show us that you are focusing on these children and you are getting the support services to these children. I say to my colleague from South Carolina, I have talked to many educators. They say one of the problems they have is that quite often they may have a child in school who is not doing well and they do not know what is going on with that child. And what they find out--and this is the second part of this amendment, training for school officials about domestic violence and its impact on children, making sure they have the training and the support services for the teachers and the counselors--many times these kids haven't slept at night. Many times these kids come to school terrified. Many times these kids act out themselves. Many times these kids are in trouble, and many times we don't know what is going on in their lives. We have finally started to focus on this violence in homes, too much of it directed toward women. But if you talk to people around the country who are down in the trenches doing the best work, from the academics to the community activists, they will tell you the missing piece is we have not focused enough on the effects on the children. That is what this amendment does. The third piece of this amendment addresses domestic violence and the people who work to protect our children from abuse and neglect. There is a significant overlap, obviously, between domestic violence and child abuse. In families where one form of family violence exists, there is a likelihood that the other does. In about 50 percent of the cases, if the mother is being battered, the child is being battered. So the problem is these child protective services and domestic violence organizations set up their own separate programs, yet few of them work together to see what is happening within families. This amendment creates incentives for local governments to collaborate with domestic violence agencies in administering their child welfare programs. The funds will be awarded to States and local governments to work collaboratively with community-based domestic violence programs to provide training, to do screening, to assist child welfare service agencies in recognizing the overlap between domestic violence and child abuse, to develop protocols for screening, intake, assessment and investigation, and to increase the safety and well-being of the child witnesses of domestic violence. I could go on for hours about this because, honest to God, it is a huge issue in our country. I wish it wasn't. The second piece of this--and I will be through in 5 minutes--is supervised visitation centers. I have to explain this. Part of the problem is, even if you have a woman who has said: I am getting out of this home, or I am getting my husband out of this home; he is a batterer, and she finally is able to do it--it is not easy--and you have small children, the other parent, the noncustodial parent, usually the man, wants to see the children and should be able to under most circumstances. The problem is, at the time in which he comes to the home to pick up the children or drop the children off, the violence can occur again. There is no safety there. Or the problem is in some cases you are worried about what the father will do to the children. But a judge doesn't want to say: You can never see your children. And sometimes, as a result of that, the children are in real jeopardy. So the second part of this authorizes funding for supervised visitation centers. These are visitation centers where there can be a safe exchange. At the risk of being melodramatic, let me dedicate this amendment to 5-year-old Brandon and 4-year-old Alex, who were murdered by their father during an unsupervised visit in Minnesota. They were beautiful children. Their mother Angela was separated from Kurt Frank, the children's father. During her marriage, Angela was physically and emotionally abused by Frank, and Frank had hit Brandon and split open his lip when once he had stepped between the father and the mother to protect the mother. She had an order of protection--Shiela and I both know Angela; she is very courageous--against Kurt Frank, but during the custody hearings, her request for the husband to only receive supervised visits was rejected. Kurt Frank murdered his two sons, these two children, during an unsupervised visit, and then he killed himself. Honest to God, when there is some question about the safety of these children, we can do better. These safe visitation centers work. It makes all the sense in the world. These children's lives could have been saved. The father could have seen them, but it would have been under some supervision. That is the second part. Third, the amendment recognizes the importance of police officers. This amendment comes from input from the law enforcement community around the country. What they are saying is: Quite often we are the ones who find the traumatized children behind the doors, beneath the furniture, in the closets, when we go to the homes. We want to know what we can do for these children. We would like to have the training. That is what this amendment provides for. Then, finally, for crisis nurseries, it is important. A family is in crisis. The mother has two children dealing with an abusive relationship, trying to end the relationship. There is lots of tension in the home. There is the potential for violence. She wants to be able to take her child somewhere or her two children somewhere where they can be safe for one night or 2 days or 3 days. That is what these crisis nurseries do. They work well. We have talked about the violence in the media. We have talked about the violence in the video games. But we rarely have dealt with the millions of children each year who are witnessing real-life violence in their homes. I believe we have to figure out ways to get the funding to the communities that will provide the support.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Biden for his great leadership on this issue. I hope I am an original cosponsor, and, if not, I certainly ask unanimous consent to be named a cosponsor. I want to talk about a program that is extraordinarily important to the safety of communities. That's the COPS Program. In 1994, Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This act established a program known today as the COPS Program. This program has had unparalleled success. The authority to hire officers under the COPS Program expires in fiscal year 2000. Although the President's Budget provided for an initiative that would allow a continuation of support for hiring police, the Senate Appropriations Committee markup does not include such funding. This is not the time to cut back on funding police programs for our communities. The COPS Program authorized the hiring of 100,000 police officers and allowed states and localities to concentrate those officers on community policing. Funds were used for purposes such as: Training law enforcement officers in crime prevention and community policing techniques; development of technologies that emphasize crime prevention; linking community organizations and residents with police; and developing innovative programs. In 1998, the COPS Program initiated the Safe Schools and Indian Country law enforcement improvements initiatives. The Safe Schools Initiative included $167.5 million for partnerships between law enforcement agencies and schools to improve safety in elementary and secondary schools and to hire school resource officers. Under the Indian country law enforcement improvement initiative funding was available for hiring uniformed officers and assisting with other law enforcement improvements on tribal lands. Under the COPS Program, the Youth Firearms Violence Initiative was developed to assist police departments in combating the rise of youth firearms violence. As a result of the additional police officers in the community and the innovative programs funded by the COPS programs, we have seen historic crime reductions over the last few years. Crime is at its lowest rate in 25 years and has declined for 6\1/2\ consecutive years. The COPS Program is strongly supported by every major law enforcement group. Why? Because it responds directly to their needs. I want to share with you a number of examples of how different communities in my home State of Minnesota have successful used COPS funding and how their communities have benefited. The Anoka Police Department has refined its junvenile conferencing program--a program which essentially brings together youthful offenders with the victims of their offenses. The basic idea is that this confrontation will cause the young person to see the consequences of his/her actions and make it less likely to occur again. It also has eased the pressure on the court system. In short, Police Accountability Conferencing is a non-traditional way of dealing with juvenile offenders. Modeled after a program in Australia, it brings the victim, the offender and their relatives together with an officer, who serves as a mediator, to discuss the ramifications of the offender's actions and decide on a mutually agreeable form of punishment. This commitment to young people is a classic example of how COPS grants can be utilized effectively. In addition, Anoka has a COPS officer who is also used as a school liaison officer. During the summer, this officer works with the landlords association in dealing with landlord-tenant issues. Anoka Police Chief Ed Wilberg views the COPS Program as a very successful one--one which really does help to meet the needs of his community. In both the St. Paul and Minneapolis, the Police Departments have been able to free up more officers so that they can do proactive work. Because of the COPS Program their work is not limited to responding solely to 911 calls. For instance, Chief Robert Olson of the Minneapolis Police Department talks about being able to commit ``significant additional resources in both police officers and equipment'' to address the core cause of crime in Minneapolis. He reports that ``The catalyst for helping the city commit to those resources was the Federal COPS program.'' Chief Olson further states that There is still a significant need for federal support of community-oriented policing services . . . . Law enforcement needs that federal support . . . and I hope that when these issues are presented that you will consider a continuation of the mission of the COPS Office in whatever form seems appropriate. In St. Paul, this is what the Chief's office had to say: The COPS grants have allowed us to hire police officers, increase efficiency through the use of technology, put greater emphasis on our problem solving efforts and enhance the linkage we have with our community. The COPS program is one of the best things President Clinton and Congress has done for law enforcement. We would like to see more funds for technology and support to further enhance our efforts. In White Bear Lake, a rural community, COPS funding has enabled restructuring so that more officers are in the community. White Bear Lake has divided its community in 19 subcommunities with at least one officer assigned to each community. Quite simply, White Bear Lake jumped light years ahead because of the technology that the COPS grants allowed them to purchase--which has the direct result of police officers being in the community. In the Shakopee Police Department, the COPS Program has been a godsend to an agency its size. It has allowed the department to hire additional officers in a diverse community that is growing every rapidly. Within the last few months they were able to hire community service officers to provide services that ordinarily would have to have been performed by sworn officers. This means that additional sworn officers are freed up to do work in the community. Currently the Police Department is working to hire school resource officers. The school district has agreed to help with the cost. This would not be possible without COPS. Here, I say to Senator Biden, is the quote I have been saving for you. Police Chief Ken Froschheiser of Thief River Falls said that COPS ``has been so successful that if the citizens heard that it was going to be pulled, we would be hung.'' He also said that he jokes with the school district that he really doesn't have two officers, that the school district has two employees. His school liaison officers are in the school 12 months of the year. They do things like bike patrols and help create block programs which allows his officers to be closer to the community, neighborhood by neighborhood. The COPS Program provided the resources to do the school work that he wanted to do. He also has noticed an increased collaboration with other city and county agencies, for example, the school district, social services and the court system. The point is simple: under a community policing philsophy, law enforcement agencies recognize the need for cooperation with the communities they serve. Each community has numerous resources that can be used with law enforcement to solve problems. The Upper Midwest Community Policing Institute, which is funded in part by COPS, is working in partnership with the Minneapolis Police Department to provide outreach and training to the large Somalian community in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood and the officers who serve them. In the near future, this Institute will be exploring community policing applications to the problem of domestic violence. Importantly, the Institute is working closely with a large number of Tribal Law Enforcement agencies to provide training and technical assistance. This work has included helping to facilitate the white Earth Tribe and Mahnomen County agreement to resolve jurisdictional issues. COPS allowed this to happen. This Institute is an important piece of the COPS picture. It exemplifies the success of a law enforcement approach that is tailored to community needs. The success of the COPS story goes on and on. COPS provided resources which allowed departments throughout Minnesota to upgrade technology and to redevelop the whole notion of community policing. At the national level: The United States Conference of Mayors states that the COPS Program has been critical in the significant reduction in crime and that the nation's mayors always cite the COPS Program ``as a working example of what can be accomplished when red-tape is reduced to a minimum in favor of results-oriented programming''. The nation's mayors urge reauthorization of the program. The COPS Program also is supported by the National Sheriffs' Association, The International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, The Police Executive Research Forum, The National Troopers Coalition, The Major Cities Chiefs, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Mr. President, why would we eliminate such a successful program? This is a time to build on our successes. This country needs additional resources to enhance crime fighting efforts. We need better communications systems in more communities to deter criminals, and to improve the ability of different jurisdictions to interact. We need to provide more communities with state of the art investigative tools like DNA analysis. We need to be able to target crime hot spots by making resources such as crime mapping available to more jurisdictions. We need new community based programs to ensure the safety of our school children. The COPS amendment being offered today by Senators Biden and Schumer will enable us to continue the COPS Program which will expire next year. The amendment will support the hiring and training of up to 50,000 more cops over 5 years. It will support new technology to fight crime. It will provide funding for community prosecutors. The amendment puts cops in schools and supports partnerships between schools, law enforcement and the community. Communities and their students feel particularly vulnerable in the aftermath of the Littleton tragedy. It is important to continue our support of the dialogue between schools, law enforcement and the community so that communities can continue to fashion solutions to the problem of school violence. This program has been a success over the last 5 years. It has benefited communities throughout this nation. It should be continued.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I reserve the final 4 minutes of my time. I ask my colleague, I assume there are no second- degree amendments in order to this amendment; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the final 4 minutes of my time.